"... If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal fakery. What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS. ..."
But underlying your comment is an assumption of *logic* in this world. If it ever existed it
certainly does not
apply any longer. Look how much mileage the MSM and the anti-Democracy Party got out of the
nothingburger Russiagate.
The MSM doesn't even need to smell real blood, they will run with anything to continue the
coup.
Anything negative that involves Edward Gallagher between now and election day could be
magnified 1 million-fold and
repeated 1000 million times by the MSM and dropped in Trump's lap.
If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal
fakery.
What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS.
Europe is willing to defy the U.S. on Nordstream to the point of forcing the U.S. to openly and nakedly destroy its reputation
with European contractors and governments to stop one pipeline in a place where multiple gas pipelines will be needed for future
growth.
This is the diplomatic equivalent of the nuclear option. And the neocons in the Senate just pushed the button. Europe understands
what this is really about, the U.S. retaining its imperial position as the policy setter for all the world. If it can set energy
policy for Europe then it can set everything else.
And it's clear that the leadership in Europe is done with that status quo. The Trump administration from the beginning has used
NATO as an excuse to mask its real intentions towards Europe, which is continued domination of its policies. Trump complains that
the U.S. pays into NATO to protect Europe from Russia but then Europe buys its energy from Russia. That's unfair, Donald complains,
like a little bitch, frankly, even though he right on the surface. But if the recent NATO summit is any indication, Europe is no
longer interested in NATO performing that function. French President Emmanuel Macron wants NATO re-purposed to fight global terror,
a terrible idea. NATO should just be ended.
But you'll notice how Trump doesn't talk about that anymore. He wants more billions pumped into NATO while the U.S. still sets
its policies. This is not a boondoggle for the MIC as much as it's a Sword of Damocles to hold over Europe's head. The U.S.'s involvement
in should be ended immediately, the troops brought home and the billions of dollars spent here as opposed to occupying most of Europe
to point missiles at a Russia wholly uninterested in imperial ambitions no less harboring any of them.
And Trump also knows this but thinks stopping Nordstream 2 is the price Europe has to pay him for this privilege. It's insane.
The time has come for Europe to act independently from the U.S. As much as I despise the EU, to untangle it from the U.S. on energy
policy is the means by which for it to then deal with its problems internally. It can't do that while the U.S. is threatening it.
Circling the wagons against the immediate threat, as it were.
And that means protecting its companies and citizens from the economic depredations of power-mad neoconservatives in the U.S.
Senate like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.
Allseas, the Swiss company laying the pipe for Nordstream 2,
has halted construction for now
, awaiting instructions from the U.S. Gazprom will likely step in to finish the job and Germany will green light any of the necessary
permits to get the pipeline done. Those people will be put out of work just in time for Christmas, turning thousands of people against
the U.S. Commerce drives people together, politics drives them apart.
But, at the same time, the urgency to finish Nordstream 2 on time is wholly irrelevant now because Ukraine and Russia came to
terms on a new five-year gas transit contract. This ensures Gazprom can meet its contractual deliveries to Europe that no one thought
could be done on time. But when the Nazi threat to Zelensky meeting with Merkel, Macron and Putin in Paris failed to materialize,
a gas deal was on the horizon.
And, guess what? U.S. LNG will still not have the marginal lever over Europe's energy policy because of that. Putin and Zelensky
outmaneuvered Cruz, Graham and Trump on this. Because that's what this boils down to. By keeping Russian gas out of Europe, it was
supposed to constrain not only Russia's growth but also Europe's. Because then the U.S. government can control who and how much energy
can make it into European markets at critical junctures politically.
That was the Bolton Doctrine to National Security. And that doctrine brought nothing but misery to millions.
And if you look back over the past five years of U.S./EU relations you will see this gambit clearly for what it was, a way to
continue European vassalage at the hands of the U.S. by forcing market share of U.S. providers into European markets.
Again, it gets back to Trump's ideas about Emergy Dominance
and becoming the supplier of the marginal erg of energy to important economies around the world.
The smart play for the EU now that the gas transit deal is in place is to threaten counter-sanctions against the U.S. and bar
all LNG shipments into Europe. Gas prices are at historic lows, gas supplies are overflowing thanks to fears of a deal not being
in place.
So, a three to six month embargo of U.S. LNG into Europe to bleed off excess supply while Nordstream 2 is completed would be the
right play politically.
But, in reality, they won't need to, because the U.S. won't be able to import much into Europe under current prices and market
conditions. And once Nordstream 2 is complete, LNG sales to Europe should crater.
In the end, I guess it's too bad for Ted Cruz that economics and basic human ingenuity are more powerful than legislatures. Because
Nordstream 2 will be completed. Turkstream's other trains into Europe will be built. Venezuela will continue rebuilding its energy
sector with Russian and Chinese help.
There is no place for U.S. LNG in Europe outside of the Poles literally burning money virtue signaling their Russophobia. Nordstream 2 was a response to the revolt in Ukraine, to replace any potential losses in market share to Europe. Now Russia will
have what it had before passing through Ukraine along with Nordstream 2. By 2024 there will be at least two trains from Turkstream
coming into Europe.
Iran will keep expanding exports, settling its oil and gas trade through Russian banks. And the U.S. will continue to fulminate
and make itself even more irrelevant over time. What men like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump refuse to understand is that when you go nuclear you can't ever go back. If you threaten
the nuclear option, there's no fall back position.
And when those that you threaten with annihilation survive they are made all the stronger for passing through the eye of the needle. Looking at Gazprom's balance sheet right now, that's my take.
Thanks sleeply,
But underlying your comment is an assumption of *logic* in this world. If it ever existed it
certainly does not
apply any longer. Look how much mileage the MSM and the anti-Democracy Party got out of the
nothingburger Russiagate.
The MSM doesn't even need to smell real blood, they will run with anything to continue the
coup.
Anything negative that involves Edward Gallagher between now and election day could be
magnified 1 million-fold and
repeated 1000 million times by the MSM and dropped in Trump's lap.
If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal
fakery.
What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS.
Being almost 100% sure that Israeli cornering East Mediterranean gas reserves was a done
deal
and after Cyprus gerrymandered its EEZ under UNCLOS -- and Greece signing up
as pipeline terminus in Europe -- Trump put this cart before horse -- and sanctioned
Nord Stream. Europe was to get Israeli gas. Then Turkey and Libya declared EZZ,
and pipeline cannot go!
Also. there will be other claimants to reserves -- Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza.
Nice try -- but Israel will not be supplying Germany gas any time soon.
In the time-honored tradition of Machiavellian statecraft, all of the charges being leveled against Donald Trump to remove him
from office – namely, 'abuse of power' and 'obstruction of congress' –are essentially the same things the Democratic Party has been
guilty of for nearly half a decade : abusing their powers in a non-stop attack on the executive branch. Is the reason because they
desperately need a 'get out of jail free' card?
Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald
Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only
scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless.
Back in April 2016, before Trump had become the Republican presidential nominee, talk of impeachment was already in the air.
"Donald Trump isn't even the Republican nominee yet,"
wrote Darren Samuelsohn in Politico.
Yet impeachment, he noted, is "already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few
members of Congress."
The timing of Samuelsohn's article is not a little astonishing given what the Department of Justice (DOJ) had discovered just
one month earlier.
In March 2016, the DOJ found that "the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed," as Jeff Carlson
reported in The Epoch Times.
That sort of foreign access to sensitive data is highly improper and was the result of "deliberate decision-making," according
to the findings of an April 2017 FISA court ruling (
footnote
69 ).
On April 18, 2016, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA's Office of Compliance to terminate
all FBI outside-contractor access. Later, on Oct. 21, 2016, the FBI and the DOJ's National Security Division (NSD), and despite they
were aware of Rogers's actions, moved ahead anyways with a request for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page. The request was approved by the FISA court, which, apparently, was still in the dark about the violations.
On Oct. 26, following approval of the warrant against Page, Rogers went to the FISA court to inform them of the FBI's non-compliance
with the rules. Was it just a coincidence that at exactly this time, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Defense
Secretary Ashton B. Carter were suddenly
calling for Roger's removal? The request was eventually rejected. The next month, in mid-November 2016 Rogers, without first
notifying his superiors, flew to New York where he had a private meeting with Trump at Trump Towers.
According to the New York Times,
the meeting – the details of which were never publicly divulged, but may be guessed at – "caused consternation at senior levels
of the administration."
Democratic obstruction of justice?
Then CIA Director John Brennan, dismayed about a few meetings Trump officials had with the Russians, helped to kick-start the
FBI investigation over 'Russian collusion.' Notably, these Trump-Russia meetings occurred in December 2016, as the incoming administration
was in the difficult transition period to enter the White House. The Democrats made sure they made that transition as ugly as possible.
Although it is perfectly normal for an incoming government to meet with foreign heads of state at this critical juncture, a meeting
at Trump Tower between Michael Flynn, Trump's incoming national security adviser and former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey
Kislyak, was portrayed as some kind of cloak and dagger scene borrowed from a John le Carré thriller.
Brennan questioning the motives behind high-level meetings between the Trump team and some Russians is strange given that the
lame duck Obama administration was in the process of redialing US-Russia relations back to the Cold War days, all based on the debunked
claim that Moscow handed Trump the White House on a silver platter.
In late December 2016, after Trump had already won the election, Obama slapped Russia with punitive sanctions,
expelled
35 Russian diplomats and closed down two Russian facilities. Since part of Trump's campaign platform was to mend relations with
Moscow, would it not seem logical that the incoming administration would be in damage-control, doing whatever necessary to prevent
relations between the world's premier nuclear powers from degrading even more?
So if it wasn't 'Russian collusion' that motivated the Democrats into action, what was it?
From Benghazi to Seth Rich
Here we must pause and remind ourselves about the unenviable situation regarding Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, who
was being grilled daily over her use of a private computer to
communicate
sensitive documents via email. In all likelihood, the incident would have dropped from the radar had it not been for the deadly
2012 Benghazi attacks on a US compound.
In the course of a House Select Committee investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attacks, which resulted in the
death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US personnel, Clinton handed over some 30,000 emails, while reportedly deleting
32,000 deemed to be of a "personal nature". Those emails remain unaccounted for to this day.
I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.
By March 2015, even the traditionally tepid media was baring its baby fangs, relentlessly
pursuing Clinton over the email question. Since Clinton never made a secret of her presidential ambitions, even political allies
were piling on. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), for example,
said it's time for Clinton "to step up" and explain herself, adding that "silence is going to hurt her."
On July 24, 2015, The New York Times
published a front-page story with the headline "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Clinton's Use of Email." Later, Jennifer Rubin of
the Washington Post candidly
summed up Clinton's rapidly deteriorating status with elections fast approaching: "Democrats still show no sign they are willing
to abandon Clinton. Instead, they seem to be heading into the 2016 election with a deeply flawed candidate schlepping around plenty
of baggage -- the details of which are not yet known."
Moving into 2016, things began to look increasingly complicated for the Democratic front-runner. On March 16, 2016, WikiLeaks
launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails and attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server
while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547-page treasure trove spans the dates from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014.
In May, about one month after Clinton had officially announced her candidacy for the US presidency, the State Department's inspector
general released an 83-page report that was highly critical of Clinton's email practices, concluding that Clinton failed to seek
legal approval for her use of a private server.
"At a minimum," the report determined, "Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business
before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented
in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
The following month brought more bad news for Clinton and her presidential hopes after it was
reported that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had a 30-minute tête-à-tête with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch,
whose department was leading the Clinton investigations, on the tarmac at Phoenix International Airport. Lynch said Clinton decided
to pay her an impromptu visit where the two discussed "his grandchildren and his travels and things like that." Republicans, however,
certainly weren't buying the story as the encounter came as the FBI was preparing to file its recommendation to the Justice Department.
The summer of 2016, however, was just heating up.
I take @LorettaLynch &
@billclinton at their word that their convo
in Phoenix didn't touch on probe. But foolish to create such optics.
On the early morning of July 10, Seth Rich, the director of voter expansion for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was gunned
down on the street in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. Rich's murder, said to be the result of a botched robbery,
bucked the homicide trend in the area for that particular period; murders rates
for the first six months of 2016 were down about 50 percent from the same period in the previous year.
In any case, the story gets much stranger. Just five days earlier, on July 5th, the computers at the DNC were compromised, purportedly
by an online persona with the moniker "Guccifer 2.0" at the behest of Russian intelligence. This is where the story of "Russian hacking"
first gained popularity. Not everyone, however, was buying the explanation.
In July 2017, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, who call themselves Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) sent a memo to President Trump that challenged a January intelligence assessment that expressed "high
confidence" that the Russians had organized an "influence campaign" to harm Hillary Clinton's "electability," as if she wasn't capable
of that without Kremlin support.
"Forensic studies of 'Russian hacking' into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data
was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer," the memo states (The memo's conclusions were based on
analyses of metadata provided by the online persona Guccifer 2.0, who took credit for the alleged hack). "Key among the findings
of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far
exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack."
In other words, according to VIPS, the compromise of the DNC computers was the result of an internal leak, not an external hack.
At this point, however, it needs mentioned that the VIPS memo has sparked dissenting views among its members. Several analysts
within the group have spoken out against its findings, and that internal debate can be read
here . Thus, it would
seem there is no 'smoking gun,' as of yet, to prove that the DNC was not hacked by an external entity. At the same time, the murder
of Seth Rich continues to remain an unsolved "botched robbery," according to investigators. Meanwhile, the one person who may hold
the key to the mystery, Julian Assange, is said to be withering away Belmarsh Prison, a high-security London jail, where he is awaiting
a February court hearing that will decide whether he will be extradited to the United States where he 18 charges.
Here is a question to ponder: If you were Julian Assange, and you knew you were going to be extradited to the United States, who
would you rather be the sitting president in charge of your fate, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Think twice before answering.
"Because you'd be in jail"
On October 9, 2016, in the second televised presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump
accused his Democratic opponent of deleting 33,000 emails,
while adding that he would get a "special prosecutor and we're going to look into it " To this, Clinton said "it's just awfully good
that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country," to which Trump deadpanned, without
missing a beat, "because you'd be in jail."
Now if that remark didn't get the attention of high-ranking Democratic officials, perhaps Trump's comments at a Virginia rally
days later, when he promised to "drain the swamp," made folks sit up and take notice.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/slLCjLcgqbc
At this point the leaks, hacks and everything in between were already coming fast and furious. On October 7, John Podesta, Clinton's
presidential campaign manager, had his personal Gmail account hacked, thereby releasing a torrent of inside secrets, including how
Donna Brazile, then a CNN commentator, had fed Clinton debate questions. But of course the crimes did not matter to the mendacious
media, only the identity of the alleged messenger, which of course was 'Russia.'
By now, the only thing more incredible than the dirt being produced on Clinton was the fact that she was still in the presidential
race, and even slated to win by a wide margin. But perhaps her biggest setback came when authorities, investigating
Anthony Weiner's abused laptop into illicit text messages he sent to a 15-year-old girl, stumbled upon thousands of email messages
from Hillary Clinton.
Now Comey had to backpedal on his conclusion in July that although Clinton was "extremely careless" in her use of her electronic
devices, no criminal charges would be forthcoming. He announced an 11th hour investigation, just days before the election. Although
Clinton was also cleared in this case, observers never forgave Comey for his actions,
arguing they cost Clinton the White House.
Now James Comey is back in the spotlight as one of the main characters in the Barr-Durham investigation, which is examining largely
out of the spotlight the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that dogged the White House for four long years.
In early December, Justice Department's independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz,
released the 400-page IG report
that revealed a long list of omissions, mistakes and inconsistencies in the FBI's applications for FISA warrants to conduct surveillance
on Carter Page. Although the report was damning, both Barr and Durham noted it did not go far enough because Horowitz did not have
the access that Durham has to intelligence agency sources, as well as overseas contacts that Barr provided to him.
With AG report due for release in early spring, needless to say some Democrats are very nervous as to its finding. So nervous,
in fact, that they might just be willing to go to the extreme of removing a sitting president to avoid its conclusions.
Whatever the verdict, 2020 promises to be one very interesting year.
"... Twitter blamed a computer glitch after President Trump's retweet of a post containing the name alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella mysteriously disappeared from his timeline. After 'fixing' the issue and restoring the retweet, the user was simply banned from the platform so that nobody could see the tweet, which quickly went viral. ..."
Twitter blamed a computer glitch after President Trump's retweet of a post containing the name alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella
mysteriously disappeared from his timeline. After 'fixing' the issue and restoring the retweet, the user was simply banned from the
platform so that nobody could see the tweet, which quickly went viral.
" Rep. Ratliffe suggested Monday that the "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella committed perjury by making false statements in his
written forms filed with the ICIG and that Adam Schiff is hiding evidence of Ciaramella's crimes to protect him from criminal investigations,"
read the tweet made by by now-banned @surfermom77, which describes herself as living in California and a "100% Trump supporter."
Ciaramella has been outed in several outlets as the 'anonymous' CIA official whose whistleblower complaint over a July 25 phone call
between Trump and with his Ukrainian counterpart is at the heart of Congressional impeachment proceedings.
Trump retweeted the post around midnight Friday. By Saturday morning, it was no longer visible in his Twitter feed.
When contacted by The Guardian 's Lois Beckett for explanation, Twitter blamed an "outage with one of our systems."
Some people reported earlier today that someone had deleted the alleged-whistleblower's name-retweet from Trump's timeline.
Others of us still see *that tweet* on Trump's timeline. When asked for clarification, Twitter said this:
https://t.co/Rftkg3nbus https://t.co/XREAvvxjhf
By Sunday morning, the tweet had been restored to Trump's timeline - however hours later the user, @Surfermom77, was banned from
the platform .
Running cover for Twitter is the Washington Post , which claims " The account shows some indications of automation , including
an unusually high amount of activity and profile pictures featuring stock images from the internet."
Surfermom77 has displayed some hallmarks of a Twitter bot, an automated account. A recent profile picture on the account, for
instance, is a stock photo of a woman in business attire that is available for use online.
Surfermom77 has also tweeted far more than typical users, more than 170,000 times since the account was activated in 2013.
Surfermom77 has posted, on average, 72 tweets a day, according to Nir Hauser, chief technology officer at VineSight, a technology
firm that tracks online misinformation. -
WaPo
Meanwhile, Trump retweeted another Ciaramella reference on Thursday, after the @TrumpWarRoom responded to whistleblower attorney
Mark Zaid's tweet calling for the resignation of Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) from the Senate Whistleblower Caucus after she made
"hostile" comments - after she tweeted in November that "Vindictive Vindman is the "whistleblower's" handler (a reference to impeachment
witness Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.
"The watchdog group requested conversations between Ciaramella and special counsel Robert Mueller, former FBI agent Peter Strzok,
former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and former FBI attorney Lisa Page."
"... Despite fond youthful memories of Bill Clinton/Kenneth Starr/Monica Lewinsky jokes on late-night television, my interest in the current impeachment saga can pretty much be summed up as follows: "Get back to me when they launch an impeachment inquiry over Yemen ." Watching the House vote along party lines to impeach President Donald Trump while barely stifling a yawn over the Afghanistan Papers does little to alter my skepticism about this constitutional crisis built for cable news. ..."
"... Progressive commentator Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a forgettable non-issue." ..."
Despite fond youthful memories of Bill Clinton/Kenneth Starr/Monica Lewinsky jokes on
late-night television, my interest in the current impeachment saga can pretty much be summed up
as follows: "Get back to me when they launch an impeachment inquiry over Yemen
." Watching the House vote along party lines to impeach President Donald Trump while barely
stifling a yawn over the
Afghanistan Papers does little to alter my skepticism about this constitutional crisis
built for cable news.
Progressive commentator Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre
priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future
military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the
government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a
forgettable non-issue."
Nobody will be impeached for lying about Afghanistan. There will be no intelligence
community whistleblower setting in motion an impeachment inquiry over weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. In fact, the same Nancy Pelosi who ultimately caved to the Resistance shut
down antiwar Democrats who wanted such hearings into George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But here
John Bolton, an advocate
of preventive presidential war during this very administration, may finally get his wish of
being
greeted as a liberator .
Even as Representative Adam Schiff led the drive to impeach Trump, the California Democrat
voted for a defense bill that lavishes the executive branch with money without restraining
presidential war powers. But this seeming inconsistency is practically the point -- the entire
impeachment inquiry was wrapped in hawkish assumptions and rhetoric as liberal Democrats
unthinkingly stumbled into a Cold War 2.0 mindset that few of them this side of Hillary Clinton
would have willingly embraced absent
frequently overhyped Trump-Russia headlines dating back to the 2016 campaign.
No, Trump isn't Jesus Christ being handed
over by Pontius Pilate. His phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wasn't "
perfect
" and neither side of this partisan morality tale has exactly covered itself in glory. Rudy
Giuliani's escapades seem particularly likely to end badly. One need not even necessarily
defend Trump's conduct to oppose an impeachment inquiry largely predicated on threat inflation.
Arm Ukraine, Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan testified, so they can "fight the Russians
there and we don't have to fight them here." She could have been starring in a Democratic
reboot of Red Dawn decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated.
There's no question Trump to some extent dangled a White House visit and congressionally
authorized aid to Ukraine before Kyiv in pursuit of the talking point that Joe Biden was under
investigation. The only matters in dispute are how determined the effort was, whether Trump's
motives were at least partially publicly spirited, the degree of the Bidens' shadiness, and why
the aid was ultimately disbursed (Byron York
makes the case that it wasn't necessarily because of the whistleblower).
House Democrats began with a presumption of corrupt intent on all counts and a definition of
foreign election interference elastic enough to include Trump utterances about WikiLeaks and
Hillary's deleted emails but not Ukraine's (smaller, less systematic and arguably less
effective than Russia's) 2016 influence
campaign . And while not all investigations are created equal -- if Hunter Biden's business
dealings are to be probed, it should not be as a favor to any president -- the impeachment
inquiry itself is an investigation of a political rival, who was also investigated during his
previous campaign .
If shortcuts were taken in the beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation, the origins of
Trump-Ukraine resemble a template for undermining any seriously antiwar or civil libertarian
president. Trump is not that president himself, of course -- his acquiescence to the Beltway
blob on lethal military aid is precisely what increased his leverage over Ukraine -- but some
plausible and even the
occasional Republican could be. Trump's mild rhetorical dissents on foreign policy are
clearly a factor in why he has reason to be suspicious of his own subordinates (it's also why
it is disingenuous to suggest that replacing Trump with Mike Pence is no different than
replacing Bill Clinton with ideologically identical Al Gore or that people who have worked for
Bush, Cheney or John McCain
would have no reason to oppose Trump).
Many Democrats sincerely believed they were impeaching Trump for the least of his crimes,
like Al Capone and tax evasion, and that Robert Mueller let him escape last time. They are also
making a case against Trump's ability to separate personal and national interests in a way that
speaks to his fitness for the office, with Ukraine merely being their specific example. But in
doing so, they are also ratifying a bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has failed the
American people, and that's bigger than any one president.
W. James Antle III is the editor of The American Conservative.
Congress' constitutional duty is putting Israel first!
House Dems Unanimously Vote to Condemn Withdrawal From Syria - Oct 16, 2019
In a Wednesday vote, the House overwhelmingly backed a resolution expressing opposition to
the end of the US war in Syria, and calling on the US to protect the Syrian Kurds from
Turkey. The vote was 354-60, with the majority of Republicans supporting it, and unanimous
support from Democrats who cast votes .
Positions from Democrat leaders suggested an unconditional opposition to Trump ending
any war and withdrawing any troops under any circumstances. They also objected to the
notion that a president could end a war without their permission .
"... ...Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a forgettable non-issue." ..."
...Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre
priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future
military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the
government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a
forgettable non-issue."
by Scott | Dec 27, 2019
| Interviews Lyle J.
Goldstein talks about the need for Russia and Ukraine to get along better, and in general for
Europe to handle more of its military and foreign affairs without the involvement of the U.S.
Much has been made in certain American circles of supposed Russian aggression in Crimea and
Syria, two major pillars of the narrative that Russia is a dangerous enemy that must be met
with strength. But these claims present a very slanted narrative, and are mostly used by those
who want to keep the U.S. military involved in policing the entire world.
That makes default identity politics a "double or nothing" bet. If it's political
successful, it's dragged further and further towards entrenched minority rule by members of the
dominant racial or religous group, and typically towards some form of personal dictatorship. If
it's unsuccessful, the divisions it creates risks a reversal of the previous order. Instead of
being accepted as one element of a diverse community, the formerly dominant group becomes the
object of hostility and derision. The signs of that are certainly evident, particularly in
relation to the culture wars around religion.
Alex SL 12.27.19 at 10:32 am
I am not really sure where a formerly dominant group has
ever become the object of hostility and derision, except maybe when colonial powers were
expulsed? It seems the formerly dominant religions and the "real XYZians" are still treated
with instinctive deference everywhere, even in societies that are now officially secular or
multi-cultural, and regardless of how terrible their dominance was before it was broken.
...It is true that there is now orientation away from tolerance because tolerance depends on
dominance.
Another way to look at this is that the more heated battles in identity politics (broadly
defined) are occurring now because the dominant group is having difficulty with the shift
from noblesse oblige 'granting' of equality to others to the insistence by these others on
complete and total equality.
To oversimplify, when people in whatever oppressed identity group come to ask themselves
'why can't I be on a completely equal footing with those who do well/benefit from, etc. the
current system?' they tend to lose patience with noblesse oblige, and are unwilling to behave
with deference. Deference might seem too much like internalizing one's inferiority or the
rightness of someone else's dominance.. This means that the groups are more likely to demand
things from others rather than wait to receive them.
These things are necessary for full social equality but there will be a lot of hostility
among some within dominant groups, and you're now seeing people commit to whatever version of
social hierarchy they think works best for them. They ignore or are blind to whatever
versions they'd be screwed by. They tend to make common cause on the naturalness of that
social hierarchy, and the importance of social hierarchy generally.
This is one reason why affinities between oppressed identity groups aren't merely
strategic. Having recognized the legitimacy of this type of demand for full equality for
themselves, people with certain identities are probably more likely to recognize it for
others. Certain subcultures within oppressed group develop a set of standard moral
responses–and these types of demands for full equality for others will seem par for the
course. They'll commit themselves to meeting them even for groups whose political interests
aren't clearly aligned with their own. Often though, the political interests are broadly
aligned but this process does create moral affinities, and general commitments to
egalitarianism that the far right ridicules but which follow logically from a broad
commitment for social equality.
Even so, there are fights among groups struggling for different types of social equality.
Sometimes they are actually in one another's way or are viewed as competition for
resources. Sometimes the concern seems more symbolic and maybe motivated by worries that
there isn't enough equality to go around.
The interesting consequence is maybe the only power some people making claims for equality
have is the power of moral suasion. They are depending on the broader acceptance of social
equality, and the logical extension to themselves. So naturally a backlash tries to undermine
their moral standing.
Peter Dorman 12.27.19 at 6:57 pm (no link)
The dynamic JQ describes does occur often, but it is not the whole story. I think two
distinctions can help in separating where it works from where it doesn't.
The first is between symbolic and concrete relative positioning. JQ is describing a realm
in which hierarchies are matters of symbolic exchange: do I relate to you as my inferior,
equal or superior? A lot of social interaction is like this. But there are also concrete
hierarchies in which people exercise power over others or gain relative advantage
irrespective of how their actions are displayed symbolically. In its pure form, for instance,
institutional racism is a hierarchy that is not visible at the individual level but shows up
through the structural dynamics of the institutions people are embedded in. I think of the
interaction between racial segregation in housing, unequal access to credit and the financing
of public schools through local property taxes as an example of this. No single individual
has to be racist in outlook or intent for the system as a whole to reproduce generation after
generation of extreme injustice.
The second is between zero-sum and positive-sum redistributions. Some inequalities are
largely zero-sum, in the sense that the benefits to those on the top are due to the
deprivations of those on the bottom. An example is the gender division of labor in housework,
where more chores for you means more freedom from them for me and vice versa. The Marxist
view of profit works that way too (but not necessarily other views). And then there are
inequalities in which the benefits of the better off group don't depend on the deprivation of
others, such as the risk of being arbitrarily abused or killed by the police. I'm white and
less likely to experience this abuse than someone who isn't, but ending this abuse for them
doesn't put me at any greater risk.
I think identity politics has been excessively divisive (more precise: has engendered
surplus divisiveness) because of the blurring of these two distinctions. Contests over
symbolic status, as JQ points out, have an inherent zero sum aspect, especially as we move to
the meta level of who should have the right to award respect in the first place. To some
extent, these contests are an unavoidable part of social change, and we just have to roll
with them. Unfortunately though, symbolic disputes have tended to crowd out concrete ones,
where it is often possible to find (ahem) Pareto improvements.
Meanwhile, there is very little awareness of the difference between zero and positive sum
situations, as shown by the tendency to call all relative advantages "privilege". A privilege
is an unjust, unearned benefit, typically based on the exclusion of others. (Membership has
its privileges because nonmembers don't get them.) Private equity billionaires who profit
from exorbitant surprise medical bills that bankrupt ordinary people drip with privilege. But
heterosexual couples who benefit from marriage laws did not gain at the expense of non-hetero
couples that were excluded, and changing the laws to benefit the latter does not harm the
former (except perhaps in the world of symbolic hierarchies).
We are awash in sloppy thinking about difference and hierarchy. (There's a lot more than
what I've brought up here.) Why we're in this mess is an interesting question.
I'm not sure that identity politics works this way.
This is the way identity politics would work if it was really a sort of philosophical
argument about the merits of this or that identity.
But what I see is more a sort of tribalism, where for example here in Italy many conservative
parties (especially the Lega) are big on how Italy is a Christian (catholic) country and
Muslim immigrants are going to destroy our culture, but then when the Pope says we should
welcome immigrants they say he should mind his own business, that is not what you would
expect from a firebrand catholic.
the idea of tolerance implies the existence of a dominant group that does the
tolerating
I'm not certain this is true; the history of religious tolerance seems to feature many
cases where no group was a majority, and "we'll argue but not fight, and the government won't
take sides" was designed to be the best available system when everyone was a minority. I'd
say a very key feature of US politics since the 1960's is that the elite have been
increasingly unwilling to tolerate, or provide equal protection of the law to, those who
disagree with them–so principles like "free speech doesn't include malicious
falsehoods" or "the government doesn't take sides between conceptions of the good" only last
until they would protect a previously-normative group that the elite has turned on.
I also think you are missing a key point in the discussion of deference: a normative
identity creates both a Schelling point and some incentive to assimilate, and so builds its
own majority; think of "white" identity in the US.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been
important to politics. But neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised
two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity
groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic
identity.
You quote from this guy, and others have written the same thing (e.g. Mark [spit] Lilla).
Their argument, simply put, is that "identity politics" is a fracturing of society into
smaller groups who don't/won't unite.
Having/continually constructing/renewing identities is an inescapable part of being human.
The issue is: what is to constitute the most salient identity? What bundle of markers are to
make up being "American" or "British" or "European"? These things are always contested, but
the pace of change is usually slow. We live in a time when the question is unusually
prominent, so more heavily contested. If, as Chetan says, lots of groups just want to be
"American", then by that want they change "American-ness". If they can't agree on some new
definition, then the US fractures.
CNN blasted Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Friday over contradictory stances regarding the
role of Senators during an impeachment.
In a
recent floor speech , Schumer blasted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for
describing himself as "not an impartial juror" when it comes to Trump's upcoming impeachment
trial.
"Let the American people hear it loud and clear, the Republican leader said, proudly, 'I'm
not an impartial juror. I'm not impartial about this at all.' That is an astonishing admission
of partisanship," said Schumer.
Yet, as CNN
's Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck note, Schumer said during Bill Clinton's 1998 - 1999
impeachment saga that the Senate was "not like a jury box," and that senators, who are not
impartial, had previously formed their opinions heading into the trial .
Schumer had attacked his Senate opponent Al D'Mato for not taking a position on
impeachment during their 1998 debate. D'Mato said he would not take a position until "the
proof is presented" at the Senate trial – calling it "inappropriate." https://t.co/nPMyvjZE6V
pic.twitter.com/tYAc6hkwzd
In fact, as "KFile" notes, Schumer was elected to the Senate in 1998 on the promise that a
vote for him would be a vote not to impeach Clinton .
We have a new story looking at past Chuck Schumer's comments on impeachment. Including
repeatedly arguing the Senate was not a jury in 1999 and him campaigning that he would not
support impeachment or convicting Clinton in 1998. https://t.co/nPMyvjZE6V https://t.co/LPr1BlfD4O
pic.twitter.com/87q7hxKLks
Speaking on CNN's "Larry King Live" in January 1999, Schumer said the trial in the Senate
was not like a jury box.
" We have a pre-opinion ," Schumer said, citing himself and two newly-elected Republican
senators who had voted on impeachment in 1998 as members of the House of Representatives who
said they would vote in the Senate. " This is not a criminal trial, but this is something
that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of
politics ."
" So therefore, anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it's not a jury
box ," King asked Schumer.
"Many do," Schumer responded. "And then they change. In fact, it's also not like a jury
box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don't have jurors called and
lobbied and things like that. I mean, it's quite different than a jury. And we're also the
judge."
A day later, the Republican National Committee attacked Schumer in a press release for
previous comments in the House saying there was no basis for impeachment. - CNN
Then-RNC chairman Jim Nicholson said of Schumer "No self-respecting jury would allow
somebody who's already formed an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused," adding "but
Chuck Schumer has loudly proclaimed that he's pre-judged the case. He's already announced that
he's decided the President shouldn't be impeached , much less removed from office."
Schumer responded days later, telling NBC 's "Meet the Press": "The Founding Fathers --
whose wisdom just knocks my socks off every day, it really does -- set this process up to be in
the Senate, not at the Supreme Court, not in some judicial body ."
"Every day, for instance, hundreds of people call us up and lobby us on one side and the
other. You can't do that with a juror," he added. "The standard is different. It's supposed to
be a little bit judicial and a little bit legislative-political. That's how it's been.
Meanwhile, Schumer said in a 1998 Op-Ed that he would be voting to acquit Clinton , and that
he'd made up his mind that September.
"My decision will not come as a surprise," Schumer
wrote . "I will be voting to acquit the president on both counts. I had to make my decision
in September as a member of the Judiciary Committee in the House, and while I was in the middle
of the campaign."
Responding to CNN 's recent report (yet failing to explain the 'impartial juror' hypocrisy),
Schumer's office said that his statements came after the conclusion of the Starr investigation,
"which included testimony from key witnesses including President Clinton, had concluded and
been made public for months and as Sen. Schumer was in the anomalous position of having already
voted on impeachment in both the House Judiciary Committee and on the House floor."
"As is reflected in these quotes, Schumer believed then and still believes now that all of
the facts must be allowed to come out and then a decision can be made -- in stark contrast to
the Republicans today in both the House and Senate who have worked to prevent all the facts and
evidence from coming out." 43 minutes ago (Edited) CNN is a CIA / Ziocon loudspeaker. I think
they are furiously backpedaling and trying to undo the Anti-Trump necromancy of the past few
years. Why? because they realize that Orange Donald is really Zion Don, and that MAGA is being
served up as a watery bone broth, meanwhile MIGA is prime rib and is being served up on a daily
basis from the White House.
Like it was earlier noted, the "New Detente" isn't perfect, as seen most recently by the US'
decision to impose sanctions on
the companies involved in Nord Stream II's construction, but once again, the state of relations
in general are still comparatively better than their nadir in mid-2014 immediately after the
EuroMaidan coup and Crimea's reunification with Russia. The US is still trying to "contain"
Russia with mixed success, while Russia is undertaking its best efforts to break out of this
"containment" noose and even "flip" some of the US' traditional partners such as Turkey, so the
New
Cold War probably won't end anytime soon. Nor, for that matter, did anybody reasonably
expect that it would, but just like during the Old Cold War, there comes a time when the
involved parties believe that it's in their best interests to proverbially take a break and
enter into a period of detente. It seems as though that phase is only now just beginning but
which has finally borne some fruit after Trump promised to pursue this outcome all throughout
the 2016 campaign.
One can argue over why that hasn't already happened to the extent that he promised (or even
if he was fully sincere in the first place), but the point to focus on in the here and now is
that some tangible progress has finally been made concerning the future of Russia's
trans-Ukrainian gas supplies to the EU. From the looks of it, all the relevant players --
Russia, Ukraine, the EU, and the US -- have concrete interests in seeing that this agreement is
upheld. It's convenient for Russia to continue using existing pipelines, Ukraine wants to get
paid for its transit role, the EU desires reliable but cheap gas imports, and the US recognizes
that this outcome perpetuates the geostrategic role of its Ukrainian proxy that it could then
leverage as a "bargaining chip" for reaching a more substantive "New Detente" with Russia
sometime next year or the one afterwards. That said, while each player has their interests,
they don't exactly trust one another for different reasons, which means that the "New Detente"
might still be offset if any of them decides to play the spoiler or is undermined by their
"deep states".
"... Splitting Naftogaz into separate companies could allow Soros to take control of one of the new branches and essentially privatize its profits. He already suggested that he indirectly brought in US consulting company, McKinsey, to advise Naftogaz on the privatization " big bang ." ..."
"... The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that Soros is effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation's Ukraine branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine's independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government into power. ..."
"... Soros' foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in the US State Department ..."
Rarely does the world get a true look inside the corrupt world of Western oligarchs and
the brazen manipulations they use to enhance their fortunes at the expense of the public
good.
The following comes from correspondence of the Hungarian-born billionaire, now naturalized
American speculator, George Soros. The hacker group CyberBerkut has published online letters
allegedly written by Soros that reveal him not only as puppet master of the US-backed Ukraine
regime .
They also reveal his machinations with the US Government and the officials of the European
Union in a scheme where, if he succeeds, he could win billions in the plunder of Ukraine
assets. All, of course, would be at the expense of Ukrainian citizens and of EU
taxpayers.
What the three hacked documents reveal is a degree of behind-the-scene manipulation of the
most minute details of the Kiev regime by the New York billionaire.
In the longest memo, dated March 15, 2015 and marked "Confidential" Soros outlines a
detailed map of actions for the Ukraine regime. Titled, "A short and medium term comprehensive
strategy for the new Ukraine," the memo from Soros calls for steps to "restore the fighting
capacity of Ukraine without violating the Minsk agreement." To do the restoring, Soros blithely
notes that "General Wesley Clark, Polish General Skrzypczak and a few specialists under the
auspices of the Atlantic Council [emphasis added -- f.w.e.] will advise President Poroshenko
how to restore the fighting capacity of Ukraine without violating the Minsk agreement
."
Soros also calls for supplying lethal arms to Ukraine and secretly training Ukrainian army
personnel in Romania to avoid direct NATO presence in Ukraine . The
Atlantic Council is a leading Washington pro-NATO think tank .
Notably, Wesley Clark is also a business associate of Soros in BNK Petroleum which does
business in Poland.
Clark, some might recall, was the mentally-unstable NATO General in charge of the 1999
bombing of Serbia who ordered NATO soldiers to fire on Russian soldiers guarding the Pristina
International Airport. The Russians were there as a part of an agreed joint NATO–Russia
peacekeeping operation supposed to police Kosovo. The British Commander, General Mike Jackson
refused Clark, retorting, "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you ." Now Clark apparently decided to
come out of retirement for the chance to go at Russia directly.
Naked asset grab
In his March 2015 memo Soros further writes that Ukrainian President Poroshenko's "first
priority must be to regain control of financial markets," which he assures Poroshenko that
Soros would be ready to assist in: "I am ready to call Jack Lew of the US Treasury to sound him
out about the swap agreement."
He also calls on the EU to give Ukraine an annual aid sum of €11 billion via a special
EU borrowing facility. Soros proposes in effect using the EU's "AAA" top credit rating to
provide a risk insurance for investment into Ukraine.
Whose risk would the EU insure?
Soros details, "I am prepared to invest up to €1 billion in Ukrainian businesses.
This is likely to attract the interest of the investment community. As stated above, Ukraine
must become an attractive investment destination."
Not to leave any doubt, Soros continues, "The investments will be for-profit but I will
pledge to contribute the profits to my foundations. This should allay suspicions that I am
advocating policies in search of personal gain. "
For anyone familiar with the history of the Soros Open Society Foundations in Eastern Europe
and around the world since the late 1980's, will know that his supposedly philanthropic
"democracy-building" projects in Poland, Russia, or Ukraine in the 1990's allowed Soros the
businessman to literally plunder the former communist countries using Harvard University's
"shock therapy" messiah, and Soros associate, Jeffrey Sachs, to convince the post-Soviet
governments to privatize and open to a "free market" at once, rather than gradually.
The example of Soros in Liberia is instructive for understanding the seemingly seamless
interplay between Soros the shrewd businessman and Soros the philanthropist. In West Africa
George Soros backed a former Open Society employee of his, Liberian President Ellen Johnson
Sirleaf, giving her international publicity and through his influence, even arranging a Nobel
Peace Prize for her in 2011, insuring her election as president. Before her presidency she had
been well-indoctrinated into the Western free market game, studying economics at Harvard and
working for the US-controlled World Bank in Washington and the Rockefeller Citibank in Nairobi.
Before becoming Liberia's President, she worked for Soros directly as chair of his Open Society
Initiative for West Africa ( OSIWA
).
Once in office, President Sirleaf opened the doors for Soros to take over major Liberian
gold and base metals assets along with his partner, Nathaniel Rothschild. One of her first acts
as President was to also invite the Pentagon's new Africa Command, AFRICOM, into Liberia whose
purpose as a Liberian investigation revealed, was to "protect George Soros and Rothschild
mining operations in West Africa rather than champion stability and human rights ."
Naftogaz the target
The Soros memo makes clear he has his eyes on the Ukrainian state gas and energy monopoly,
Naftogaz. He writes, "The centerpiece of economic reforms will be the reorganization of
Naftogaz and the introduction of market pricing for all forms of energy, replacing hidden
subsidies
"
In an earlier letter Soros wrote in December 2014 to both President Poroshenko and Prime
Minister Yatsenyuk, Soros openly called for his Shock Therapy:
"I want to appeal to you to unite behind the reformers in your government and give your
wholehearted support to a radical, 'big bang' type of approach. That is to say,
administrative controls would be removed and the economy would move to market prices rapidly
rather than gradually Naftogaz needs to be reorganized with a big bang replacing the hidden
subsidies
"
Splitting Naftogaz into separate companies could allow Soros to take control of one of
the new branches and essentially privatize its profits. He already suggested that he indirectly
brought in US consulting company, McKinsey, to advise Naftogaz on the privatization "
big bang
."
The Puppet-Master?
The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that Soros is
effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation's Ukraine
branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His
IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet
Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine's independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also
admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government
into power.
Soros' foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought
the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in
the US State Department . In 2004 just weeks after Soros' International Renaissance
Foundation had succeeded in getting Viktor Yushchenko as President of Ukraine, Michael McFaul
wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post. McFaul, a specialist in organizing color revolutions,
who later became US Ambassador to Russia, revealed:
Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of
influence would prefer different language to describe their activities -- democratic
assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc. -- but their work, however
labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine. The U.S. Agency for International
Development, the National Endowment for Democracy and a few other foundations sponsored certain
U.S. organizations, including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, the
National Democratic Institute, the Solidarity Center, the Eurasia Foundation, Internews and
several others to provide small grants and technical assistance to Ukrainian civil society. The
European Union, individual European countries and the Soros-funded International Renaissance
Foundation did the same .
Soros
shapes 'New Ukraine'
Today the CyberBerkut hacked papers show that Soros' IRF money is behind creation of a
National Reform Council, a body organized by presidential decree from Poroshenko which allows
the Ukrainian president to push bills through Ukraine's legislature. Soros writes,
"The framework for bringing the various branches of government together has also emerged.
The National Reform Council (NRC) brings together the presidential administration, the
cabinet of ministers, the Rada and its committees and civil society. The International
Renaissance Foundation which is the Ukrainian branch of the Soros Foundations was the sole
financial supporter of the NRC until now "
Soros' NRC in effect is the vehicle to allow the President to override parliamentary debate
to push through "reforms," with the declared first priority being privatization of Naftogaz and
raising gas prices drastically to Ukrainian industry and households, something the bankrupt
country can hardly afford .
In his letter to Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk, Soros hints that he played a key role in
selection of three key non-Ukrainian ministers -- Natalia Jaresko, an American ex- State
Department official as Finance Minister; Aivras Abromavicius of Lithuania as Economics
Minister, and a health minister from Georgia. Soros in his December 2014 letter, referring to
his proposal for a "big bank" privatization of Naftogaz and price rise, states,
"You are fortunate to have appointed three 'new Ukrainian' ministers and several natives
(sic) who are committed to this approach
."
Elsewhere Soros speaks about de facto creating the impression within the EU that the current
government of Yatsenyuk is finally cleaning out the notorious corruption that has dominated
every Kiev regime since 1991. Creating that temporary reform illusion, he remarks, will
convince the EU to cough up the €11 billion annual investment insurance fund. His March
2015 paper says that, "It is essential for the government to produce a visible demonstration
(sic) during the next three months in order to change the widely prevailing image of Ukraine as
an utterly corrupt country." That he states will open the EU to make the €11 billion
insurance guarantee investment fund .
While saying that it is important to show Ukraine as a country that is not corrupt, Soros
reveals he has little concern when transparency and proper procedures block his agenda. Talking
about his proposals to reform Ukraine's constitution to enable privatizations and other
Soros-friendly moves, he complains,
"The process has been slowed down by the insistence of the newly elected Rada on proper
procedures and total transparency
."
Soros suggests that he intends to create this "visible demonstration" through his
initiatives, such as using the Soros-funded National Reform Council, a body organized by
presidential decree which allows the Ukrainian president to push bills through Ukraine's
legislature.
George Soros is also using his new European Council on Foreign Relations think-tank to lobby
his Ukraine strategy, with his council members such as Alexander Graf Lambsdorff or Joschka
Fischer or Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, not to mention former ECB head, Jean-Claude Trichet no
doubt laying a subtle role.
George Soros, now 84, was born in Hungary as a Jew, George Sorosz. Soros once boasted in a
TV interview that he posed during the war as a gentile with forged papers, assisting the Horthy
government to seize property of other Hungarian Jews who were being shipped to the Nazi death
camps. Soros told the TV moderator, "There was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that
was–well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets–that if I weren't
there–of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would."
This is the same morality apparently behind Soros' activities in Ukraine today. It seems
again to matter not to him that the Ukrainian government he helped bring to power in February
2014 US coup d'etat is riddled with explicit anti-semites and self-proclaimed neo-Nazis from
the Svoboda Party and Pravy Sektor. George Soros is clearly a devotee of
"public-private-partnership." Only here the public gets fleeced to enrich private investors
like Mr. Soros and friends. Cynically, Soros signs his Ukraine strategy memo, "George
Soros–A self-appointed advocate of the new Ukraine, March 12, 2015."
And now we learn that our own State Department was filling Soros coffers with our taxpayer
money to use against us and destroy our republic.
Whenever Democrats scream about cuts in foreign aid, know that they are squealing because
their "cut" of the laundered funds is in jeopardy and they have to answer to Soros for the
rest.
He's contributed a lot of money to the Dem Party to be so insulated from not only
prosecution but from criticism. If and when he gets criticized in a publication or article,
he screams "Anti-Semitism!" He's become good at making everything a win-win for himself.
Preaches socialism out of one side of his mouth to "virtue signal" to the world and then
loots the objects thereof out of the other side of his mouth for the benefit of his alleged
foundations. Why we can't prosecute him for interfering in our elections with his stolen
money is something hard to understand.
Ukraine is *** infested. I would like to know Soros ties to Igor Kolomoisky.
"Once in office, President Sirleaf opened the doors for Soros to take over major Liberian
gold and base metals assets along with his partner, Nathaniel Rothschild. One of her first
acts as President was to also invite the Pentagon's new Africa Command, AFRICOM, into Liberia
whose purpose as a Liberian investigation revealed, was to "protect George Soros and
Rothschild mining operations in West Africa rather than champion stability and human
rights ."
Wherever there are wealthy *** Zionist fascist oligarch sociopaths there is trouble...
I'm finding it hard to think of examples where the formerly norm-giving group becomes
derided or humiliated.
You can probably try to look at the situation in (now independent) republics of the former
USSR. Simplifying previously oppressed group, given a lucky chance, most often strive for
dominance and oppression of other groups including and especially former dominant group. This
is an eternal damnation of ethno/cultural nationalism.
And not only it (look at Mutual Help and The State in Shantytowns.) In them ethnic
comminutes often own protection markets, offer services that hire people and replace the state,
pay off gang leaders. they also provide some community support for particular ethnic group,
enforce the rules of trade within themselves, etc. In GB the abuse of children by ethnic gangs
was sickening ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/30/abuse-children-asian-communities
)
In many cases of ethnic/cultural nationalism this looks more like a competition for
resources with the smoke screen of noble intentions/human rights/past oppression/
humiliations/etc
Or you can look at the language policy in the USA and the actual situation in some
areas/institutions of Florida and California and how English speakers feel in those
areas/institutions. Or in some areas of Quebec in Canada.
That actually suggests another meaning of famous Randolph Bourne quote " War is the health
of the state " (said in the midst of the First World War.) It bring the unity unachievable in
peace time or by any other methods, albeit temporarily (from Ch 14. Howard Zinn book A People's
History of the United States ):
the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men
died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of
trenches.
In the United States, not yet in the war, there was worry about the health of the state.
Socialism was growing. The IWW seemed to be everywhere. Class conflict was intense. In the
summer of 1916, during a Preparedness Day parade in San Francisco, a bomb exploded, killing
nine people; two local radicals, Tom Mooney and Warren Billings, were arrested and would
spend twenty years in prison. Shortly after that Senator James Wadsworth of New York
suggested compulsory military training for all males to avert the danger that "these people
of ours shall be divided into classes." Rather: "We must let our young men know that they owe
some responsibility to this country."
The supreme fulfillment of that responsibility was taking place in Europe. Ten million
were to die on the battlefield; 20 million were to die of hunger and disease related to the
war. And no one since that day has been able to show that the war brought any gain for
humanity that would be worth one human life. The rhetoric of the socialists, that it was an
"imperialist war," now seems moderate and hardly arguable. The advanced capitalist countries
of Europe were fighting over boundaries, colonies, spheres of influence; they were competing
for Alsace-Lorraine, the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East.
Neo-McCarthyism now serves a somewhat similar purpose in the USA. Among other thing (like
absolving Hillary from her fiasco to "deux ex machine" trick instead of real reason -- the
crisis and rejection of neoliberalism by the sizable strata of the USA population) it is an
attempt to unify the nation after 2016.
"... Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the end of the Soviet System (with Western criminal thieving BILLIONAIRES who rushed in to plunder Russia (Yeltsin Years) ---- Russians now live longer than the degraded, and impoverished Americans with what the Junk Food Nation serves in the US of A. ..."
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Washington's Unmasked Imperialism Towards
Europe And Russia by Tyler Durden Sat, 12/28/2019 - 07:00 0
SHARES
Washington must think the rest of the world is as stupid as many of its own politicians are.
Its passing into law – signed by President Trump this week – of sanctions to halt
the Nord Stream-2 and Turk Stream gas supply projects is a naked imperialist move to bludgeon
the European energy market for its own economic advantage.
US sanctions are planned to hit European companies involved with Russia's Gazprom in the
construction of the 1,225-kilometer pipeline under the Baltic Sea which will deliver natural
gas from Russia to Germany and elsewhere across the European Union. The €9.5 billion
($11bn) project is 80 per cent complete and is due to be finished early next year.
It is quite clear – because US politicians have openly acknowledged it – that
Washington's aim is to oust Russia as the main natural gas exporter to the giant EU market, and
to replace with more expensive American-produced gas.
What's hilarious is the way American politicians, diplomats and news media are portraying
this US assault on market principles and the sovereignty of nations as an act of chivalry.
Washington claims that the sanctions are "pro-European" because they are "saving Europe from
dependency on Russia for its energy". The American hypocrisy crescendoes with the further claim
that by stopping Russia earning lucrative export revenues, then Moscow will be constrained from
"interfering" in European nations. As if Washington's own actions are not interference on a
massive scale.
European politicians and businesses are not buying this American claptrap. The vast
overstepping by Washington into European affairs has prompted EU governments to question the
nature of the trans-Atlantic relation. About time too. Thus, Washington's hubris and bullying
are undermining its objective of dominating Europe for its own selfish interests.
Russia, Germany and others have defiantly
told Washington its weaponizing of economic sanctions will not halt the Nord Stream nor the
Turk Stream projects.
As German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
said earlier this month, "it is unacceptable" for the US to brazenly interfere in European
and Russian energy trade. The American pretext of supposedly "protecting" the national security
of its purported European allies is frankly laughable.
The American agenda is a blatantly imperialistic reordering of the energy market to benefit
US economic interests. To pull off this audacious scam, Washington, by necessity, has to
demonize and isolate Russia, while also trampling roughshod over its European allies. Europe
has partly aided this American stitch-up of its own interests because it has foolishly indulged
in the US antagonism towards Russia with sanctions due to the Ukraine conflict, Crimea and
other anti-Russia smears.
The legislation being whistled through the American Congress by both Republicans and
Democrats (collectively dubbed the War Party) is recklessly fueling tensions between the US and
Russia. In trying to gain economic advantages over Europe's energy, Washington is wantonly
ramping up animus towards Moscow.
Apart from the sanctions against Russian and European companies partnering on Nord Stream,
the US Congress passed separate legislation which seeks to boost American oil and gas
production in the East Mediterranean.
A Radio Free Europe
report this week was headlined: 'Congress Passes More Legislation Aimed At Curbing Russia's
Energy Grip On Europe'.
The headline should more accurately have been worded: 'Congress Passes More Legislation
Aimed At Bolstering America's Energy Grip On Europe'.
The RFE report states: "The bipartisan Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership
Act, which was approved on December 19, is the latest piece of US legislation passed this year
that aims to diversify [sic] Europe's energy sources away from Kremlin-controlled
companies."
Again, the American double-think is jaw-dropping. Such is the arrogance of a flailing,
delusional empire when it can publicly justify with a straight face an energy-market-grab with
a veneer of virtue.
US oil and gas giants are moving into the East Mediterranean. Exxon Mobil
announced the discovery of a major natural gas field off Cyprus in February this year.
American firms are also
partnering with Israeli companies to begin gas production in the Leviathan Field located
off the coast at Haifa.
There is no doubt that the US sanctions targeting Nord Stream and Turk Stream are part of a
bigger concerted pincer movement by Washington to corner the EU energy market of 500 million
consumers (more than double the US population).
Colin Cavell, a US professor of political science, commented to Strategic Culture
Foundation: "What should be hammered down in this continuing debate over which country will be
able to deliver oil and natural gas to Europe is the fact that neither the United States nor,
and especially, the Republican Party, stand for so-called free trade."
Free-trade capitalism is supposed to be an ideological pillar of the US. In this ideology,
governments should not interfere with market supply and demand. But paradoxically as far as
US-imposed sanctions on Russian-European energy companies are concerned the American Congress
is "quintessentially anti-free market", notes Cavell.
In its shameless profiteering, Washington is acting aggressively towards Russia and Europe
while flouting its own supposed economic principles and relying on brute force to win its
arguments. America's imperialist agenda towards Europe and Russia is how world wars are
instigated.
"You will buy our more expensive, less efficient, non-market solution, you will pay for it
with King Dollars, and by gawd, YOU WILL LIKE IT, now shuddup, Vassals!" -- Uncle Scam and
the Reloonicans
I live in Denmark, a country Nord Stream 2 is going through. We are (used to be?) one of
the strongest allies to the US. But recent developments have alienated a lot of danes to the
US.
First Trump publicly announced he wanted to buy the isle of Greenland from Denmark.
Greenland is the largest isle in the world and of strategic importance. But you don't just
buy a part of another country, and this offer was firmly refused. As response to the refusal
Trump cancelled a previously planned official visit to Denmark. This was seen by most danes
as an insult.
Denmark was the last country holding out on permissions needed to build Nord Stream 2, but
after this incident we allowed the project to go forward. I believe the Greenland incident
caused the change making Denmark approve Nord Stream 2.
After this we have had other incidents. One is on the Faroe Islands (a part of Denmark),
where both US and Chinese ambassadors interfered in our internal affairs trying to influence
if Huawei could be used for 5G in this self-governing part of our country. Another is a
follow-up to the Greenland incident mentioned, where the US now wants to open a diplomatic
mission on the island, probably in an attempt to influence the local government to accept
that the US buys the island.
During the last year I have seen sentiment among my fellow citizens going from "the US is
great, let us support and follow them" to "we have to be careful of these guys, they
interfere in our internal affairs and try to break up our country".
I believe the US government is underestimating how much they are alienating the Europeans
with this line of foreing policy.
Its a guess but I think there are other hidden issues here nobody wants to talk about. Of
course, Trump idea of buying the island was stupid but I believe it arouse out of
frustration. You see, US wants to build huge military base there. Danes won't permit that.
The reason US wants to do it is because sea between Iceland and England/Norway is a
chokepoint aimed against Russian subs. This is the only place where they can be reasonably
stopped. It is nothing new, the same thing happened during WWII war at so called "war of
Atlantic" where the most of the fighting happened between German U-boats and alliance
marines.
You most certainly can buy land from other countries. Thomas Jefferson purchased the
entire center of N. America from the French and for pennies. We also purchased Alaska from
the Russians for next to nothing as well. Both land masses are much larger than all of
Europe.
You guys don't need Greenland so give it to us for pennies.
Russia has the largest proven reserves of easily recoverable oil and natural gas on Earth.
The US has about a decade to choke Russia to death. Economic sanctions, regime change, cyber
attacks...whatever it takes. If the US doesn't utterly break Russia soon, Russia will become
the next, (and last) empire on Earth. NeoConThink.
"The US has about a decade to choke Russia to death. "
Actually you are absolutely wrong on this. It is the other way around. Russia has to get
out of US chokefold NOW or it will likely disintegrate.
Why? In short, economy, geogaphy and even more importantly demographics.
Today there are about 110 million native Russians there. Next to them are about 40 million
muslims living there. Muslims have about twice as big reproduction rate as Russians do. It is
estimated that in 30 years if current trends stand it will be 50/50. Worse, in ten years
there will be only about 90 million Russians living there.
There are other issues as well. About 25 percent of Russian men die before the age of 55.
The reason? Alcoholism and drug abuse. Have you ever heard about cheap Rusian drug called
Krokodil?
It kills you slowly first then fast. Your body just ROTS AWAY and falls off. Literally!
Like you have bare bones instead of feet. No kidding. Just check on you tube.
Another problem is soldier materiel. It is estimated that only about 30 percent of males
between the age of 18-25 are healthy enough to join military. As of today it is barely
sufficient to fill the ranks. In 10 years Russian military will have to shrink by 20 percent.
From that perspective it is do or die for Russia right now. This is most likely the peak of
their military power, then it will slowly deteriorate. Putin knows that, hence he lashes out
at its neighbours, most notably Poland. Economy shrinks, military is on vane, hence he needs
an enemy to rally his people around. Or else!
Then there is China. Make your best bet what they will do in the far east when Russia lies
prostate.Remember, Russia took over a lot of Chinese territory in late XIX century there.
Yep, the area around Vladivostok and other nearby territories, the size close to that of
today's France..There are millions of Chinese already living there.In the Asian south Chinese already took controll of the former
Russian stans. They rule there, not Putin. You didn't know that?
"There are other issues as well. About 25 percent of Russian men die before the age of 55.
The reason? Alcoholism and drug abuse. Have you ever heard about cheap Rusian drug called
Krokodil?
It kills you slowly first then fast. Your body just ROTS AWAY and falls off. Literally!
Like you have bare bones instead of feet. No kidding. Just check on you tube."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the end of the Soviet System (with Western criminal
thieving BILLIONAIRES who rushed in to plunder Russia (Yeltsin Years) ---- Russians now live
longer than the degraded, and impoverished Americans with what the Junk Food Nation serves in
the US of A.
" Washington must think the rest of the world is as stupid as many of its own
politicians are"
No, washington thinks no such thing. It doesnt really understand how stupid its own
politicians are. Nor DOES IT CARE!.
Did anyone watch the impeachment proceedings? Now, THAT was stupid, stupid for the
whole world to watch. And then there is the chocoate cake diplomacy of Trump, the elegance
and sophistication of Pompeo, Bolton, and the digniity of Nikki Haley. Putting Raytheon to
run our Pentagon is a magical touch.
Comment from a friend of mine concerning the statement below. He has excellent security
credentials:
"Our President has made the world far more dangerous by withdrawing from treaties without
attempting to negotiate new ones. No country is well served by this. The situation is very
destabilizing."
The Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Sergey Shoigu:
- I hope that a full-scale war is not a question today. And all the risks and consequences
that such a full-scale war entails are obvious to everyone.
Regarding the third world war, there are a very large number of different statements. The
most accurate and adequate of them seems to me: "I do not know exactly what the third world
war will be. But I know for sure that she will be the last. "
However, if we talk about the number of threats to our country, then they do not become
less. The United States has already withdrawn from two important nuclear arms control
treaties. So far, the START-3 treaty remains, which is also under discussion in the USA: to
renew it or not to renew it?
As a result of this approach, the world is becoming more unpredictable and less secure. At
the current level of informatization and automation, there is a high probability of errors in
the weapons control system.
That is why recently issues of ensuring information security have come to the fore. When
you are aware of your vulnerability and are interested in maintaining balance and universal
equal security, it makes you turn on your head.
And when you think how the United States continues to believe by inertia that a balance of
power has developed in your favor, a variety of ideas may come to your head, including not
the most reasonable ones. It is in this situation that I see the main threat now, and not
only for Russia, "the minister replied.
It's good cop/bad cop nonsense. Europe is occupied territory, and American huffing and
puffing at Russia is just meant to get Europe "better deals" for their projects with Russia.
The only ones who don't get it are spooks and Neo-Libs/Cons
What is not expected is rational discussion on what I have described here. But since facts
contrary to my expose here are missing I doubt it will happen.
" But remember also that todays Russia is ruled by a Tsar named Putin"
Im amazed at how long this silly meme can be maintained.
Putin is NOT and autocrat, he has to struggle with a delicate balance. between the Atlantic integrationists and Eurasiaon soveriigntists. The oligarchy installed by the US is still strong in Russian. They have not won their
soveriignty yet.
"... Time and time again Washington has tightened Russian sanctions in an effort to crush the Russian economy. When virtually every legal outlet had been sanctioned, Washington has turned to sanctioning third parties that cooperate with Russia. ..."
"... North American investors, led fully by Wall Street, account for over half of the foreign capital flowing into Russian stocks, according to the Moscow Exchange. By comparison, Russia's next door neighbors in Europe account for only 26%. ..."
"... Speaking on German TV, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the sanctions were an infringement of sovereignty... The US sanctions have also angered Russia and the European Union, which says it should be able to decide its own energy policies. ..."
"... "As a matter of principle, the EU opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business," a spokesman for the trading bloc told AFP news agency on Saturday. ..."
"... According to German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, the American sanctions amount to "interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe." ..."
"... Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading among themselves in gold and through a barter system as a hedge against any future economic sanctions on them, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Saturday. ..."
"... They have their own undersea pipe-laying equipment and experience. These sanctions will only delay the completion date for a few more months. Russia under Putin is very patient, resolute and not prone to rash decisions. They play the long game and will win out in the end. ..."
"... The Great Gas Game: Vesti Presents a New Documentary Film About Pipelines and Power youtube.com ..."
"... Nord Stream 2 is financed by leading energy companies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Austria, ENGIE, OMV, Shell, Uniper and Wintershall Dea. A multi-billion Euro investment in European industry and services, the project involves more than 200 companies from 17 countries worldwide. ..."
"... Well, congratulations Congress and Trump. This will drive a wedge between the US and Europe. Can you just imagine how those investing in NS2 feel about the US. The US is saying in effect - lose all of your investment because we have determined that the project is against our geopolitical/economic interests. And to make matters worse the pipeline will be completed, probably only 2 months behind schedule. So the financial backers will get hit, but will eventually see returns due to Russian efforts. Russia could have built the entire pipeline themselves, but preferred to have European partners. ..."
"... to Europe at the start of the 1980's, the US had just gone through the Oil Shock of 1978–79 . The US has not been a net exporter of oil for well over 75 years. It is only this year that this has changed through the extensive use of fracking. ..."
own goalnoun: (in soccer) a goal scored inadvertently when the ball is struck into the goal by a player on the defensive team.
Time and time again Washington has tightened Russian sanctions in an effort to crush the Russian economy. When virtually every
legal outlet had been sanctioned, Washington has turned to sanctioning third parties that cooperate with Russia.
So what is the
net effect of all of these sanctions?
The Russian stock market has reached record highs this year but still has room to climb further in coming months before paring
gains towards the end of 2020, a Reuters poll of market experts found... The rouble-based MOEX index has reached an all-time high of 3,009.1 in November, taking its year-to-date gain to over 25%, and
is seen finishing this year at 3,000.
That's not exactly what Washington had in mind.
However the real kicker is
this .
North American investors, led fully by Wall Street, account for over half of the foreign capital flowing into Russian stocks,
according to the Moscow Exchange. By comparison, Russia's next door neighbors in Europe account for only 26%.
So what is happening is that Washington is punishing Europe for cooperating with Russia, while turning a blind eye to when their
Wall Street donors cooperate with Russia.
As you may have guessed, this has created some hard feelings
.
Speaking on German TV, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the sanctions were an infringement of sovereignty...
The US sanctions have also angered Russia and the European Union, which says it should be able to decide its own energy policies.
"As a matter of principle, the EU opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business,"
a spokesman for the trading bloc told AFP news agency on Saturday.
Imagine that: countries making their own policy decisions that don't align with Washington's interests? What's the world coming
to?
Allseas, a Dutch-Swiss private company, is going to be significantly harmed by the newest sanctions, and it will delay the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline (but it will only delay it).
However, there is a
bright side
to all of this.
While it costs Moscow hundreds of millions in lost income and additional investments, the country is benefitting on a geostrategic
and political level.
For a mere $9.5 billion, NS2's price tag, Moscow has unintentionally managed to drive another wedge between key Western allies.
Berlin is furious about the sanctions and its already fraught relations with Washington are set to escalate even further. According
to German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, the American sanctions amount to "interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe."
What is certain is that NS2 will be completed eventually. Most of the work on the 1,230 kilometer or 765 mile long pipeline has
already been finished. Also, the vast majority of the $9.5 billion in investments have already been spent.
Much like our GWOT, we've reached a point in sanctions where staying the course just makes things worse.
It isn't just Russia. The Muslim world is looking for an
alternative trading system to avoid sanctions that Washington hasn't even threatened yet.
Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading among themselves in gold and through a barter system as a hedge against
any future economic sanctions on them, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Saturday.
..."I have suggested that we re-visit the idea of trading using the gold dinar and barter trade among us," Mahathir said, referring
to the Islamic medieval gold coin.
"We are seriously looking into this and we hope that we will be able to find a mechanism to put it into effect." The leaders agreed they needed do more business among themselves and trade in each other's currencies.
You know that you are using sanctions too much when other nations expect to be sanctioned by you before you even consider doing
it. As for the gold dinar, this is what was proposed by Libya's former leader Gaddafi, and also what got him eventually
killed .
The most recent batch of Clinton emails reveals perhaps the most bizarre morsel of Blumenthal-baked intelligence to date. An April
2, 2011 memo titled "France's client/Q's gold" quotes "knowledgeable individuals" with insider information about French President
Nicolas Sarkozy's motivation for bombing Libya. The military campaign, the anonymous sources say, was designed to quash plans
by Gaddafi to use $7 billion in secret gold and silver to prop up a new African currency. The French worried the move would undercut
the currency guaranteed by the French treasury, known as CFA franc, that's widely used in West Africa and acts as a strong link
between France and many of its former African colonies. After French intelligence officials got wind of this secret plan, the
Blumenthal memo reports, Sarkozy freaked out: "This was one of the factors that influenced [his] decision to commit France to
the attack on Libya."
Kruschev Many remember the quote "We will bury you". I think he was quoting someone else. Lenin?
But they forget the second sentence. "And the capitalists will sell us the shovel."
Greed is indeed a sickness, a mental illness. Not ordinary greed, but Scrooge McDuck greed. The need to have more more more,
when it cannot possibly make any difference in your life.
Not like the guys I worked with that volunteered for every Holiday, every overtime opportunity. The money did make a difference
there, although one can question whether it is worth it. But pursuing an extra billion when you already have tens of billions?
How much is enough? How high is up.
EDIT:
I'm reminded of the old sitcom "Mama's Family". Dim bulb son, Vinton, hears of a new larger lottery jackpot and says, "Wow! Imagine
how many lottery tickets you could buy with that much money!"
EDIT2:
Like an alcoholic that just drinks more and more until he passes out.
@entrepreneur
that capitalism selects for people with this mental illness. A person with a healthy view of life will never be selected as fortune
500 CEO.
excessive are the mountains of paper they accumulate are still stimulated by acquiring more. #1
And whether it be newspapers solidly packing every room in their homes to a depth of 6 feet, leaving barely a 12" crawl space
between the top of the stacks and the ceiling, or be it a pile of money, more than they and their extended family and descendants
can spend in 100 years, it is hoarding, a mental illness.
They have their own undersea pipe-laying equipment and experience. These sanctions will only delay the completion date for
a few more months. Russia under Putin is very patient, resolute and not prone to rash decisions. They play the long game and will
win out in the end.
Nord Stream 2 is financed by leading energy companies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Austria,
ENGIE, OMV, Shell, Uniper and Wintershall Dea. A multi-billion Euro investment in European industry and services, the project
involves more than 200 companies from 17 countries worldwide.
Well, congratulations Congress and Trump. This will drive a wedge between the US and Europe. Can you just imagine how those
investing in NS2 feel about the US. The US is saying in effect - lose all of your investment because we have determined that the
project is against our geopolitical/economic interests. And to make matters worse the pipeline will be completed, probably only
2 months behind schedule. So the financial backers will get hit, but will eventually see returns due to Russian efforts. Russia
could have built the entire pipeline themselves, but preferred to have European partners.
At the end of WWII most of Europe used coal for energy. The US had a goal to convert Europe to oil, since the US was the major
world exporter of oil. One of the stated reasons was to make Europe dependent on US oil and give the US political leverage over
European countries. So this whole thing is about the US projecting their geopolitical dominance schemes to Russia. As it has turned
out, for more than 70 years Russia and previously the USSR has never done that as a policy. The reason being that once you do
that you lose trust as a trade partner. But this is even worse as the US is interfering in trading among European partners that
has nothing to do directly with the US.
to Europe at the start of the 1980's, the US had just gone through the
Oil Shock of 1978–79 . The US
has not been a net exporter of oil for well over 75 years. It is only this year that this has changed through the extensive use
of fracking.
The oil shortage of the 1970's brought about the end of power generation using oil. The US, a major exporter of coal, was pushing
the use of American coal for energy security in Europe
since WWII.
Trump Makes American Coal Great Again -- Overseas
U.S. coal exports have exploded. Can that continue?
April 4, 2018
...
The export boom is the one part of Trump's pledge to help the coal sector that is coming true.
Production ticked up a bit last year after a disastrous 2016 but is still at the lowest level since 1978. And despite plenty
of promises to bring back jobs to coal country, coal mining employment only grew by some 1,100 jobs last year; mining employment
is down about 40 percent since 2012. Meanwhile, closures of coal-fired power plants continue apace, with more than two dozen
plants shutting down early last year alone, which means less domestic demand for coal.
...
And the Trump administration's other policies don't look like they'll end up helping coal much either. The push to increase
exports of natural gas to Europe, Asia, and Latin America undermines the overseas market for U.S. coal, since both can be used
to generate electricity. And as U.S. coal is shipped abroad, its price at home tends to rise slightly -- making coal even less
attractive as a power source there.
"Unfortunately, most of the policies the Trump administration is pursuing inside and outside of energy do not help domestic
coal production," Book says.
Trump can be impeached as a war criminal just for his false flag Douma attack (along with
members of his administration). But Neoliberal Dems and frst of all Pelosi are war criminals too,
with Pelosi aiding and abetting war criminal Bush.
So this is a variation of the theme of Lavrentiy Beria most famous quote: "Show me a
man and I will find you a crime"
I think tose neolib Dems who supported impeachment disqualified themselves from the running.
That includes Warren, who proved to be a very weak, easily swayed politician. It is quote
probably that they increased (may be considerably) chances of Trump reelection, but pushing
independents who were ready to abandon him, back into Trump camp. Now Trump is able to present
himself as a victim of neoliberal Dems/neocons witch hunt.
The only real check left is impeachment. It is rarely invoked and (until very recently) has
atrophied as a credible threat. But that doesn't make it any less
indispensable.
The problem was exacerbated by the Clinton impeachment fiasco, which history has proved
foolhardy. (I supported it at the time, but I was a government lawyer then, not a public
commentator.) Republicans were sufficiently spooked by the experience that they seemed to
regard impeachment as obsolete. Faithless Execution countered that this was the wrong
lesson to take from the affair. Clinton's impeachment was a mistake because (a) his conduct,
though disgraceful and indicative of unfitness, did not implicate the core responsibilities of
the presidency; and more significantly, (b) the public, though appalled by the behavior,
strongly opposed Clinton's removal. The right lesson was that impeachment must be reserved for
grave misconduct that involves the president's essential Article II duties; and that because
impeachment is so deeply divisive, it should never be launched in the absence of a public
consensus that transcends partisan lines.
This is why, unlike many opponents of President Trump's impeachment, I have never questioned
the legitimacy of the Democratic-controlled House's investigations of misconduct allegations
against the president. I believe the House must act as a body (investigations should not be
partisan attacks under the guise of House inquiries), and it must respect the lawful and
essential privileges of the executive branch; but within those parameters, Congress has the
authority and responsibility to expose executive misconduct.
Moreover, while egregious misconduct will usually be easy to spot and grasp, that will not
always be the case. When members of Congress claim to see it, they should have a fair
opportunity to expose and explain it. To my mind, President Obama was the kind of chief
executive that the Framers feared, but this was not obvious because he was not committing
felonies. Instead, he was consciously undermining our constitutional order. He usurped the
right to dictate law rather than execute it. His extravagant theory of executive discretion to
"waive" the enforcement of laws he opposed flouted his basic constitutional duty to execute the
laws faithfully. He and his underlings willfully and serially deceived Congress and the public
on such major matters as Obamacare and the Benghazi massacre. They misled Congress on, and
obstructed its investigation of, the outrageous Fast and Furious "gun-walking" operation, in
connection with which a border patrol agent was murdered. With his Iran deal, the president
flouted the Constitution's treaty process and colluded with a hostile foreign power to withhold
information from Congress, in an arrangement that empowered (and paid cash ransom to) the
world's leading sponsor of anti-American terrorism.
My critics fairly noted that I opposed Obama politically, and therefore contended that I was
masquerading as a constitutional objection what was really a series of policy disputes. I don't
think that is right, though, for two reasons.
First, my impeachment argument was not that Obama was pursuing policies I deeply opposed. I
was very clear that elections have consequences, and the president had every right to press his
agenda. My objection was that he was imposing his agenda lawlessly, breaking the limitations
within which the Framers cabined executive power, precisely to prevent presidents from becoming
tyrants. If allowed to stand, Obama precedents would permanently alter our governing framework.
Impeachment is there to protect our governing framework.
Second, I argued that, my objections notwithstanding, Obama should not be impeached in the
absence of a public consensus for his removal. Yes, Republicans should try to build that case,
try to edify the public about why the president's actions threatened the Constitution and its
separation of powers. But they should not seek to file articles of impeachment simply because
they could -- i.e., because control of the House theoretically gave them the numbers to do it.
The House is not obliged to file impeachment articles just because there may be impeachable
conduct. Because impeachment is so divisive, the Framers feared that it could be triggered on
partisan rather than serious grounds. The two-thirds supermajority requirement for Senate
conviction guards against that: The House should not impeach unless there is a reasonable
possibility that the Senate would remove -- which, in Obama's case, there was not.
I also tried to focus on incentives. If impeachment were a credible threat, and Congress
began investigating and publicly exposing abuses, a sensible president would desist in the
misconduct, making it unnecessary to proceed with impeachment. On the other hand, a failed
impeachment effort would likely embolden a rogue president to continue abusing power. If your
real concern is executive lawlessness, then impeaching heedlessly and against public opinion
would be counterproductive.
I've taken the same tack with President Trump.
The objections to Trump are very different from those to Obama. He is breaking not laws but
norms of presidential behavior and decorum. For the most part, I object to this. There are lots
of things about our government that need disruption, but even disruptive presidents should be
mindful that they hold the office of Washington and Lincoln and aspire to their dignity, even
if their greatness is out of reach.
That said, impeachment is about serious abuse of the presidency's core powers, not behavior
that is intemperate or gauche. Critics must be mindful that the People, not the pundits, are
sovereign, and they elected Donald Trump well aware of his flaws. That he turns out to be as
president exactly what he appeared to be as a candidate is not a rationale for impeaching
him.
The president's misconduct on Ukraine is small potatoes. Democrats were right to expose it,
and we would be dealing with a more serious situation if the defense aid appropriated by
Congress had actually been denied, rather than inconsequentially delayed. If Democrats had
wanted to make a point about discouraging foreign interference in American politics
(notwithstanding their long record of encouraging it), that would have been fine. They could
have called for the president's censure, which would have put Republicans on the defensive.
Ukraine could have been incorporated as part of their 2020 campaign that Trump should be
defeated, despite a surging economy and relative peace.
Conducting an impeachment inquiry is one thing, but for the House to take the drastic step
of impeaching the president is abusive on this record. Yes, it was foolish of Trump to mention
the Bidens to President Zelensky and to seek Ukraine's help in investigating the Bidens. There
may well be corruption worth probing, but the president ought to leave that to researchers in
his campaign. If there is something that a government should be looking into, leave that to the
Justice Department, which can (and routinely does) seek foreign assistance when necessary. The
president, however, should have stayed out of it. Still, it is absurd to posit, as Democrats
do, that, by not staying out of it, the president threatened election integrity and U.S.
national security. Such outlandish arguments may make Ukraine more of a black eye for Democrats
than for the president.
But whoever ultimately bears the brunt of the impeachment push, I have to ask myself a hard
question: Is this the world I was asking for when I wrote a book contending that, for our
system to work as designed, impeachment has to be a credible threat? I don't think so . . . but
I do worry about it.
Back to the Clinton impeachment. I tried to make the point that that impeachment effort --
against public opinion, and based on misconduct that, while dreadful, was not central to the
presidency -- has contributed significantly to the poisonous politics we have today. Democrats
have been looking for payback ever since, and now they have it -- in a way that is very likely
to make impeachment more routine in the future.
I don't see how our constitutional system can work without a viable impeachment remedy. But
I may have been wrong to believe that we could be trusted to invoke the remedy responsibly. I
used to poke fun at pols who would rather hide under their desks than utter the dreaded I-word.
Turns out they knew something I didn't.
...& overwhelming," but this Scam Impeachment was neither. Also, very unfair with no
Due Process, proper representation, or witnesses. Now Pelosi is demanding everything the
Republicans weren't allowed to have in the House. Dems want to run majority Republican
Senate. Hypocrites!
Donald J. Trump 7:12 PM - 25 Dec 2019
Why should Crazy Nancy Pelosi, just because she has a slight majority in the House, be
allowed to Impeach the President of the United States? Got ZERO Republican votes, there was
no crime, the call with Ukraine was perfect, with "no pressure." She said it must be
"bipartisan...
The #Dems ' war on democracy ratcheting up as they refuse to send the articles of
impeachment to the Senate for a proper trial. GOP Congressman @RepMarkGreen says ' #NancyPelosi is a
tyrannical person OUT OF CONTROL!' #TrishRegan
O nce in a blue moon an indispensable book comes out making a clear case for sanity in what
is now a post-MAD world. That's the responsibility carried by " The (Real)
Revolution in Military Affairs ," by Andrei Martyanov (Clarity Press), arguably the most
important book of 2019.
Martyanov is the total package -- and he comes with extra special attributes as a top-flight
Russian military analyst, born in Baku in those Back in the U.S.S.R. days, living and working
in the U.S., and writing and blogging in English.
Right from the start, Martyanov wastes no time destroying not only Fukuyama's and
Huntington's ravings but especially Graham Allison's childish and meaningless Thucydides Trap
argument -- as if the power equation between the U.S. and China in the 21stcentury could be
easily interpreted in parallel to Athens and Sparta slouching towards the Peloponnesian War
over 2,400 years ago. What next? Xi Jinping as the new Genghis Khan?
(By the way, the best current essay on Thucydides is in Italian, by Luciano Canfora ("
Tucidide: La Menzogna, La Colpa, L'Esilio" ). No Trap. Martyanov visibly relishes defining the
Trap as a "figment of the imagination" of people who "have a very vague understanding of real
warfare in the 21st century." No wonder Xi explicitly said the Trap does not exist.)
Martyanov had already detailed in his splendid, previous book, "Losing Military Supremacy:
The Myopia of American Strategic Planning," how "American lack of historic experience with
continental warfare" ended up "planting the seeds of the ultimate destruction of the American
military mythology of the 20thand 21stcenturies which is foundational to the American decline,
due to hubris and detachment of reality." Throughout the book, he unceasingly provides solid
evidence about the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a possible, future war against
real armies (not the Taliban or Saddam Hussein's), air forces, air defenses and naval
power.
Do the Math
One of the key takeaways is the failure of U.S. mathematical models: and readers of the book
do need to digest quite a few mathematical equations. The key point is that this failure led
the U.S. "on a continuous downward spiral of diminishing military capabilities against the
nation [Russia] she thought she defeated in the Cold War."
In the U.S., Revolution in Military
Affairs (RMA) was introduced by the late Andrew Marshall, a.k.a. Yoda, the former head of
Net Assessment at the Pentagon and the de facto inventor of the "pivot to Asia" concept. Yet
Martyanov tells us that RMA actually started as MTR (Military-Technological Revolution),
introduced by Soviet military theoreticians back in the 1970s.
One of the staples of RMA concerns nations capable of producing land-attack cruise missiles,
a.k.a. TLAMs. As it stands, only the U.S., Russia, China and France can do it. And there are
only two global systems providing satellite guidance to cruise missiles: the American GPS and
the Russian GLONASS. Neither China's BeiDou nor the European Galileo qualify – yet
– as global GPS systems.
Then there's Net-Centric Warfare (NCW). The term itself was coined by the late Admiral
Arthur Cebrowski in 1998 in an
article he co-wrote with John Garstka's titled, "Network-Centric Warfare – Its Origin and
Future."
Deploying his mathematical equations, Martyanov soon tells us that "the era of subsonic
anti-shipping missiles is over." NATO, that brain-dead organism (copyright Emmanuel Macron)
now has to face the supersonic Russian P-800 Onyx and the Kalibr-class M54 in a "highly hostile
Electronic Warfare environment." Every developed modern military today applies Net-Centric Warfare
(NCW), developed by the Pentagon in the 1990s.
Rendering of a future combat systems network. (soldiersmediacenter/Flickr, CC BY 2.0,
Wikimedia Commons)
Martyanov
mentions in his new book something that I learned on my visit to Donbass in March 2015: how
NCW principles, "based on Russia's C4ISR capabilities made available by the Russian military to
numerically inferior armed forces of the Donbass Republics (LDNR), were used to devastating
effect both at the battles of Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo, when attacking the cumbersome Soviet-era
Ukrainian Armed Forces military."
No Escape From the Kinzhal
Martyanov provides ample information on Russia's latest missile – the hypersonic
Mach-10 aero-ballistic Kinzhal, recently tested in the Arctic.
Crucially, as he explains, "no existing anti-missile defense in the U.S. Navy is capable of
shooting [it] down even in the case of the detection of this missile." Kinzhal has a range of
2,000 km, which leaves its carriers, MiG-31K and TU-22M3M, "invulnerable to the only defense a
U.S. Carrier Battle Group, a main pillar of U.S. naval power, can mount – carrier fighter
aircraft." These fighters simply don't have the range.
The Kinzhal was one of the weapons announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin's
game-changing March
1, 2018 speech at the Federal Assembly. That's the day, Martyanov stresses, when the real
RMA arrived, and "changed completely the face of peer-peer warfare, competition and global
power balance dramatically."
Top Pentagon officials such as General
John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have admitted on the record there are "no
existing countermeasures" against, for instance, the hypersonic, Mach 27 glide vehicle Avangard
(which renders anti-ballistic missile systems useless), telling the U.S. Senate Armed Services
Committee the only way out would be "a nuclear deterrent." There are also no existing
counter-measures against anti-shipping missiles such as the Zircon and Kinzhal.
Any military analyst knows very well how the Kinzhal destroyed a land target the size of a
Toyota Corolla in Syria after being launched 1,000 km away in adverse weather conditions. The
corollary is the stuff of NATO nightmares: NATO's command and control installations in Europe
are de facto indefensible.
Martyanov gets straight to the point: "The introduction of hypersonic weapons surely pours
some serious cold water on the American obsession with securing the North American continent
from retaliatory strikes."
Kh-47M2 Kinzhal; 2018 Moscow Victory Day Parade. (Kremilin via Wikimedia Commons)
Martyanov is thus unforgiving on U.S. policymakers who "lack the necessary tool-kit for
grasping the unfolding geostrategic reality in which the real revolution in military affairs
had dramatically downgraded the always inflated American military capabilities and continues to
redefine U.S. geopolitical status away from its self-declared hegemony."
And it gets worse: "Such weapons ensure a guaranteed retaliation [Martyanov's italics] on
the U.S. proper." Even the existing Russian nuclear deterrents – and to a lesser degree
Chinese, as paraded recently -- "are capable of overcoming the existing U.S. anti-ballistic
systems and destroying the United States," no matter what crude propaganda the Pentagon is
peddling.
In February 2019, Moscow announced the completion of tests of a nuclear-powered engine for
the Petrel cruise missile. This is a subsonic cruise missile with nuclear propulsion that can
remain in air for quite a long time, covering intercontinental distances, and able to attack
from the most unexpected directions. Martyanov mischievously characterizes the Petrel as "a
vengeance weapon in case some among American decision-makers who may help precipitate a new
world war might try to hide from the effects of what they have unleashed in the relative safety
of the Southern Hemisphere."
Hybrid War Gone Berserk
A section of the book expands on China's military progress, and the fruits of the
Russia-China strategic partnership, such as Beijing buying $3 billion-worth of S-400 Triumph
anti-aircraft missiles -- "ideally suited to deal with the exact type of strike assets the
United States would use in case of a conventional conflict with China."
Beijing parade celebrating the 70th anniversary of the People's Republic, October 2019.
(YouTube screenshot)
Because of the timing, the analysis does not even take into consideration the arsenal
presented in early October at the Beijing parade celebrating the 70thanniversary of the
People's Republic.
That includes, among other things, the "carrier-killer" DF-21D, designed to hit warships at
sea at a range of up to 1,500 km; the intermediate range "Guam Killer" DF-26; the DF-17
hypersonic missile; and the long-range submarine-launched and ship-launched YJ-18A anti-ship
cruise missiles. Not to mention the DF-41 ICBM – the backbone of China's nuclear
deterrent, capable of reaching the U.S. mainland carrying multiple warheads.
Martyanov could not escape addressing the RAND Corporation, whose reason to exist is to
relentlessly push for more money for the Pentagon – blaming Russia for "hybrid war" (an
American invention) even as it moans about the U.S.'s incapacity of defeating Russia in each
and every war game. RAND's war games pitting the U.S. and allies against Russia and China
invariably ended in a "catastrophe" for the "finest fighting force in the world."
Martyanov also addresses the S-500s, capable of reaching AWACS planes and possibly even
capable of intercepting hypersonic non-ballistic targets. The S-500 and its latest middle-range
state of the art air-defense system S-350 Vityaz will be operational in 2020.
His key takeway: "There is no parity between Russia and the United States in such fields as
air-defense, hypersonic weapons and, in general, missile development, to name just a few fields
– the United States lags behind in these fields, not just in years but in generations
[italics mine]."
All across the Global South, scores of nations are very much aware that the U.S. economic
"order" – rather disorder – is on the brink of collapse. In contrast, a
cooperative, connected, rule-based, foreign relations between sovereign nations model is being
advanced in Eurasia – symbolized by the merging of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI), the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO), the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the NDB (the BRICS bank).
The key guarantors of the new model are Russia and China. And Beijing and Moscow harbor no
illusion whatsoever about the toxic dynamics in Washington. My recent conversations with top
analysts in Kazakhstan last month and in Moscow last week once again stressed the futility of
negotiating with people described – with overlapping shades of sarcasm – as
exceptionalist fanatics. Russia, China and many corners of Eurasia have figured out there are
no possible, meaningful deals with a nation bent on breaking every deal.
Indispensable?
No: Vulnerable
Martyanov cannot but evoke Putin's speech to the Federal Assembly in February 2019, after
the unilateral Washington abandonment of the INF treaty, clearing the way for U.S. deployment
of intermediate and close range missiles stationed in Europe and pointed at Russia:
"Russia will be forced to create and deploy those types of weapons against those regions
from where we will face a direct threat, but also against those regions hosting the centers
where decisions are taken on using those missile systems threatening us."
Translation: American Invulnerability is over – for good.
In the short term, things can always get worse. At his traditional, year-end presser in
Moscow, lasting almost four and a half hours, Putin stated that Russia is more than ready to
"simply renew the existing New START agreement", which is bound to expire in early 2021: "They
[the U.S.] can send us the agreement tomorrow, or we can sign and send it to Washington." And
yet, "so far our proposals have been left unanswered. If the New START ceases to exist, nothing
in the world will hold back an arms race. I believe this is bad."
"Bad" is quite the euphemism. Martyanov prefers to stress how "most of the American elites,
at least for now, still reside in a state of Orwellian cognitive dissonance" even as the real
RMA "blew the myth of American conventional invincibility out of the water."
Martyanov is one of the very few analysts – always from different parts of Eurasia --
who have warned about the danger of the U.S. "accidentally stumbling" into a war against
Russia, China, or both which is impossible to be won conventionally, "let alone through the
nightmare of a global nuclear catastrophe."
Is that enough to instill at least a modicum of sense into those who lord over that massive
cash cow, the industrial-military-security complex? Don't count on it.
* * *
Pepe Escobar, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong
Kong-based Asia Times . His latest book is
"
2030 ." Follow him on Facebook .
This is like the debate about the fundamental question "How many angels can dance on the head
of a pin?"
Notable quotes:
"... has President Trump been impeached, or did the House vote merely represent an authorization or intention to impeach -- which becomes an actual impeachment only when the articles are transmitted? ..."
Speaker Pelosi's unconstitutional decision to delay transmission of the articles of
impeachment to the Senate in order to gain partisan advantage raises the following question:
has President Trump been impeached, or did the House vote merely represent an authorization
or intention to impeach -- which becomes an actual impeachment only when the articles are
transmitted? This highly technical constitutional issue is being debated by two of my
former Harvard Law School colleagues -- Professors Laurence Tribe and Noah Feldman -- both
liberal Democrats who support President Trump's impeachment.
Tribe believes that Trump has been impeached and that it would be perfectly proper to
leave it at that : by declining to transmit the articles of impeachment, the Democrats get a
win-win. President Trump remains impeached but he gets no opportunity to be tried and
acquitted by the Senate. This cynical, partisan ploy is acceptable to Tribe because it brings
about the partisan result he prefers: Trump bears forever the stigma of impeachment without
having the opportunity to challenge that stigma by a Senate acquittal. Under the Tribe
scenario, the House Democrats get to "obstruct" the Senate and "abuse" their power (to borrow
terms from the articles of impeachment).
Feldman disagrees with Tribe, arguing -- quite correctly -- that impeachment and a removal
trial go together. If a president is impeached, he must be tried. Impeachment, in his view,
is not merely a vote; it is the first step in a constitutionally mandated two-step process.
He goes so far as to say that if the articles of impeachment are not forwarded to the Senate
for trial, there has been no valid impeachment.
It's official: "Freedom gas" is the Worst Phrase of the Year, according to the Plain
English Foundation. But where does the expression come from? EURACTIV did not have to look
far to get the answer
So where does the whole story come from?
On 1 May, EURACTIV's energy and climate reporter Frédéric Simon attended
a briefing with US energy secretary Rick Perry in Brussels. He recalls the events
below.
The four journalists in the room had spent about an hour asking Perry a basic question:
why would Europeans choose to pay for expensive LNG imported from the US when they have
access to cheap Russian gas?
"But my surprise soon turned to dismay when Perry suddenly took a grave face and
started talking about the Normandy landings during WWII for which commemorations were planned
days after."
Here's what Perry went on to say: Seventy-five years after liberating Europe from Nazi
Germany occupation, "the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European
continent," the US energy secretary told reporters that day.
"And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it's in the form of liquefied
natural gas," he added. "So yes, I think you may be correct in your observation," he said in
reference to Fred's suggestion about 'Freedom gas' .
####
Quite instructive about the mindset (f/king nuts) they are over in the States. They really
do live in their own universe where no-one picks up their dogs' (and their own) crap. They
neither notice the smell nor link to the slipperyness underfoot to their own actions. They
don't care either.
They like to talk about the European "blood-debt" to the USA.
I don't know what they think a large number of unfortunate young men were doing on Gold,
Juno and Sword beaches in June, 1944, or indeed that there were such beaches. Even moreso,
they are apparently unaware of the over 22 million Soviet citizens who died 1941-1945 during
what is known as "The Great Patriotic War for the Fatherland, 1941-1945"..
Analysts have identified a way to increase the export of Gazprom to bypass the Ukraine The
Eugal pipeline built to deliver gas from "Nord Stream-2 " to end users, will be operating
in 2020, despite US sanctions. "Gazprom" will redirect gas to this pipeline from "Northern
stream-1", experts say
The capacity of the Eugal onshore gas pipeline, built specifically for delivering gas from
the Nord Stream-2 offshore gas pipeline to end users, may allow Gazprom to increase supplies to
Europe bypassing the Ukraine, despite the fact that the United States has imposed sanctions
against laying the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline. , said experts interviewed by RBC.
The Gascade Gastransport operator,
controlled by Gazprom and the German Wintershall Dea , will commission the first of two Eugal
pipelines with a capacity of 30.9 billion cubic metres per year from January 1, 2020 (total
pipe capacity should be 55 billion cubic metres), which will go from German Greifswald on the
Baltic Sea to the south to the border with the Czech Republic, the Eugal press service said on
December 20. And the next day it became known that the European pipe-laying company Allseas had
suspended the construction of Nord Stream-2 (which should pump 55 billion cubic meters per
year) in the Baltic Sea.
Eugal will lay another 36 billion cubic metre capacity OPAL landline, built to pump gas from the first
Baltic gas pipeline of Gazprom and partners, Nord Stream-1, which achieved at full capacity 55
billion cubic metres per year back in October 2012. Since 2013, Gazprom could only use 50% of
OPAL capacity because of restrictions, and in 2016, the company received permission to connect
to 90% of the pipeline capacity. However, in September 2019, Gazprom was forced to reduce gas
pumping through OPAL, and then through Nord Stream-1, because of a decision of the European
Court of Justice, which, in lawsuit filed by Poland, limited supply by almost half – from
90 to 50% of capacity , or up to 18 billion cubic metres per year.
"The launch of Eugal will ensure a full load of Nord Stream-1. About 20 billion cubic
metres of gas per year can be delivered via a new land gas pipeline, which volume was lost
because of restrictions imposed as a result of Poland's victory in court", said Mikhail
Korchemkin, director of East European Gas Analysis, to RBC. The remaining 17–20 billion
cubic metre Gazprom can pump through a second branch from the offshore gas pipeline
NEL , which runs only through
Germany to the west of Greifswald, so Poland could not achieve restrictions on its
capacity.
At the peak of capacity, OPAL pumped up to 103 million cubic metres of gas per day owing to
a decision of the European Court to decrease transit to 50 million cubic metre. Last week, it
fell to 12 million cubic metres per day. This is due to an increase of 115 million cubic metres
per day in supplies to the NEL gas pipeline, as well as an increase in transit to Europe
through the territory of the Ukraine, Korchemkin points out.
"Now most of the gas from Nord Stream-1, which continues to operate at its design capacity,
is sent to the markets of northwestern Europe through NEL, that is, the limitation of the use
of OPAL by the decision of the European Court has practically had no affect on the load of Nord
Stream", added Deputy General Director of the National Energy Policy Fund, Alexey Grivach.
According to him, after the introduction of Eugal, part of the gas can go to Central Europe
through a new onshore gas pipeline, depending on the current market needs and the optimization
of Gazprom's export portfolio.
Despite the impending U.S. sanctions, the possibility of using Eugal to pump Gazprom's gas
was recognized in November by Arno Bux, chief commercial officer of gas transmission operator
Fluxys, which is a minority shareholder in Gascade. According to him, since 2020, from 80 to
90% of the Eugal capacity has already been booked for 20 years at auctions. "Since the
transportation facilities are reserved on a ship-or-pay basis (" transport or pay "), the
potential delays of the Nord Stream-2 project do not affect Eugal's revenues", he told
Interfax, noting that the flows from the gas pipeline Nord Stream 1 can be routed through
Eugal.
"We cannot predict the volumes that will be transported through Eugal, because it
depends on requests from transport customers", Gascade spokesman Georg Wustner told RBC on
December 23, declining to specify whether gas supplies from Nord Stream-1 will begin on
January 1 through a new onshore pipeline. A representative of Gazprom Export declined to
comment; the press service of Nord Stream AG (operator of the Nord Stream-1 project) did not
respond to a request from RBC.
Lavrov on the 22nd appeared on what looks to be an interesting program on Russia's Channel
One--
"The Great Game Show" with a transcript at the link. Most of the questions deal with
Lavrov's recent trip to the Outlaw US Empire and his meetings with Trump and Pompeo. I found
Lavrov's remarks about Congress most revealing as they're very similar to what he says about
the tiny Russophobic nations other NATO nations seem to feel they can't break with the
overall consensus despite its being idiotic. His response is related to the illegal sanctions
laid against the construction of Nord Stream 2:
"They are threatening it. I said it will be built, no matter what, despite all these
threats. First, I am convinced that the Europeans understand their commercial interest.
Second, this implies an interest in the context of maintaining long-term energy security.
Third, they were, of course, humiliated. The statements were, nevertheless, made, including
those from Berlin which shows that our European partners still retain a sense of dignity.
"I am confident that, just like the TurkStream project, Nord Stream 2 will be implemented,
and TurkStream will start operating some two or three weeks from now.
"US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo want to expand trade, but
the US Congress continues to bombard our relations with sanctions. A situation that has now
shaped up in the United States shows that, in their striving to revise election results and
the will of the American people, these Congressmen are ready to do anything, including
absolutely reckless things that, I would say, are not worthy of serious politicians."
As you read the transcript, you'll realize that this is a very serious program where the
truth of the overall situation is being revealed and remarked upon in a manner that would be
unimaginable here within the Outlaw US Empire, and I presume the program is viewed by a
majority of Russians. It should certainly be read in relation to what Putin said at
his presser on
the topics covered and at the Informal CIS Summit .
Many are busy with their plans for the holidays, and the combined transcripts will take
4-6 hours to read, so perhaps bookmark them to read before New Year when more time's
available.
"... It would have been simpler and much cheaper to supply the gas through land pipelines via Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland. But the undersea pipelines had to be built because the Levantine dual nationals parachuted in by the State Department to rule over Ukraine and the Baltics on Washington's behalf have shown themselves to be totally unreliable economic partners. Ukraine refused to pay for gas that was supplied and stole gas intended for European countries. The rabid Levantines in the Baltics and Poland were equally hostile. They could have made billions in transit fees, but they always insisted on cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Bulgaria blocked South Stream on Washington's instructions and lost a reliable source of cheap gas and $400 million a year in transit fees. A lot of money and a lot of jobs for a poor country. US satellites pay a high price to kowtow to Uncle Sam. Russia developed its own port facilities in the Baltic and Riga is now a ghost town. ..."
"... Its surprising how history repeats itself. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon achieved dominance over continental Europe. Only Britain stood against him. Napoleon tried to bring Britain to heel through economic warfare, the Continental System, ordering European countries not to trade with his sole remaining enemy. His orders were ignored all the way from Spain to Russia, and this lucrative trade continued. The invasion of Russia and the debacle at Moscow were an attempt to enforce the Continental System. In a similar fashion, Washington's hubris and unbridled arrogance are now alienating even its most abject, cringing, servile satraps like Macron, Merkel, and Erdogan. With the same result. ..."
"... Uncle Sam sees Nord-2 as an energy superpower challenge to energy supremacy which equates to American supremacy & hegemonic supremacy writ large across the world. If the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation make inroads by unilaterally making massive energy deals with the entire EU we will see American interests clamoring for market inroads & market share so that the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation don't make a dime. ..."
"... Uncle Sam is in actuality a waning ex-superpower thug that is yesterday's man but can't stand being taken out of the limelight being the narcissist nation it is. ..."
"... Zackarova is bang on in that the USA is wholly incompetent to govern their own business interests let alone other sovereign interests. Nord-2 is necessary infrastructure that the USA wants to thwart for their own monetary benefit. ..."
"... Stepping aside from the geopolitics for a moment. In terms of economics the US is attempting to push Russia out of natural gas markets. ..."
"... Greenpeace is yet another "NGO" that is heavily influenced by the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front that supports US Imperialism. ..."
"... One wonders if the invertebrates of the EU will ever tire of being bullied by the Global Bullying Thug in Chief? The clerico-fascists of priest-ridden Poland one can understand, and the phony 'greens' of Greenpeace the sell-out specialists, but the others are just like mongrel dogs-the more you kick them, the more they lick your boots. ..."
What would Dr Kampmark consider to be an ecologically cleaner alternative to Nordstream I and 2? The US proposal to supply LNG
via an endless conga line of tankers across the North Atlantic would be an ecological nightmare, to say nothing of the specialised
port facilities that need to be built to accommodate the tankers, the extra pipelines needed to pipe the gas to areas of Europe
away from the Atlantic and the potential for accidents and disasters during annual hurricane season. Europe needs the best energy
supply solution possible from a sustainability POV and other POVs and while Nordstream I and 2 may not be perfect, other solutions
are either worse, more expensive or less certain and stable in the long term.
Shale gas is also poop. Only someone totally corrupt or totally insane would buy such junk from the USA.
The collapse of an empire brings up such interesting stuff.
I am of course a Russian troll for stating the obvious, so a merry Christmas from the Kremlin.
Let nuclear bombers fly, baby. Who wants another Christmas. The majority of the present American government (including Trump) are evangelical Christians who believe in
the Rapture . You wouldn't put such people in charge of a
car park, let alone put them in charge of the biggest nuclear weapons arsenal on the planet.
I find this a bit of a strange piece, for reasons that many others have pointed out here in the comments.
With regard to the environmental angle, I should perhaps point out that by far the biggest polluter on the planet is the US
military.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The US Military pollutes everything under the sun far past Internet & the over 900 worldwide bases it occupies. Heck, the US MIC
pollutes all sports venues with their propagandistic parades of adherence to state & flag military shows.
In the USA they make you stand in honour of the military at sports events.
I'm glad I don't go down to the USA for the USA Grand National Drag Racing events just because of the MIC pollution at events.
Their propaganda pollution is all over the Internet and that is toxic waste that we all have to sift through on our way to real
news aside from institutional American killing of the third world.
GI-Joe turned out to be anything but a good hippie in my book.
MOU
ttshasta ,
The article mentions Rex Tillerson, yet fails to mention Qatar. Exxon Mobil & Exxon Mobil Qatar, that Tillerson worked for, want
to run an LP pipeline from the Norths Pars gas field, the worlds largest, and Qatar owns 2/3 of,through Saudi Arabia, through
Jordan, Syria, through Alleppo then through Turkey on to Europe. Thus Qatar, S.A. and Turkey have sponsored the foreign invasion
of Syria that the the dolts at NPR to this day call a civil war. The US's Al Udeid air base in Qatar is the largest in the region,
Cheney has been to Qatar many times as have Barack and Michele Obama, John Ashcroft was paid $2.5 million to defend Qatar from
post 911 terrorism charges.
Does it seem the article misses the elephant in the room? US Qatari investments must profit?
Never forget the Clintons, Qatar donates to Clinton Foundation, State Dpt. sells weapons to Qatar (diverted to Syria?), candidate
Clinton to declare no fly zone over Syria as POTUS.
In 2016 Thierry Messan's Voltairenet dot org translated an article from Petra the official Jordanian press paper that S.A. financed
20% of Clinton's campaign, which is illegal under US law. Subsequently, and conveniently, Saudi Prince M.B.S. declared Petra had
been hacked and the report was false. I rely on Thierry's translations, and his voluminous site.
Excellent comment. As always, one should follow the money trail.
paul ,
I've never understood the argument that buying Russian gas is a threat to the security of European countries. Russia doesn't supply
the gas out of altruism, it does so because it wants their money. They are dependent on Russian gas. Russia is dependent on their
money. Mutual dependence, mutual gain.
During the Cold War, Russia always supplied every last gallon of oil and every cubic foot of gas that contracts obliged it
to deliver. It did so, again because it wanted their money. Simple as that.
It would have been simpler and much cheaper to supply the gas through land pipelines via Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland. But
the undersea pipelines had to be built because the Levantine dual nationals parachuted in by the State Department to rule over
Ukraine and the Baltics on Washington's behalf have shown themselves to be totally unreliable economic partners. Ukraine refused
to pay for gas that was supplied and stole gas intended for European countries. The rabid Levantines in the Baltics and Poland
were equally hostile. They could have made billions in transit fees, but they always insisted on cutting off their noses to spite
their faces. Bulgaria blocked South Stream on Washington's instructions and lost a reliable source of cheap gas and $400 million
a year in transit fees. A lot of money and a lot of jobs for a poor country. US satellites pay a high price to kowtow to Uncle
Sam. Russia developed its own port facilities in the Baltic and Riga is now a ghost town.
Uncle Sam is now waging economic warfare and imposing sanctions on its previously most loyal and obedient satellites, Canada,
Mexico, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Turkey.
Its surprising how history repeats itself. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon achieved dominance over
continental Europe. Only Britain stood against him. Napoleon tried to bring Britain to heel through economic warfare, the Continental
System, ordering European countries not to trade with his sole remaining enemy. His orders were ignored all the way from Spain
to Russia, and this lucrative trade continued. The invasion of Russia and the debacle at Moscow were an attempt to enforce the
Continental System. In a similar fashion, Washington's hubris and unbridled arrogance are now alienating even its most abject,
cringing, servile satraps like Macron, Merkel, and Erdogan. With the same result.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Uncle Sam sees Nord-2 as an energy superpower challenge to energy supremacy which equates to American supremacy & hegemonic supremacy
writ large across the world. If the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation make inroads by unilaterally making massive
energy deals with the entire EU we will see American interests clamoring for market inroads & market share so that the pinko commie
bastards in the Russian Federation don't make a dime.
Uncle Sam is in actuality a waning ex-superpower thug that is yesterday's man but can't stand being taken out of the limelight
being the narcissist nation it is.
Can you imagine being dependent on the usa for anything never mind fracked gas at twice the price.no doubt brave new worlder boris
will go for it.gb inc looks over and done with.
Guy ,
"Can you imagine being dependent on the usa for anything"
Yes I can .I live in Canada and they basically own our country, for all intent and purposes .
They did not conquer us militarily but they so corporately.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Zackarova is bang on in that the USA is wholly incompetent to govern their own business interests let alone other sovereign interests.
Nord-2 is necessary infrastructure that the USA wants to thwart for their own monetary benefit.
The USA is anachronism, insolvent, and lacks common sense as well as entrepreneurial spirit & business acumen.
MOU
padre ,
How very concerned about environment we are, when somebody else is "destroying" it!
paul ,
The US certainly showed how concerned it was about the environment with the North Dakota pipeline.
Francis Lee ,
Stepping aside from the geopolitics for a moment. In terms of economics the US is attempting to push Russia out of natural gas
markets. If a company did this it would be attempting to construct a monopoly and be subject to anti-competitive laws. If the
US becomes the sole supplier in Europe then it has a stranglehold, both economic and political, on Europe. That's the strategy,
and it seems blatantly obvious.
But the construction being put on this sordid little play by the Anglo-American MSM is that the
US frackers – who never make a profit – are doing Europe a really big favour by enabling them not to become dependent on Russian
gas. The Europeans should there for be grateful for US LNG since it will enable to diversify away from Russian gas.
The reality is, however, that once you become dependent on a single overseas crucial energy source you have been unceremoniously
grabbed by the short and curlies.
Antonym ,
Simply connect more European harbors to the existing gas pipeline network and choose the LNG supplier you want.
Not rocket science but Dutch PM Rutte was sold on abolishing natural gas because of CO2, while trees from North America for burning
in power plants was fine.
Neighbour PM Merkel Germany wants gas but not nuclear (a scientist!). France wants nuclear but rely on a new unproven expensive
design.
Political inmates are running the EU madhouse.
John Deehan ,
In this article, it misses the whole point of why the USA wants to impose sanctions, rather late in the day, on companies involved
in its construction. Namely, the continued attempts by it to isolate The Russian Federation and its its long term strategy of
preparations for war. Moreover, the omission of the reasons why Russia built the gas pipeline could not be more striking. The
coup in the Ukraine made the transit of Russian gas to western Europe via its territory open to pressure from the USA. Hence why
the Russians built the pipeline in the first place. It's the same reasons why the USA is attempting to prevent other Russian gas/oil
pipelines in other parts of the world.
Francis Lee ,
If anything illustrates the reality of the EU-NATO 'alliance' it is this. The US to Germany – and by extension the rest of the
EU – 'You will take expensive US LNG gas and like it' Me Tarzan you Jane. This brazen realpolitik illustrates the true nature
of the vassalised EU. And of course Poland, Romania – please station your inter-mediate range missiles here – and the Baltic uber-Petainist
elites come chiming in 'America the Beautiful.' More than anything this explodes the idea of the EU as a third geopolitical bloc.
It is an occupied region always has been and is composed of countries which can't actually defend their own interests whilst privileging
the US.
Gutless and spineless!
George Cornell ,
Indeed. And as reluctant as I am to entertain it, the Brutish ( spellcheck wants it to be British, no irony there) US is forcing
any vertebrate in the EU to crave armed forces.
Why poor EU countries buy the bollocks that is the relentless pressure or requirement from NATO to buy American and Israeli arms
is beyond me. They should be much more frightened of the Americans than the imaginary bogeymen to the East.
You mean like the Azov Battalion, Right Sector and C-14?
Those bogeymen Tim? Some of whom are now in Hong Kong helping Joseph Wong and his mates fight for 'freedom and democracy' with
some help from people in, er, Langley Virginia. Oh, and Nancy Pelosi.
Well, I support the right of all peoples to self-determination as a universal right and oppose imperialism/neo-imperialism regardless
of who does it, so your false dichotomy does not apply to me.
I thought you were referring to the neo nazi thugs in Ukraine that sprung up like weeds after rain following the overthrow of
Yanukovych by you know who. No, it wasn't Putin. And no, I'm not a fan either.
All bullshit pushed by Mr Hopey Changey that has put the world in grave peril.
In fact the changes of nuclear war are greater than any time in history.
And what happened when the Berlin Wall came down Tim?
Bush solemnly promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch eastward.
And where are NATO now?
paul ,
Then no doubt you support the right of the Crimea and Donbas to self determination from the CIA installed Fascist Coup Regime.
George Cornell ,
Oh for Chrissake! And where were you about Gitmo? And Iraq, and Yemen, and Syria, and Libya? And the lithium in Afghanistan makes
it morally justified? Put the photo of Kissinger on a bearskin rug in your drawer and tell me about how the 95% of Crimeans who
wanted to be part of Russia invalidates what happened there.
Come back to me about the sandbars in the South China Sea. Now there's a place to increase your debt.!
lundiel ,
Russia isn't occupying any of Ukraine. There are Russian volunteers and Russia is giving them some weapons and no doubt finance
but the Russian army isn't at war with Ukraine.
Jay ,
If they were, the war would have been on Kiev's doorstep.
Francis Lee ,
The only people 'taking' seven percent of the Ukraine are those who already live in the Donbass and Crimea are the Russian-speaking
inhabitants who have lived there for generations and who are defending their homeland against the Ukie Army and its Waffen SS
look-alikes in the Azov Battalion and various other neo-nazi outfits like Praviy Sektor, and the Tornado Battalion and Dnipro1
and other charming little outfits such as 'Patriots of the Ukraine' – backed by right-wing fanatics in the Ukrainian Rada namely
Biletsky and Parubiy.
These people are the direct descendants of the scum of the murderous Banderist pro-Nazis who were responsible for mass extermination
of Russians, Jew, and above all, Poles in Volhynia in the far west of the Ukraine between 1943-45. The Ukrainian Insurgent army
(UPA – led by Shukeviych) was the military wing of Bandera's OUN-B (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). Unfortunately for
for Mr B, he had an unfortunate rendezvous with a KGB hit-man in Munich in 1955. RIP.
Long live the heroic resistance of the Peoples Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Frank Speaker ,
Exactly Francis.
Some of my family were massacred by these bastard who were their neighbours: a woman cut upon at the front, a woman with a
wooden stake driven through her head, two children thrown down a well. That NATO aided and abetted these same evil scum to overthrow a democratically elected government and re-start their murderous
ways – this time around upon the ethnic Russians in the wast of the country – I cannot forgive my political leaders who have done
this.
That our MSM completely ignore this situation, I cannot forgive them, and that's why I am here.If there's a place called hell, I hope there's a special place reserved for our leaders and media owners who have done this.
eddie ,
They are occupying Jacque Schitt, but their 93rd aid convoy to the Donbas in November, consisting of 45 trucks, was not imaginary.
Greenpeace is yet another "NGO" that is heavily influenced by the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front that supports US
Imperialism.
I'm ambivalent on the issue of pipelines ( see Keystone XL Pipeline being driven through Indian Land in total violation of
the Laramie Treaty) since they are environmentally destructive but the fact is that this is all about politics and has nothing
to do with protecting the environment.
If "Russia's" Greenpeace was so concerned about the environment they'd worry about their backyard first such as the network
of pipelines being run through Siberia.
richard le sarc ,
One wonders if the invertebrates of the EU will ever tire of being bullied by the Global Bullying Thug in Chief? The clerico-fascists
of priest-ridden Poland one can understand, and the phony 'greens' of Greenpeace the sell-out specialists, but the others are
just like mongrel dogs-the more you kick them, the more they lick your boots.
Boats of LNG floating across the Atlantic to Poland is not energy security. Whatever the politics of Nord Stream 2 we may be assured
the US has not got our back in Europe on this.
We may also be in need of energy sooner than we think, as professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University suggests.
Unlike the Guardian her catastrophe theory goes in the other direction where in the next few years Earth will enter into a cooling
phase. That will set off a series of events leading to a mini ice age as happened with the Maunder Minimum of the 17th Century.
"Gazprom has purchased a pipe-laying ship which would allow the company to build undersea
pipelines despite sanctions. The new vessel may be used to build the Nord Stream-2 gas
pipeline to Europe."
Apparently the Russians think several steps ahead of the Americans.
This article has all one
needs to know about Russia/Gazprom's ability to finish the job abandoned by the Swiss
cowards, although their ships are apparently still on station. Yes, there'll be a delay, but
that won't matter much. Pissing off the Germans was the absolute wrong move!
@80 Jen It is much too late for the Danes to step in and stop Nord Stream 2.
Their permission was required because the pipe enters their economic zone, but once that
permission was given then the pipelaying started on the basis of "good faith". If the Danes
attempted to renege then I would imagine that it would be Russia and Germany who would tie up
Denmark in legal red-tape, not the other way around, and by the time this got to court the
pipeline would be completed and the gas would be flowing.
The USA's only hope now is that its sanctions scare off companies like Allseas, but that
hope relies on the western conceit that Russia is too technologically backward to be able to
take over and finish the job.
But the Russians are very capable, and extremely wily: if you look at my original post you
will see a link from 2016 where the Russians are already spelling out exactly what they
intend to do.
They acquired a suitable pipeline-laying ship at last three years. They admitted at the
time that they acquired it that it made no economic sense for them to acquire such a
ship.
Economics be damned. They bought it because they had to consider the possibility that the
USA is run by a bunch of duplicitous shits.
As I'm following the case closely, a few supplements.
The problem with the high tech Russian pipelaying vessel is that it is deployed in the Far
East and would need months to get to the scene. The Russian Fortuna lacks the technical
permission from the Danes to work in their waters, but it is suspiciously idling at the
German Coast. NorthStream 2 could ask Denmark to get a special allowance for the Fortuna to
work, and that is not so far-fetched as it seems because Denmark has a new government since
last June.
The Fortuna will at least finish the German part of the pipeline. A German court yesterday
has turned down a complaint by environmentalists who are worried about wintering birds.
The sanctions are a huge strategical blunder of the USA. Yes, the Germans are pissed off,
from the bosses of the chemical industry to the "ordinary people". You can almost hear the
tectonic subterranean crack that moves Germany away from the Anglosphere towards Russia.
In German politics, the Transatlanticians are now in the defensive. The most powerful
transatlantic institutions are IMO the various intelligence services, BND, BfV and so on.
They have certainly initiated the "scandal" about the murdered Georgian djihadist (you
remember, two Russian diplomats were expelled immediately) in order to sabotage the Normandy
talks and NordStream 2 and push Merkel to distance herself from Russia. This has failed,
obviously. Stupid white men.
An excellent show from last week. However still relevant with some reminders from the 80s
that are quintessential irony. Sanchez's journalistic delivery is impressive.
Rapoza's latest effort, for Forbes, is his review of the Russia/Ukraine gas deal that
everyone is talking about. His take, in summary, is that Russia did not really have to give
up very much, it would be to Ukraine's advantage to stop fucking around and concentrate now
on the issues, that Ukraine dropped a very large amount in claims in return for not very much
money (although he does not say how likely Ukraine would have been to win them in court, and
my personal opinion is not very), that Nord Stream II will be completed with not a
significant amount of delay, and that Russia can implement the same no-gas-through-Ukraine in
five years if it does not like the way things are going.
As usual, the range of interpretations of gas agreements is wide and full of water. Most of them have hidden recognition of
groundlessness, because even a simple reading of the document requires above average schooling.
Here is this document, where it is written in black and almost white that the parties agreed on such and such conditions:
All talk about a Ukrainian victory or a Russian victory should be left to politicians for domestic consumption, although,
to be fair, it is worth noting: Ukrainian functionaries immediately claimed it is a victory for Ukraine. This sounded against
the background of the absence of fanfare in Russia, which, in the face of the most difficult negotiations, would be extremely
inappropriate.
Why?
Because
Gazprom
is Gazprom, not Russia. Confusion in concepts is a very characteristic phenomenon for immature structures and
individuals on both sides. So talk of Russia allegedly forgiving Ukraine $3 billion in credit has nothing to do with the topic
at all. There is no word in the document about this, which is natural, because, I will repeat: Russia is not Gazprom.
However, the
Naftogaz
fanfare coming from Vitrenko's mouth is also understandable on the other hand: the board (8 people) will not have
to return millions of dollars already distributed to their pockets as part of the prize according to the results of the
Stockholm Arbitration
. Moreover, now, if Gazprom pays the claim amount, the premium will increase significantly.
As for the amount Gazprom has pledged to pay – about $3 billion – it is less than 1% of the assets of the Russian gas giant
(not to be confused with capitalisation). Few will notice this drop in the ocean. And for Naftogaz? In the absence of
up-to-date information about the assets of this structure, I believe that the figure is comparable to all assets, especially
since, according to the current reform, the Ukrainian gas transit system, the market value of which is no more than $1.5
billion (according to the Chairman of the Board
Kobolev
), leaves from under Naftogaz in general.
Conclusion: tactically Naftogaz and its board benefited from a contract with Gazprom. Strategically, as it seems, Gazprom
at least did not lose, firstly, significantly reducing the term of the contract and the volume of pumping on the gas transit
system of Ukraine, taking into account the forthcoming and inevitable implementation of "
Nord
Stream-2
" and, secondly, leaving itself the right to disagree with transit tariffs, which remain the subject of
negotiations:
Point 2.2.3 The organising company [Naftogaz] will contact LLC "Operator of gas transit system of Ukraine" for the
reservation of capacities of the gas transit system of Ukraine
Provided that at the time of reservation by NCSREPU [National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Public
Utilities] a
competitive tariff
recognised by the Organising Company and corresponding to the level of gas
transportation tariffs applied in the countries of western and central Europe will be established.
Point 3.2 The Ukrainian side
will take all necessary measures
(create all necessary conditions) by
29.12.19:
for ensuring reliable legal protection of the interests of the client of services [Gazprom] on transit,
predictability, transparency, economic validity, and stability of tariff formation
;
What went on behind the scenes went almost unnoticed:
1. Ukraine's demand for imported gas, which is still falling due to the decline in production capacity, will be covered
from the volumes approved by the agreement (65 billion m3 in 2020 and 40 billion m3 in the following 4 years). The volume of
imports according to various estimates remains at about 20 billion m3 per year. Tariffs will not be applied on all the Russian
gas that Ukraine will consume from pumping on the gas transit system and will be implemented on the territory of Ukraine at
its own expense. The volume subject to a transit tariff will be determined by the difference between the entrance to the
Ukrainian gas transit system and the exit to Europe.
2. All preliminary talk about gas discounts for Ukraine was not included in the agreement. Thus, the price of gas remains
the subject of bargaining and is inevitably dependent on the transit tariff: the higher the price of transit – the higher the
price of gas and, accordingly, vice versa.
3. In fact, the issue of direct gas supplies to Ukraine is not worth discussing at all. I.e., in the event of a
non-agreement on the price, all gas will come to Europe, Ukraine will earn from transit, but these earnings will be offset by
the increased price of gas on the reverse. Thus, even in the event of pumping all gas to Europe, earnings from transit,
according to experts, will not even cover the cost of servicing the Ukrainian gas transit system.
Lastly, Gazprom – which is not Russia, but behind whose back Russia certainly stands, and was opposed by both Ukraine and
the European Union, represented by the European Commission, as well as the United States with its global interests – managed,
at a minimum, to minimise its tactical losses and preserve strategic Russian interests.
The gas war appears to have retreated, but the most interesting thing is yet to come.
I linked a Russian newspaper article above which analysed the deal and in which it was
pointed out that the $3 billion that Gazprom coughed up is 1% of the annual turnover of that
company. And another thing that the article pointed out was that the deal is between Gazprom
and Naftogaz notRussia and the Ukraine. In return for that $3 billion,
which will be pocketed by many Yukitard bastards, I am sure, Gazprom's never ending
altercations with the Yukie gas outfit over compensation and claims and counter-claims have
had a line drawn under them. I suppose that's really why the Porky bloc in the rada is taking
action against the deal: they fear that their nice little earner is being stifled, in that
penalties imposed by arbitration courts against Gazprom have seemingly ended.
All talk about a Ukrainian victory or a Russian victory should be left to politicians
for domestic consumption, although, to be fair, it is worth noting: Ukrainian functionaries
immediately claimed it is a victory for Ukraine. This sounded against the background of the
absence of fanfare in Russia, which, in the face of the most difficult negotiations, would be
extremely inappropriate.
Why?
Because Gazprom is Gazprom, not Russia. Confusion in concepts is a very characteristic
phenomenon for immature structures and individuals on both sides. So talk of Russia allegedly
forgiving Ukraine $3 billion in credit has nothing to do with the topic at all. There is no
word in the document about this, which is natural, because, I will repeat: Russia is not
Gazprom.
However, the Naftogaz fanfare coming from Vitrenko's mouth is also understandable on
the other hand: the [Naftogaz] board (8 people) will not have to return
millions of dollars already distributed to their pockets as part of the prize
according to the results of the Stockholm Arbitration. Moreover, now, if Gazprom pays the
claim amount, the premium will increase significantly.
As for the amount Gazprom has pledged to pay – about $3 billion – it is
less than 1% of the assets of the Russian gas giant (not to be confused with
capitalisation). Few will notice this drop in the ocean. And for Naftogaz? In the absence of
up-to-date information about the assets of this structure, I believe that the figure is
comparable to all assets, especially since, according to the current reform, the Ukrainian
gas transit system, the market value of which is no more than $1.5 billion (according to the
Chairman of the Board Kobolev), leaves from under Naftogaz in general.
Conclusion: tactically Naftogaz and its board benefited from a contract with Gazprom.
Strategically, as it seems, Gazprom at least did not lose, firstly, significantly reducing
the term of the contract and the volume of pumping on the gas transit system of Ukraine,
taking into account the forthcoming and inevitable implementation of "Nord Stream-2" and,
secondly, leaving itself the right to disagree with transit tariffs, which remain the subject
of negotiations
Crimea's breakaway from Ukraine and rejoining Russia is treated in the US-and-allied world as being
justification for the explosive re-emergence in 2014 of America's Cold War NATO alliance as being a
restored war against Russia; and, so, whether or not that 'justification' is truthful is the paramount
geopolitical issue in our era; and it will therefore be discussed and (via the links here) documented
in this article.
Though international law is generally an unenforced mess that is interpretable far
more by partisanship than by any clearly applicable principles, the US Government does quite blatantly
violate it on a routine basis, by means of coups and invasions against countries that never invaded
nor threatened to invade the US; but, if
anything
at all is clear in international law, it is
that Crimea's breaking away from Ukraine and rejoining Russia in 2014 was entirely legitimate, as will
be documented here, by exposing the lies that are adduced on the US side, in order to allege that it's
not
legitimate.
First, however, will be a bit of essential historical background, which is commonly ignored in
arguments by the pro-US-regime liars on this matter: From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of Russia.
Crimea was arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by the dictator of the Soviet Union,
Nikita Khruschev, who was a Ukrainian and didn't consult the residents of Crimea about this handover
of them to Ukraine. Crimeans were so opposed to being ruled from the foreign-language-speaking and
largely pro-Nazi (and anti-Semitic and anti-Russian) Ukrainians to their north, so that as soon as the
Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the only way that Crimeans would tolerate any continuation of their
formal association with Ukraine was by being declared Ukraine's "autonomous republic" (the only one)
in Ukraine.
This situation of partial Crimean independence continued until Ukraine was conquered (via
coup) by the US regime, in order to be handed over first to the European Union, and then, after the EU
would accept Ukraine, to NATO, which military alliance with the US was extremely unpopular in Ukraine
until the American conquest and the immediately subsequent takeover of Ukraine by pro-US oligarchs,
who were eager to buy more privatized and formerly Soviet state-owned properties, in basically insider
deals with the now US-controlled Ukrainian Government.
Crimeans were terrified and some of them
wrote to friends
in the West regarding the terror and their fears
. All of this information is ignored by the
proponents of the illegality of Crimea's separation from Ukraine, because, clearly, the basic human
rights of Crimeans were then under very palpable and severe threat by the US-imposed forces; and, so,
any 'legal' argument for forcing Crimeans to remain Ukrainians was and is fake. But, still, legal
arguments for forcing Crimeans to be Ukrainians again are presented; and, so, here is a quick
intoroduction to those frauds.
The least politicized of the pro-Western (i.e., pro-US-regime) articles regarding the relevant
international laws on this topic concern the cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia, because in the
US-and-allied international dictatorship (that is, the countries that are ruled by billionares who are
allied with US billionaires), no unanimity exists regarding those two breakaway-movements (Kurds and
Catalonians); so, the legal principles aren't such a threat to the US-and-allied lies about Russia.
Here are highlights from this article, and I
boldface
what I consider key statements
there:
ASIL
[American Society of International Law]
Insights
, v. 22, issue 1
Milena Sterio, 5 January 2018
The theory of self-determination, as justifying the secession of a people from its existing mother
state as a matter of last resort only, in situations where the people is oppressed or where the mother
state's government does not legitimately represent the people's interests, has remained constant
throughout the 20th century development of international law.
Two United Nations'
declarations, in addition to the United Nations Charter itself, have addressed the issue of
self-determination.
Both declarations
envisioned self-determination leading to secession as a matter
of last resort only within the decolonization paradigm: here, both conditions for a right to
self-determination were met insofar as colonized peoples were oppressed and their colonial governments
did not adequately represent their interests. Both declarations also confirmed the importance of the
principle of territorial integrity of existing states, [8] and thus
embraced the idea that
self-determination could lead to the territorial disruption of existing states only in extreme
instances of oppression or colonization
.
Peoples who are oppressed or colonized
, however,
have the right to
external self-determination, which they may exercise through secession from their mother state.[9]
This view of self-determination was confirmed in 1998, in the Canadian Supreme Court opinion regarding
the proposed secession of Quebec from Canada, where the Court held that all peoples are entitled to
various modes of internal self-determination, but that only some peoples, such as those subjected to
conquest, colonization, and perhaps oppression, may acquire the right to external self-determination
through remedial secession.[10] Today, it may be concluded that international law bestows on all
peoples the right to self-determination, but that the right to external self-determination, exercised
through remedial secession, only applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely
persecuted peoples.
While international law embraces the principle of self-determination, it does not contain a
right of secession.[11] It may be argued that international law merely tolerates secession in
instances of external self-determination, where a people is colonized or oppressed (like in the case
of Kosovo). In addition, secession is prohibited under international law if the secessionist entity is
attempting to separate by violating another fundamental norm of international law, such as the
prohibition on the use of force (like in the case of Northern Cyprus).[12] In other instances of
attempted secession, where the relevant people is not oppressed, as in Quebec or Scotland,
international law is neutral on secession -- it does not support a right to secession nor does it
prohibit secession. Instead, the secessionist dispute is left to the realm of domestic law and to
political negotiations between the mother state and the secessionist entity.[13]
--
Following are two influential articles reaffirming the US regime's view, that the breakaway was and
is illegitimate. In
the first
, the lie is simply presumed true that the overthrow of the democratically elected
President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, during 20-26 February 2014, was a domestic democratic
revolution, instead of a foreign-imposed coup. In
the second
, international law, as was just summarized above here, is simply ignored.
Simone F. van den Driest [whose 404-page 2013 Ph.D dissertation, at Netherlands' Tilburg
University, was
"Remedial Secession"
], First Online: 30 November 2015
16k Downloads
Abstract
This article considers the (il)legality of Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine from
the perspective of public international law. It examines whether the right to self-determination or an
alleged right to (remedial) secession could serve as a legal basis for the separation of the Crimean
Peninsula, as the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation seem to have argued.
The
article explains that beyond the context of decolonization, the right to self-determination does not
encompass a general right to unilateral secession and demonstrates that contemporary international law
does not acknowledge a right to remedial secession. With respect to the case of Crimea, it argues that
even when assuming that such a right does exist, the threshold in this regard is not met. In the
absence of a legal entitlement, the article subsequently turns to the question whether Crimea's
unilateral secession was prohibited under international law. It contends that while the principle of
territorial integrity discourages unilateral secession, it does not actually prohibit it. Nonetheless,
there are situations in which an attempt at unilateral secession is considered to be illegal in view
of the circumstances. It is argued that it is precisely this exception that is relevant in the case of
Crimea.
[Text now:]
The Russian Federation (implicitly) relied on the doctrine of remedial
secession, which is seen to encompass a right to unilateral secession in case of serious injustices
suffered by a people. [which were unquestionably present] President Putin advanced remedial arguments
in his speech of 18 March, contending that
those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in
line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and
Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives [ ]. [N]aturally, we could
not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress
.7
To the same effect, the Russian Federation claimed in the Security Council that there had been
'threats of violence by ultranationalists against the security, lives and legitimate interests of
Russians and all Russian-speaking peoples' in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and that 'the issue is one of
defending our citizens and compatriots, as well as the most import[ant] human right -- the right to
life'.8
The accuracy of these views presented, however, is highly questionable under contemporary
international law [and all the rest of the article discusses none of the allegations that Putin
asserted there
, but only internnational law.
Not even once in this article is
anything like the word "coup" used in relation to the overthrow of Yanukovych
-- the overthrow
that had sparked Crimeans to demand restoration to Russia. Instead the article simply assumes that
there was no coup whatsoever: "The Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, which was initiated by the Euromaidan
movement in the capital of Kiev, had significant effects in Crimea." That's all. However, that
statement was
false:
It was
no
"revolution," and it
clearly was a coup
. Furthermore:
even if it had been a "revolution," it was not "initiated by the Euromaidan movement in the capital of
Kiev --
it was initiated by the Barack Obama Administration in the summer of 2011, and started to be
implemented inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013
. The Euromaidan movement
started on 21 November 2013
.
So, this author is merely assuming that "the Euromaidan movement" wasn't part of a
coup-operation by the US regime.]
CONCLUSION
All in all, it should be concluded that the arguments involving an alleged right to
self-determination and (remedial) secession as advanced by the Crimean and Russian authorities in
attempting to justify the events on the Crimean Peninsula cannot be upheld. On the contrary:
Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine clearly was illegal under international law.
Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review
, 2015-2016, v. 14 [published by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania]
Erika Leonaitė & Dainius Žalimas, both of Vilnius University
it is essential to point out that
a coup d'etat and the issues of constitutionality in
general are matters of national rather than international law. In terms of international law,
importance falls not on the constitutionality of the government, but on its effectiveness, i.e. its
capability to efficiently control the territory of the state and to ensure compliance with
international commitments.
[In other words: any national government that can suppress and
crush a secession movement is adhering to international law, according to these writers.] Even where
the government is unable to carry out effective control (in political science, the concept of a
"failed state" is used to refer to these cases), relations with such a state must be continued based
on the principles of sovereign equality, the prohibition of the use of force [the writers mean "use of
force" by any foreign govertnment, not "use of force" by the given nation's government in order to
suppress and crush any secession movement], respect for territorial integrity, and other fundamental
international legal principles; other states are not released from the obligations with respect to
this state [in other words: foreign nations must never side with nor support a secession movement
within a country. Blatantly false allegations like that are publishable by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania.]
In June 2013 (well before the 'democratic revolution' in Ukraine started), NAVFAC, the US Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, published on its website, a "Project Description" for "Renovation of
School#5, Sevastopol, Ukraine," under the euphemistic title
"EUCOM Humanitarian Assistance Program"
. EUCOM is the US European Command -- it is
purely military, not "humanitarian," at all. The 124-page request for proposals (RFP) showed extensive
photos of the existing school, and also of the toilets, floor-boards, and other US-made products, that
the US regime was requiring to be used in the renovation (by some American corporation, yet to be
determined) of that then-Ukrainian school in Crimea, which at that time was a Ukrainian Government
property, not at all American-owned or operated. So: why were US taxpayers supposed to fund this
'humanitarian' operation, by the U.S. military?
Eric Zuesse
December 23, 2019 |
History
The Lies That Are Used for Denying the Legitimacy of Crimea's Breakaway
Crimea's breakaway from Ukraine and rejoining Russia is treated in the US-and-allied world as
being justification for the explosive re-emergence in 2014 of America's Cold War NATO alliance
as being a restored war against Russia; and, so, whether or not that 'justification' is truthful
is the paramount geopolitical issue in our era; and it will therefore be discussed and (via the
links here) documented in this article.
Though international law is generally an unenforced
mess that is interpretable far more by partisanship than by any clearly applicable principles,
the US Government does quite blatantly violate it on a routine basis, by means of coups and
invasions against countries that never invaded nor threatened to invade the US; but, if
anything
at all is clear in international law, it is that Crimea's breaking away from
Ukraine and rejoining Russia in 2014 was entirely legitimate, as will be documented here, by
exposing the lies that are adduced on the US side, in order to allege that it's
not
legitimate.
First, however, will be a bit of essential historical background, which is commonly ignored
in arguments by the pro-US-regime liars on this matter: From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of
Russia. Crimea was arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by the dictator of the
Soviet Union, Nikita Khruschev, who was a Ukrainian and didn't consult the residents of Crimea
about this handover of them to Ukraine. Crimeans were so opposed to being ruled from the
foreign-language-speaking and largely pro-Nazi (and anti-Semitic and anti-Russian) Ukrainians to
their north, so that as soon as the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the only way that Crimeans
would tolerate any continuation of their formal association with Ukraine was by being declared
Ukraine's "autonomous republic" (the only one) in Ukraine. This situation of partial Crimean
independence continued until Ukraine was conquered (via coup) by the US regime, in order to be
handed over first to the European Union, and then, after the EU would accept Ukraine, to NATO,
which military alliance with the US was extremely unpopular in Ukraine until the American
conquest and the immediately subsequent takeover of Ukraine by pro-US oligarchs, who were eager
to buy more privatized and formerly Soviet state-owned properties, in basically insider deals
with the now US-controlled Ukrainian Government. Those oligarchs' 'news'-media successfully
propagandized most Ukrainians to switch from being anti-NATO to pro-NATO. However, right at the
time of the coup, Crimeans demonstrated in Kiev against the CIA-organized Maidan demostrations,
and
on the day of the coup,
February 20th, those Crimeans in Kiev were forced by the US-supported nazis to flee there, but
the eight buses carrrying them were blocked en-route, and an unknown number of the fleeing
Crimeans were killed
. Many of the surviving ones were
permanently injured
. Crimeans were
terrified and some of them
wrote to
friends in the West regarding the terror and their fears
. All of this information is ignored
by the proponents of the illegality of Crimea's separation from Ukraine, because, clearly, the
basic human rights of Crimeans were then under very palpable and severe threat by the US-imposed
forces; and, so, any 'legal' argument for forcing Crimeans to remain Ukrainians was and is fake.
But, still, legal arguments for forcing Crimeans to be Ukrainians again are presented; and, so,
here is a quick intoroduction to those frauds.
The least politicized of the pro-Western (i.e., pro-US-regime) articles regarding the
relevant international laws on this topic concern the cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia, because
in the US-and-allied international dictatorship (that is, the countries that are ruled by
billionares who are allied with US billionaires), no unanimity exists regarding those two
breakaway-movements (Kurds and Catalonians); so, the legal principles aren't such a threat to
the US-and-allied lies about Russia. Here are highlights from this article, and I
boldface
what I consider key statements there:
ASIL
[American Society of International Law]
Insights
, v. 22, issue 1
Milena Sterio, 5 January 2018
The theory of self-determination, as justifying the secession of a people from its existing
mother state as a matter of last resort only, in situations where the people is oppressed or
where the mother state's government does not legitimately represent the people's interests, has
remained constant throughout the 20th century development of international law.
Two
United Nations' declarations, in addition to the United Nations Charter itself, have addressed
the issue of self-determination.
Both declarations
envisioned self-determination leading to secession as a
matter of last resort only within the decolonization paradigm: here, both conditions for a right
to self-determination were met insofar as colonized peoples were oppressed and their colonial
governments did not adequately represent their interests. Both declarations also confirmed the
importance of the principle of territorial integrity of existing states, [8] and thus
embraced the idea that self-determination could lead to the territorial disruption of existing
states only in extreme instances of oppression or colonization
.
Peoples who are oppressed or colonized
, however,
have the right to
external self-determination, which they may exercise through secession from their mother
state.[9] This view of self-determination was confirmed in 1998, in the Canadian Supreme Court
opinion regarding the proposed secession of Quebec from Canada, where the Court held that all
peoples are entitled to various modes of internal self-determination, but that only some
peoples, such as those subjected to conquest, colonization, and perhaps oppression, may acquire
the right to external self-determination through remedial secession.[10] Today, it may be
concluded that international law bestows on all peoples the right to self-determination, but
that the right to external self-determination, exercised through remedial secession, only
applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely persecuted peoples.
While international law embraces the principle of self-determination, it does not
contain a right of secession.[11] It may be argued that international law merely tolerates
secession in instances of external self-determination, where a people is colonized or oppressed
(like in the case of Kosovo). In addition, secession is prohibited under international law if
the secessionist entity is attempting to separate by violating another fundamental norm of
international law, such as the prohibition on the use of force (like in the case of Northern
Cyprus).[12] In other instances of attempted secession, where the relevant people is not
oppressed, as in Quebec or Scotland, international law is neutral on secession -- it does not
support a right to secession nor does it prohibit secession. Instead, the secessionist dispute
is left to the realm of domestic law and to political negotiations between the mother state and
the secessionist entity.[13]
--
Following are two influential articles reaffirming the US regime's view, that the breakaway
was and is illegitimate. In
the first
, the lie is simply presumed true that the overthrow of the democratically elected
President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, during 20-26 February 2014, was a domestic democratic
revolution, instead of a foreign-imposed coup. In
the second
, international law, as was just summarized above here, is simply ignored.
Simone F. van den Driest [whose 404-page 2013 Ph.D dissertation, at Netherlands' Tilburg
University, was
"Remedial Secession"
], First Online: 30 November 2015
16k Downloads
Abstract
This article considers the (il)legality of Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine
from the perspective of public international law. It examines whether the right to
self-determination or an alleged right to (remedial) secession could serve as a legal basis for
the separation of the Crimean Peninsula, as the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation
seem to have argued.
The article explains that beyond the context of decolonization,
the right to self-determination does not encompass a general right to unilateral secession and
demonstrates that contemporary international law does not acknowledge a right to remedial
secession. With respect to the case of Crimea, it argues that even when assuming that such a
right does exist, the threshold in this regard is not met. In the absence of a legal
entitlement, the article subsequently turns to the question whether Crimea's unilateral
secession was prohibited under international law. It contends that while the principle of
territorial integrity discourages unilateral secession, it does not actually prohibit it.
Nonetheless, there are situations in which an attempt at unilateral secession is considered to
be illegal in view of the circumstances. It is argued that it is precisely this exception that
is relevant in the case of Crimea.
[Text now:]
The Russian Federation (implicitly) relied on the doctrine of remedial
secession, which is seen to encompass a right to unilateral secession in case of serious
injustices suffered by a people. [which were unquestionably present] President Putin advanced
remedial arguments in his speech of 18 March, contending that
those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first
in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea
and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives [ ]. [N]aturally,
we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress
.7
To the same effect, the Russian Federation claimed in the Security Council that there had been
'threats of violence by ultranationalists against the security, lives and legitimate interests
of Russians and all Russian-speaking peoples' in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and that 'the issue
is one of defending our citizens and compatriots, as well as the most import[ant] human
right -- the right to life'.8
The accuracy of these views presented, however, is highly questionable under
contemporary international law [and all the rest of the article discusses none of the
allegations that Putin asserted there
, but only internnational law.
Not even
once in this article is anything like the word "coup" used in relation to the overthrow of
Yanukovych
-- the overthrow that had sparked Crimeans to demand restoration to Russia.
Instead the article simply assumes that there was no coup whatsoever: "The Ukrainian Revolution
of 2014, which was initiated by the Euromaidan movement in the capital of Kiev, had significant
effects in Crimea." That's all. However, that statement was
false:
It was
no
"revolution," and it
clearly
was a coup
. Furthermore: even if it had been a "revolution," it was not "initiated by the
Euromaidan movement in the capital of Kiev --
it was initiated by the Barack Obama Administration in the summer of 2011, and started to be
implemented inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013
. The Euromaidan movement
started on 21 November 2013
.
So, this author is merely assuming that "the Euromaidan movement" wasn't part of a
coup-operation by the US regime.]
CONCLUSION
All in all, it should be concluded that the arguments involving an alleged right to
self-determination and (remedial) secession as advanced by the Crimean and Russian authorities
in attempting to justify the events on the Crimean Peninsula cannot be upheld. On the contrary:
Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine clearly was illegal under international law.
Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review
, 2015-2016, v. 14 [published by General Jonas
Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania]
Erika Leonaitė & Dainius Žalimas, both of Vilnius University
it is essential to point out that
a coup d'etat and the issues of constitutionality
in general are matters of national rather than international law. In terms of international law,
importance falls not on the constitutionality of the government, but on its effectiveness, i.e.
its capability to efficiently control the territory of the state and to ensure compliance with
international commitments.
[In other words: any national government that can suppress
and crush a secession movement is adhering to international law, according to these writers.]
Even where the government is unable to carry out effective control (in political science, the
concept of a "failed state" is used to refer to these cases), relations with such a state must
be continued based on the principles of sovereign equality, the prohibition of the use of force
[the writers mean "use of force" by any foreign govertnment, not "use of force" by the given
nation's government in order to suppress and crush any secession movement], respect for
territorial integrity, and other fundamental international legal principles; other states are
not released from the obligations with respect to this state [in other words: foreign nations
must never side with nor support a secession movement within a country. Blatantly false
allegations like that are publishable by General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania.]
In June 2013 (well before the 'democratic revolution' in Ukraine started), NAVFAC, the US
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, published on its website, a "Project Description" for
"Renovation of School#5, Sevastopol, Ukraine," under the euphemistic title
"EUCOM Humanitarian Assistance Program"
. EUCOM is the US European Command -- it
is purely military, not "humanitarian," at all. The 124-page request for proposals (RFP) showed
extensive photos of the existing school, and also of the toilets, floor-boards, and other
US-made products, that the US regime was requiring to be used in the renovation (by some
American corporation, yet to be determined) of that then-Ukrainian school in Crimea, which at
that time was a Ukrainian Government property, not at all American-owned or operated. So: why
were US taxpayers supposed to fund this 'humanitarian' operation, by the U.S. military?
Though international law is generally an unenforced mess that is interpretable far
more by partisanship than by any clearly applicable principles, the US Government does quite blatantly
violate it on a routine basis, by means of coups and invasions against countries that never invaded
nor threatened to invade the US; but, if
anything
at all is clear in international law, it is
that Crimea's breaking away from Ukraine and rejoining Russia in 2014 was entirely legitimate, as will
be documented here, by exposing the lies that are adduced on the US side, in order to allege that it's
not
legitimate.
First, however, will be a bit of essential historical background, which is commonly ignored in
arguments by the pro-US-regime liars on this matter: From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of Russia.
Crimea was arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by the dictator of the Soviet Union,
Nikita Khruschev, who was a Ukrainian and didn't consult the residents of Crimea about this handover
of them to Ukraine. Crimeans were so opposed to being ruled from the foreign-language-speaking and
largely pro-Nazi (and anti-Semitic and anti-Russian) Ukrainians to their north, so that as soon as the
Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the only way that Crimeans would tolerate any continuation of their
formal association with Ukraine was by being declared Ukraine's "autonomous republic" (the only one)
in Ukraine. This situation of partial Crimean independence continued until Ukraine was conquered (via
coup) by the US regime, in order to be handed over first to the European Union, and then, after the EU
would accept Ukraine, to NATO, which military alliance with the US was extremely unpopular in Ukraine
until the American conquest and the immediately subsequent takeover of Ukraine by pro-US oligarchs,
who were eager to buy more privatized and formerly Soviet state-owned properties, in basically insider
deals with the now US-controlled Ukrainian Government. Those oligarchs' 'news'-media successfully
propagandized most Ukrainians to switch from being anti-NATO to pro-NATO. However, right at the time
of the coup, Crimeans demonstrated in Kiev against the CIA-organized Maidan demostrations, and
on the day of the coup, February
20th, those Crimeans in Kiev were forced by the US-supported nazis to flee there, but the eight buses
carrrying them were blocked en-route, and an unknown number of the fleeing Crimeans were killed
.
Many of the surviving ones were
permanently
injured
. Crimeans were terrified and some of them
wrote to friends
in the West regarding the terror and their fears
. All of this information is ignored by the
proponents of the illegality of Crimea's separation from Ukraine, because, clearly, the basic human
rights of Crimeans were then under very palpable and severe threat by the US-imposed forces; and, so,
any 'legal' argument for forcing Crimeans to remain Ukrainians was and is fake. But, still, legal
arguments for forcing Crimeans to be Ukrainians again are presented; and, so, here is a quick
intoroduction to those frauds.
The least politicized of the pro-Western (i.e., pro-US-regime) articles regarding the relevant
international laws on this topic concern the cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia, because in the
US-and-allied international dictatorship (that is, the countries that are ruled by billionares who are
allied with US billionaires), no unanimity exists regarding those two breakaway-movements (Kurds and
Catalonians); so, the legal principles aren't such a threat to the US-and-allied lies about Russia.
Here are highlights from this article, and I
boldface
what I consider key statements
there:
ASIL
[American Society of International Law]
Insights
, v. 22, issue 1
Milena Sterio, 5 January 2018
The theory of self-determination, as justifying the secession of a people from its existing mother
state as a matter of last resort only, in situations where the people is oppressed or where the mother
state's government does not legitimately represent the people's interests, has remained constant
throughout the 20th century development of international law.
Two United Nations'
declarations, in addition to the United Nations Charter itself, have addressed the issue of
self-determination.
Both declarations
envisioned self-determination leading to secession as a matter
of last resort only within the decolonization paradigm: here, both conditions for a right to
self-determination were met insofar as colonized peoples were oppressed and their colonial governments
did not adequately represent their interests. Both declarations also confirmed the importance of the
principle of territorial integrity of existing states, [8] and thus
embraced the idea that
self-determination could lead to the territorial disruption of existing states only in extreme
instances of oppression or colonization
.
Peoples who are oppressed or colonized
, however,
have the right to
external self-determination, which they may exercise through secession from their mother state.[9]
This view of self-determination was confirmed in 1998, in the Canadian Supreme Court opinion regarding
the proposed secession of Quebec from Canada, where the Court held that all peoples are entitled to
various modes of internal self-determination, but that only some peoples, such as those subjected to
conquest, colonization, and perhaps oppression, may acquire the right to external self-determination
through remedial secession.[10] Today, it may be concluded that international law bestows on all
peoples the right to self-determination, but that the right to external self-determination, exercised
through remedial secession, only applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely
persecuted peoples.
While international law embraces the principle of self-determination, it does not contain a
right of secession.[11] It may be argued that international law merely tolerates secession in
instances of external self-determination, where a people is colonized or oppressed (like in the case
of Kosovo). In addition, secession is prohibited under international law if the secessionist entity is
attempting to separate by violating another fundamental norm of international law, such as the
prohibition on the use of force (like in the case of Northern Cyprus).[12] In other instances of
attempted secession, where the relevant people is not oppressed, as in Quebec or Scotland,
international law is neutral on secession -- it does not support a right to secession nor does it
prohibit secession. Instead, the secessionist dispute is left to the realm of domestic law and to
political negotiations between the mother state and the secessionist entity.[13]
--
Following are two influential articles reaffirming the US regime's view, that the breakaway was and
is illegitimate. In
the first
, the lie is simply presumed true that the overthrow of the democratically elected
President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, during 20-26 February 2014, was a domestic democratic
revolution, instead of a foreign-imposed coup. In
the second
, international law, as was just summarized above here, is simply ignored.
Simone F. van den Driest [whose 404-page 2013 Ph.D dissertation, at Netherlands' Tilburg
University, was
"Remedial Secession"
], First Online: 30 November 2015
16k Downloads
Abstract
This article considers the (il)legality of Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine from
the perspective of public international law. It examines whether the right to self-determination or an
alleged right to (remedial) secession could serve as a legal basis for the separation of the Crimean
Peninsula, as the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation seem to have argued.
The
article explains that beyond the context of decolonization, the right to self-determination does not
encompass a general right to unilateral secession and demonstrates that contemporary international law
does not acknowledge a right to remedial secession. With respect to the case of Crimea, it argues that
even when assuming that such a right does exist, the threshold in this regard is not met. In the
absence of a legal entitlement, the article subsequently turns to the question whether Crimea's
unilateral secession was prohibited under international law. It contends that while the principle of
territorial integrity discourages unilateral secession, it does not actually prohibit it. Nonetheless,
there are situations in which an attempt at unilateral secession is considered to be illegal in view
of the circumstances. It is argued that it is precisely this exception that is relevant in the case of
Crimea.
[Text now:]
The Russian Federation (implicitly) relied on the doctrine of remedial
secession, which is seen to encompass a right to unilateral secession in case of serious injustices
suffered by a people. [which were unquestionably present] President Putin advanced remedial arguments
in his speech of 18 March, contending that
those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in
line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and
Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives [ ]. [N]aturally, we could
not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress
.7
To the same effect, the Russian Federation claimed in the Security Council that there had been
'threats of violence by ultranationalists against the security, lives and legitimate interests of
Russians and all Russian-speaking peoples' in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and that 'the issue is one of
defending our citizens and compatriots, as well as the most import[ant] human right -- the right to
life'.8
The accuracy of these views presented, however, is highly questionable under contemporary
international law [and all the rest of the article discusses none of the allegations that Putin
asserted there
, but only internnational law.
Not even once in this article is
anything like the word "coup" used in relation to the overthrow of Yanukovych
-- the overthrow
that had sparked Crimeans to demand restoration to Russia. Instead the article simply assumes that
there was no coup whatsoever: "The Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, which was initiated by the Euromaidan
movement in the capital of Kiev, had significant effects in Crimea." That's all. However, that
statement was
false:
It was
no
"revolution," and it
clearly was a coup
. Furthermore:
even if it had been a "revolution," it was not "initiated by the Euromaidan movement in the capital of
Kiev --
it was initiated by the Barack Obama Administration in the summer of 2011, and started to be
implemented inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013
. The Euromaidan movement
started on 21 November 2013
.
So, this author is merely assuming that "the Euromaidan movement" wasn't part of a
coup-operation by the US regime.]
CONCLUSION
All in all, it should be concluded that the arguments involving an alleged right to
self-determination and (remedial) secession as advanced by the Crimean and Russian authorities in
attempting to justify the events on the Crimean Peninsula cannot be upheld. On the contrary:
Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine clearly was illegal under international law.
Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review
, 2015-2016, v. 14 [published by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania]
Erika Leonaitė & Dainius Žalimas, both of Vilnius University
it is essential to point out that
a coup d'etat and the issues of constitutionality in
general are matters of national rather than international law. In terms of international law,
importance falls not on the constitutionality of the government, but on its effectiveness, i.e. its
capability to efficiently control the territory of the state and to ensure compliance with
international commitments.
[In other words: any national government that can suppress and
crush a secession movement is adhering to international law, according to these writers.] Even where
the government is unable to carry out effective control (in political science, the concept of a
"failed state" is used to refer to these cases), relations with such a state must be continued based
on the principles of sovereign equality, the prohibition of the use of force [the writers mean "use of
force" by any foreign govertnment, not "use of force" by the given nation's government in order to
suppress and crush any secession movement], respect for territorial integrity, and other fundamental
international legal principles; other states are not released from the obligations with respect to
this state [in other words: foreign nations must never side with nor support a secession movement
within a country. Blatantly false allegations like that are publishable by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania.]
It would be impossible for Trump to re-energize his base in any other way. Pelosi acts as
covert agent for Trump re-election? Peloci calculation that she can repar "Mueller effect" of
2018 with this impeachment proved to be gross miscalculation.
Warren who stupidly and enthusiastically jumped into this bandwagon will be hurt. She is such
a weak politician that now it looks like she does not belong to the club. Still in comparison
with Trump she might well be an improvement as she has Trump-like economic program, which Trump
betrayed and neutered. And her foreign policy can't be worse then Trump foreign policy. It is
just impossible.
I am convinced that the Dems are not actually interested or focused on defeating Trump, or
they would adopt an effective strategy. The question I keep wrestling with is, what is the point
to the strategy that is so ineffective?
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that the impeachment is dead in the water, by Pelosi's own admission , is evident in Trump's being adamant that indeed it must be sent to the Senate – where he knows he'll be exonerated. But even if it doesn't go to the Senate, what we're left with still appears as a loss for Democrats. Both places are his briar patch. This makes all of this a win-win for team Trump. ..."
"... fake impeachment procedure ..."
"... For in a constitutional republic like the United States, what makes an impeachment possible is when the representatives and the voters are in communion over the matter. This would normally be reflected in a mid-term election, like say for example the mid-term Senatorial race in 2018 where Democrats failed to take control. Control of the Senate would reflect a change of sentiment in the republic, which in turn and not coincidentally, would be what makes for a successful impeachment. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi is evidently extraordinarily cynical. Her politics appears to be 'they deserve whatever they believe'. ..."
"... little else can explain the reasoning behind her claim that she will 'send the impeachment to the Senate' as soon as she 'has assurances and knows how the Senate will conduct the impeachment', except that it came from the same person who told the public regarding Obamacare that we have to 'We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.". ..."
"... "We have been attacked. We are at war. Imagine this movie script: A former KGB spy, angry at the collapse of his motherland, plots a course for revenge – taking advantage of the chaos, he works his way up through the ranks of a post-soviet Russia and becomes president. ..."
"... He establishes an authoritarian regime, then he sets his sights on his sworn enemy – the United States. And like the KGB spy that he is, he secretly uses cyber warfare to attack democracies around the world. Using social media to spread propaganda and false information, he convinces people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their political processes, even their neighbors. And he wins." ..."
"... We'll say we impeached him, because we did, and we'll say he was impeached. We'll declare victory, and go home. This will make him unelectable because of the stigma of impeachment. ..."
And so it came to pass, that in the deep state's frenzy of
electoral desperation, the 'impeachment' card was played. The hammer has fallen. Nearly the
entirety of the legacy media news cycle has been dedicated to the details, and not really
pertinent details, but the sorts of details which presume the validity of the charges against
Trump in the first place. Yes, they all beg the question. What's forgotten here is that the use
of this process along clearly partisan lines, and more – towards clearly partisan aims
– is a very serious symptom of the larger undoing of any semblance of stability in the US
government.
The fact that the impeachment is dead in the water,
by Pelosi's own admission , is evident in Trump's being adamant that indeed it must be sent
to the Senate – where he knows he'll be exonerated. But even if it doesn't go to the
Senate, what we're left with still appears as a loss for Democrats. Both places are his briar
patch. This makes all of this a win-win for team Trump.
Only in a country that produces so much fake news at the official level, could there be a
fake impeachment procedure made purely for media consumption, with no real or tangible
possible victory in sight.
For in a constitutional republic like the United States, what makes an impeachment
possible is when the representatives and the voters are in communion over the matter. This
would normally be reflected in a mid-term election, like say for example the mid-term
Senatorial race in 2018 where Democrats failed to take control. Control of the Senate would
reflect a change of sentiment in the republic, which in turn and not coincidentally, would be
what makes for a successful impeachment.
Don't forget, this impeachment is fake
Nancy Pelosi is evidently extraordinarily cynical. Her politics appears to be 'they
deserve whatever they believe'. And her aim appears to be the one who makes them believe
things so that they deserve what she gives them. For little else can explain the reasoning
behind her claim that she will 'send the impeachment to the Senate' as soon as she 'has
assurances and knows how the Senate will conduct the impeachment', except that it came from the
same person who told the public regarding Obamacare that we have to 'We have to pass the bill
so that you can find out what is in it.".
In both cases, reality is turned on its head – for rather we will know how the Senate
intends to conduct its procedure as soon as it has the details, which substantively includes
the impeachment documents themselves, in front of them, and likewise, legislators ought to know
what's in a major piece of legislation before they vote either way on it. Pelosi's assault on
reason, however, isn't without an ever growing tide of resentment from within the progressive
base of the party itself.
We have quickly entered into a new era which increasingly resembles the broken political
processes which have struck many a country, but none in living memory a country like the US.
Now elected officials push judges to prosecute their political opponents, constitutional crises
are manufactured to pursue personal or political vendettas, death threats and rumors of coups
coming from media and celebrities being fed talking points by big and important players from
powerful institutions.
This 'impeachment' show really takes the cake, does it not? We will recall shortly after
Trump was elected, narrator for hire Morgan Freeman made a shocking public service
announcement. It was for all intents and purposes, a PSA notifying the public that a military
coup to remove Trump would be legitimate and in order. Speaking about this PSA, and recounting
what was said, would in any event read as an exaggeration, or some allegorical paraphrasing
made to prove a point. Jogging our memories then, Freeman spoke to tens of millions of viewers
on television and YouTube
saying :
"We have been attacked. We are at war. Imagine this movie script: A former KGB spy,
angry at the collapse of his motherland, plots a course for revenge – taking advantage of
the chaos, he works his way up through the ranks of a post-soviet Russia and becomes
president.
He establishes an authoritarian regime, then he sets his sights on his sworn enemy
– the United States. And like the KGB spy that he is, he secretly uses cyber warfare to
attack democracies around the world. Using social media to spread propaganda and false
information, he convinces people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their
political processes, even their neighbors. And he wins."
This really set the tone for the coming years, which have culminated in this manufactured
'impeachment' crisis, really befitting a banana republic.
It would be the height of dishonesty to approach this abuse of the impeachment procedure as
if until this moment, the US's own political culture and processes were in good shape. Now
isn't the time for the laundry list of eroded constitutional provisions, which go in a thousand
and one unique directions. The US political system is surely broken, but as is the case with
such large institutions several hundreds of years old, its meltdown appears to happen in slow
motion to us mere mortals. And so what we are seeing today is the next phase of this
break-down, and really ought to be understood as monumental in this sense. Once again revealed
is the poor judgment of the Democratic Party and their agents, tools, warlords, and
strategists, the same gang who sunk Hillary Clinton's campaign on the rocks of hubris.
Nancy Pelosi also has poor judgment, and these short-sighted and self-interested moves on
her part stand a strong chance of backfiring. Her role in this charade is duly noted. This
isn't said because of any disagreement over her aims, but rather that in purely objective terms
it just so happens that her aims and her actions are out of synch – that is unless she
wants to see Trump re-elected. Her aims are her aims, our intention is to connect these to
their probable results, without moral judgments.
The real problem for the Democrats, the DNC, and any hopes for the White House in 2020, is
that this all has the odor of a massive backfire, and something that Trump has been counting on
happening. When one's opponent knows what is probable, and when they have a track record for
preparing very well for such, it is only a question of what Trump's strategy is and
how this falls into it, not whether there is one.
Imagine being a fly on the wall of the meeting with Pelosi where it was decided to go
forward with impeachment in the House of Representatives, despite not having either sufficient
traction in the Senate or any way to control the process that the Senate uses.
It probably went like this: ' We'll say we impeached him, because we did, and we'll say
he was impeached. We'll declare victory, and go home. This will make him unelectable because of
the stigma of impeachment. '
Informed citizens are aware that whatever their views towards Trump, nothing he has done
reaches beyond the established precedent set by past presidents. Confused citizens on the other
hand, are believing the manufactured talking points thrown their way, and the idea that a US
president loosely reference a quid pro quo in trying to sort a corruption scandal in dealings
with the president of a foreign country, is some crazy, new, never-before-done and
highly-illegal thing. It is none of those things though.
Unfortunately, not needless to say, the entirety of the direct, physical evidence against
Trump solely consists of the now infamous transcript of the phone call which he had with
Ukrainian president Zelensky. The rest is hearsay, a conspiracy narrative, and entirely
circumstantial. As this author has noted in numerous pieces, Biden's entire candidacy rests
precisely upon his need to be a candidate so that any normal investigation into the wrongdoings
of himself or his son in Ukraine, suddenly become the targeted persecution of a political
opponent of Trump.
Other than this, it is evident that Biden stands little chance – the same polling
institutions which give him a double-digit lead were those which foretold a Clinton electoral
victory. Neither their methods nor those paying and publishing them, have substantively
changed. Biden's candidacy, like the impeachment, is essentially fake. The real contenders for
the party's base are Sanders and Gabbard.
The Democratic Party Activist Base Despises Pelosi as much as Clinton
The Democratic Party has two bases, one controlled by the DNC and the Clintons, and one
which consists of its energized rank-and-file activists who are clearer in their populism,
anti-establishment and ant-corporate agenda. Candidates like Gabbard and Sanders are closest to
them politically, though far from perfect fits. Their renegade status is confirmed by the
difficulties they have with visibility – they are the new silent majority of the party.
The DNC base, on the other hand, relies on Rachel Maddow, Wolf Blitzer, and the likes for their
default talking points, where they have free and pervasive access to legacy media. In the
context of increased censorship online, this is not insignificant.
Among the important reasons this 'impeachment' strategy will lose is that it will not
energize the second and larger base. Even though this more progressive and populist base is
also more motivated, they have faced – as has the so-called alt-light – an
extraordinarily high degree of censorship on social media. Despite all the censorship, the
Democrats' silent majority are rather well-informed people, highly motivated, and tend to be
vocal in their communities and places of work. Their ideas move organically and virally among
the populace.
This silent majority has a very good memory, and they know very well who Nancy Pelosi is,
and who she isn't.
The silent majority remembers that after years of the public backlash against Bush's war
crimes, crimes against humanity, destruction of remaining civil liberties with the Patriot Act,
torture, warrantless search – and the list goes on and on – Democrats managed to
retake the lower house in 2006. If there was a legitimate reason for an impeachment, it would
have been championed by Pelosi against Bush for going to war using false, falsified,
manufactured evidence about WMD in Iraq. At the time, Pelosi squashed the hopes of her own
electorate, reasoning that such moves would be divisive, that they would distract from the
Democrats' momentum to take the White House in '08, that Bush had recently (?) won his last
election, and so on. Of course these were real crimes, and the reasons not to prosecute may
have as much to do with Pelosi's own role in the war industry. Pelosi couldn't really push
against Bush over torture, etc. because she had been on an elite congressional committee
– the House Intelligence Committee – during the Bush years in office which starting in
2003 was dedicated to making sure that torture could and would become normalized and
entirely legal.
It seems Pelosi can't even go anywhere with this impeachment on Trump today, and therefore
doesn't even really plan to submit it to the Senate for the next stage .
The political stunt was pulled, a fireworks show consisting of one lonely rocket that sort of
fizzled off out of sight.
Trump emerges unscathed, and more to the point, we are closer to the election and his base
is even more energized. Pelosi spent the better part of three years inoculating the public
against any significance being attached to any impeachment procedure. Pelosi cried wolf so many
times, and Trump has made good on the opportunities handed to him to get his talking points in
order and to condition his base to receive and process the scandals in such and such way. This
wouldn't have been possible without Pelosi's help. Thanks in part to Pelosi and the DNC, Trump
appears primed for re-election.
Trump energizes his base, and the DNC suppresses and disappoints theirs. That's where the
election will be won or lost.
This may be a good time to pull on my yellow waters, and take a look at Trump's letter to
Pelosi, since his letter is simultaneously a parting shot as the House votes impeachement, and
--
assuming impeachment doesn't die in the House -- the opening gun not only for his trial in
the Senate but for election 2020.
Here is the letter ; if you have time, it's worth reading it to form your own opinions.
One tip to make reading Trump more tolerable is to hear him as a borscht belt comedian like
Rodney Dangerfield or Henny Youngman.
Clifford A. Rieders , who grew up with enduring memories of the borscht belt, commented in
2016:
The humorists spanned the spectrum from Yiddish-speaking Brooklynites to Midwestern
Protestants. Each comedian had a shtick. What exactly is a shtick? A "shtick" was an
approach, an act, a way of relating to people that could be funny, serious, entertaining or
crass, but always memorable in some way. Donald Trump is surging in the polls because he has
a shtick. He is very much like a borscht belt entertainer, memorable because of how he speaks
and the way he presents himself, rather than his content. The experts will have to parse the
substance of Trump's message, if any, but his entertainment value should not be
underestimated. He is making people sit up and take notice, whether he is hated, loved, or
whether he just makes people shrug their shoulders and giggle.
... ... ...
Even more amazingly, the Times leaves this passage, which occurs immediately before the
passage they corrected, uncorrected:
Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. Against all evidence, and
regardless of the truth, you and your deputies claimed that my campaign colluded with the
Russians -- a grave, malicious, and slanderous lie, a falsehood like no other.
One must assume that the Times does not correct what it believes to be true. Therefore,
RussiaGate -- which the Times assiduously propagated, to its great profit -- is "a grave,
malicious, and slanderous lie"? Alrighty then.
Similarly:
What the Times is looking at is a blueprint for Trump's case to the voters in 2020. And yet
the Times can find only two corrections to make? If I were a liberal Democrat, I would be very,
very worried about 2020.
I'm not going to make an armchair diagnosis of Trump's mental state, or shoot fish in a
barrel with factchecking. Rather, I'm going to look at Trump's letter through the lens of his
schtick , or, using the seventy five-cent word, his rhetoric. (I will be the first to
say that Trump is not a superb technician; for an analysis of an orator who is, see NC
here on Julia Gillard .) First, I will show that Trump's letter falls naturally into two
parts: His defense against the indictment, and his 2020 case against the fitness of Democrats
to govern). Given that the text has such a structure, it's simply not tenable to call it an "
unhinged rant ," which disposes of the first mainstream response. Nor it is especially
useful to fact-check it, especially when the facts are so disputed[1], which disposes of the
second. Unfortunately, I cannot annotate the entire six-page letter, but I will comment on the
rhetoric used in each part. Now let's look at the two parts.
Here is the division point between the two parts. Using direct address (" inter se pugnantia "),
Trump writes:
There is nothing I would rather do than stop referring to your party as the Do-Nothing
Democrats. Unfortunately, I don't know that you will ever give me a chance to do so.
There are two reasons this paragraph marks a division. First, it's the first and only joke (
irony ). Second, it's
the first use of one of Trump's favorite figures: paralipsis , here saying something while pretending that one
does not wish to say it ("unfortunately," my sweet Aunt Fanny).
So, let us turn to the first part, Trump's defense. After some hyperbole about the
Constitution , Trump addresses each claim in the House indictment in turn. On (1) "Abuse of
Power," Trump responds that (A) "I had a totally innocent conversation with the President of
Ukraine," (B) "You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an
impeachable offense", (C) "you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what
Joe Biden has admitted he actually did," and (D) "President Zelensky has repeatedly declared
that I did nothing wrong." On (2), "Obstruction of Congress," Trump responds, (A) "if you make
a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power," (B) "you
have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and
nullify their votes," (C) "Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to the
present day", and (D) "You and your party are desperate to distract," followed by the
accomplishedments listed in the second Times "correction" above." I've lettered and numbered
the responses because the structure is perfectly clear to those who are willing to look for it.
(There is a minor Twitter controversy over whether Trump wrote the letter himself, but I would
say he, like any President, has people for that. I think that Trump, for whatever reason, had a
lot more input into part two, for reasons I will show.)
A second feature of the first part is that it's virtually devoid of rhetorical devices:
Tricolon and
anaphora are the
only ones used frequently ("[1] no crimes, [2] no misdemeanors, and [3]
no offenses"; "[1] you are violating your oaths of office, [2] you
are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and [3] you are declaring
open war on American Democracy"; "[1]misquoted, [2]mischaracterized, and [3]fraudulently
misrepresented").
Now let's turn to the second part. Unlike the first part, it can't be represented with an
outline structure. Indeed, it might be considered to be grist for Trump's improvisations and
A/B testing on the trail. From
my post describing Trump's visit to Bangor :
I want to focus on how [Trump] made [his] points: He didn't just emit them in
bulleted-list form. Rather, he treated them as waypoints. He'd state the point, clearly and
loudly, and then begin to move away from it in ever-widening circles, riffing jazzily on
anecdotes, making jokes, introducing other talking points ("We're gonna build the wall"),
introducing additional anecdotes, until finally popping the topical stack and circling back
to the next waypoint, which he would then state, clearly and loudly; rinse, repeat. The
political class considers or at least claims Trump's speeches are random and disorganized,
but they aren't; any speech and debate person who's done improvisation knows what's going
on.
You can just see Trump cutting up bits of part two, revising some, discarding others,
re-arranging them, and so on.
The primary rhetorical device in the second part is tu quoque , colloquially "The pot calling the
kettle black." Here it is combined with anaphora (and a dash of tricolon and alliteration ):
You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the
ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice.
You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish
[1] p ersonal, [2] p olitical, and [3]p p artisan gain.
And here Trump combines tu quoque with straight up [A] ad hominem plus [B] mesarchia , [C] tricolon, [D] hyperbole , and [E]
ad populum .
(I have to change the notating system for this one because the devices are so numerous and
interlocked.)
Perhaps most insulting of all is [A]your false display of solemnity. You apparently have
so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that [B] you
are approaching this impeachment [C]somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. [D]No
intelligent person believes what you are saying. Since the moment I won the election, the
Democrat Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever. There is no reticence. This is not a
somber affair. [B] You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are
scarcely concealing [C]your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of
patriotic Americans. [E]The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through this
[C]empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing.
Now, tu quoque is indeed a logical fallacy with respect to claims . But is it
a fallacy with respect to the right to govern, which is one way for Trump to structure the 2020
campaign?[1]
...A rhetorical analysis of Trump's letter shows that he will be a formidable opponent in
2020, and that he's crazy like a fox. Trump has form. His schtick has worked, and may well work
again.
It will come as a great shock to the dem establishment, a shock i tell you, that the
reporting they ignored coming from aaron mate and the other tinny (to their ears) voices to
their left was the
revealed truth
and could be wielded like a mighty club against them by trump
only not in the people's interest, because of course not, he's a republican
but anyway, who could have known? /s
as to Trump's charge of Do Nothing Democrats, the Democratic House has passed an entire
agenda of good things that the Senate has not acted upon. Also, is there ANY evidence to
suggest that African American unemployment is at an all time low? A favorite Trump technique
is to issue an obviously false statement as if it were true.
Overall rate, and rates by ethnicity have been declining since 2011, so record or near
record lows are recorded during the Trump years. YMMV as to how much Trump economic policies
have contributed to and/or not impeded the trend.
They have passed a few interesting bills. But how much time have they spent talking about
those bills, and other issues on which they want to move ahead for the people? Compared to
the media time sucked up by TrumpRussia, Impeachment, and the rest of the sh*tshow. I don't
watch any TV news, but to judge from headlines and other coverage I'll guess very little.
Thanks for the analysis. I'm not sure that the bit about the false display of solemnity is
an ad hominem. It seems to me that it would count as a fallacy if he were arguing that the
case against him is flawed for the reason that those making that case are bad people (people
who feign solemnity). But that's not how I read it.
I read it as an attempt to work up anger against his accusers. At one point in the
Rhetoric, Aristotle claims that people become angry with someone when they think they have
been slighted by that person. One way of slighting people is to take them for fools. This is
an insult. If Trump were right and Democrats really were feigning solemnity while gleefully
engaged in a narrowly self-interested effort to overturn an election, then Democrats would be
taking voters for fools. Many voters would find this insulting. Also, Aristotle thought that
angry people are moved to take revenge. This amounts to a desire to bring the insulting party
low. Bringing low, in this case, would surely involve voting against Democrats, punishing
them by keeping them out or throwing them out of high office.
I suppose, then, that this particular passage looks to me like good rhetoric as opposed to
fallacious argument. Or at least partly good. He seems to know what he's doing where pathos
is concerned.
Lambert describes President Trump's style as schtick but another way is to consider it as
a wrestling character named "President Trump." Remember President Trump was involved with the
WWE and had the owners wife Linda McMahon in his cabinet and she is now running a pro-Trump
super PAC.
Having grown up watching professional wrestling President Trump's campaign rallies are
exactly like a wrestling show. He is playing a character and has to be quick thinking and
able to ad-lib to manipulate the crowd's emotions. The crowd also has to become part of the
show as well and overreact to signal to the performer (in this case who happens to be the
President) they are engaged with the show. The baby face (Trump) is cheered loudly and the
heels (Democrats/media) are booed in an exaggerated manner.
This character development and ad-libbing/a b testing is then always in use when dealing
with the media and when tweeting. Since the President is a caricature his followers aren't
bothered by his incorrect statements and when the Democrats/media point out his
mis-statements it doesn't register because everyone knows wrestling is fake.
A rhetorical analysis of Trump's letter shows that he will be a formidable opponent in
2020, and that he's crazy like a fox.
Make America Great Again. Trump trademarked that saying 1 week after the 2012 election. He
isn't crazy he's sly like a fox.
I've been around for a while and my attitude is that all of these "prexies", with the
exception maybe of Ike, have been lying sacks of shit. Now while they all facilitated mass
thievery by their friends and associates (as the mob would say), they could have at least had
the good form to be funny. But no! They were all so earnest and sanctimonious. Kind of like
my parish priest handing out the wafers.
I probably spent way too many hours warming various bar-stools next to a variety of
knuckleheads, so I'm going to give Trump his due, OK? The guy has given me more chuckles,
laughs, guffaws and all around hilarity than six decades worth of well dressed socio-paths.
And as a bonus, a big bonus, he has greatly discomforted all of the smartest grifters in the
room. Whenever I see the guy, Im in the Catskills.
I am convinced that the Dems are not actually interested or focused on defeating Trump, or
they would adopt an effective strategy. The question I keep wrestling with is, what is the
point to the strategy that is so ineffective?
They are perhaps infiltrated by malicious actors, or positioning for something bigger? The
clarity of the critique mentioned above by Aaron Mate to me isn't mysterious or difficult to
find.
How about this:they are preparing for election 2024? I'm not joking.
Rodney Dangerfield? Don Rickles? Our political culture has truly been debased by popular
culture into a stand-up competition. Trump's base knows that he's channeling New Wave/Punk
comedians Sam Kinison and Bobcat Goldthwait.
Whose schtick eventually erased Kinison and the Bobcat's out-of-control nihilism from the
popular culture? The laid-back Jerry Seinfeld as written by Larry David -- yet another reason
to support Bernie Sanders over the other wooden Dem contenders. Did you see the "debate" on
SNL last weekend? Get them on a stage together and Bernie's schtick will slay Trump's
Over a dinner of the "Presidential Cheeseburger" and wedge salad, Mr. Parnas relayed a rumor
that Marie L. Yovanovitch, then the American ambassador to Ukraine, was bad-mouthing the
president -- an unsubstantiated claim that Ms. Yovanovitch has denied, according to two people
with knowledge of the dinner.
The exchange foreshadowed the role that Mr. Parnas and Mr. Fruman would come to play in Mr.
Trump's Ukrainian campaign.
Less than two weeks later, Mr. Parnas met with another critic of Ms. Yovanovitch,
Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, in his Washington congressional office. Mr. Parnas, who
had recently met Mr. Sessions at a fund-raiser, showed him a map of a crucial pipeline related
to their gas venture, a photo shows.
By the end of the meeting, though, the topic had shifted to Ms. Yovanovitch, and Mr. Parnas
reiterated what he had heard, a person briefed on the meeting said. After the meeting, Mr.
Sessions sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo saying that Ms. Yovanovitch had spoken
disdainfully of the Trump administration, and suggesting her removal. Mr. Sessions, who lost
his re-election bid last year, has previously said he wrote the letter independently of Mr.
Parnas and Mr. Fruman, after speaking to congressional colleagues.
Federal prosecutors contend in the indictment against Mr. Parnas that he was not just
making small talk but sought to oust Ms. Yovanovitch "at the request of one or more Ukrainian
government officials," which could be a violation of federal laws that require Americans to
register with the Justice Department when lobbying for foreign political interests. The
indictment did not name any Ukrainian officials.
"... Currently the United States is assisting Ukraine against Russia by providing some non-lethal military equipment as well as limited training for Kiev's army. It has balked at getting more involved in the conflict, rightly so. ..."
"... The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now. They inevitably produced the Hitler analogy, citing the example of 1938 and Munich as well as the subsequent partition of Poland in 1939 to make their case. When I asked what the United States would gain by intervening they responded that in return for military assistance, Washington will have a good and democratic friend in Ukraine which will serve as a bulwark against further Russian expansion. ..."
"... But Obama chose to stay home as punishment for Putin, which I think was a bad choice suggesting that he is being strongly influenced by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the other neocons who seem to have retained considerable power in his administration. ..."
"... Obama told a crowd gathered outside the Nike footwear company in Oregon that the deal is necessary because "if we don't write the rules, China will " ..."
"... Obama takes as a given that he will be able to "write the rules." This is American hubris writ large and I am certain that many who are thereby designated to follow Washington's lead are as offended by it as I am. Bad move Barack. ..."
Currently the United States is assisting Ukraine against Russia by providing some non-lethal military equipment as well as
limited training for Kiev's army. It has balked at getting more involved in the conflict, rightly so. With that in mind,
I had a meeting with a delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians and government officials a couple of weeks ago. I tried to explain
to them why many Americans are wary of helping them by providing lethal, potentially game changing military assistance in what Kiev
sees as a struggle to regain control of Crimea and other parts of their country from militias that are clearly linked to Moscow.
I argued that while Washington should be sympathetic to Ukraine's aspirations it has no actual horse in the race, that the imperative
for bilateral relations with Russia, which is the only nation on earth that can attack and destroy the United States, is that they
be stable and that all channels for communication remain open.
I also observed that the negative perception of Washington-driven
democracy promotion around the world has been in part shaped by the actual record on interventions since 2001, which has not been
positive. Each exercise of the military option has wound up creating new problems, like the mistaken policies in Libya, Iraq and
Syria, all of which have produced instability and a surge in terrorism. I noted that the U.S. does not need to bring about a new
Cold War by trying to impose democratic norms in Eastern Europe but should instead be doing all in its power to encourage a reasonable
rapprochement between Moscow and Kiev. Providing weapons or other military support to Ukraine would only cause the situation to escalate,
leading to a new war by proxies in Eastern Europe that could rapidly spread to other regions.
The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will
inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now. They inevitably produced
the Hitler analogy, citing the example of 1938 and Munich as well as the subsequent partition of Poland in 1939 to make their case.
When I asked what the United States would gain by intervening they responded that in return for military assistance, Washington will
have a good and democratic friend in Ukraine which will serve as a bulwark against further Russian expansion.
I explained that Russia does not have the economic or military resources to dominate Eastern Europe and its ambitions appear to
be limited to establishing a sphere of influence that includes "protection" for some adjacent areas that are traditionally Russian
and inhabited by ethnic Russians. Crimea is, unfortunately, one such region that was actually directly governed by Moscow between
1783 and 1954 and it is also militarily vitally important to Moscow as it is the home of the Black Sea Fleet. I did not point that
out to excuse Russian behavior but only to suggest that Moscow does have an argument to make, particularly as the United States has
been meddling in Eastern Europe, including Ukraine where it has "invested" $5 billion, since the Clinton Administration.
I argued that if resurgent Russian nationalism actually endangered the United States there would be a case to be made for constricting
Moscow by creating an alliance of neighbors that would be able to help contain any expansion, but even the hawks in the U.S. Congress
are neither prepared nor able to demonstrate a genuine threat. Fear of the expansionistic Soviet Union after 1945 was indeed the
original motivation for creating NATO. But the reality is that Russia is only dangerous if the U.S. succeeds in backing it into a
corner where it will begin to consider the kind of disruption that was the norm during the Cold War or even some kind of nuclear
response or demonstration. If one is focused on U.S. interests globally Russia has actually been a responsible player, helping in
the Middle East and also against international terrorism.
So there was little to agree on apart from the fact that the Ukrainians have a right to have a government they choose for themselves
and also to defend themselves. And we Americans have in the Ukrainians yet another potential client state that wants our help. In
return we would have yet another dependency whose concerns have to be regarded when formulating our foreign policy. One can sympathize
with the plight of the Ukrainians but it is not up to Washington to fix the world or to go around promoting democracy as a potential
solution to pervasive regional political instability.
Obviously a discussion based on what are essentially conflicting interests will ultimately go nowhere and so it did in this case,
but it did raise the issue of why Washington's relationship with Moscow is so troubled, particularly as it need not be so. Regarding
Ukraine and associated issues, Washington's approach has been stick-and-carrot with the emphasis on the stick through the imposition
of painful sanctions and meaningless though demeaning travel bans. I would think that reversing that formulation to emphasize rewards
would actually work better as today's Russia is actually a relatively new nation in terms of its institutions and suffers from insecurity
about its place in the world and the respect that it believes it is entitled to receive.
Russia
recently celebrated the 70 th anniversary of the end of World War Two in Europe. The celebration was boycotted by
the United States and by many Western European nations in protest over Russian interference in Ukraine. I don't know to what extent
Obama has any knowledge of recent history, but the Russians were the ones who were most instrumental in the defeat of Nazi Germany,
losing 27 million citizens in the process. It would have been respectful for President Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry to
travel to Moscow for the commemoration and it would likely have produced a positive result both for Ukraine and also to mitigate
the concern that a new Cold War might be developing. But Obama chose to stay home as punishment for Putin, which I think was
a bad choice suggesting that he is being strongly influenced by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the other neocons
who seem to have retained considerable power in his administration.
And I also would note a couple of other bad choices made during the past several weeks. The Trans-Pacific multilateral trade agreement
that is currently working its way through Congress and is being aggressively promoted by the White House might be great for business
though it may or may not be good for the American worker, which, based on previous agreements, is a reasonable concern. But what
really disturbs me is the Obama explanation of why the pact is important. Obama
told a crowd gathered outside the Nike footwear company in Oregon that the deal is necessary because "if we don't write the rules,
China will "
Fear of the Yellow Peril might indeed be legitimate but it would be difficult to make the case that an internally troubled China
is seeking to dominate the Pacific. If it attempts to do so, it would face strong resistance from the Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos
and Koreans among others. But what is bothersome to me and probably also to many in the Asian audience is that Obama takes as
a given that he will be able to "write the rules." This is American hubris writ large and I am certain that many who are thereby
designated to follow Washington's lead are as offended by it as I am. Bad move Barack.
And finally there is Iran as an alleged state sponsor of terrorism. President Obama claims that he is working hard to achieve
a peaceful settlement of the alleged threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. But if that is so why does he throw obstacles irrelevant
to an agreement out to make the Iranian government more uncomfortable and therefore unwilling or unable to compromise? In an
interview with Arabic
newspaper Asharq al-Awsat Obama called Tehran a terrorism supporter, stating that "it [Iran] props up the Assad regime in
Syria. It supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It aids the Houthi rebels in Yemen so countries in the region
are rights to be deeply concerned " I understand that the interview was designed to reassure America's friends in the Gulf that the
United States shares their concerns and will continue to support them but the timing would appear to be particularly unfortunate.
The handling of Russia, China and Iran all exemplify the essential dysfunction in American foreign policy. The United States should
have a mutually respectful relationship with Russia, ought to accept that China is an adversary but not necessarily an enemy unless
we make it so and it should also finally realize that an agreement with Iran is within its grasp as long as Washington does not overreach.
It is not clear that any of that is well understood and one has to wonder precisely what kind of advice Obama is receiving when fails
to understand the importance of Russia, insists on "writing the rules" for Asia, and persists in throwing around the terrorist label.
If the past fifteen years have taught us anything it is that the "Washington as the international arbiter model" is not working.
Obama should wake up to that reality before Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush arrives on the scene to make everything worse.
Tom Welsh, May 19, 2015 at 7:02 am GMT • 100 Words
All of this misses the point, IMHO. There is really no need to explain that Russia has no plans to conquer Europe, China has
no plans to take over the Pacific, etc. Anyone with a little historical knowledge and some common sense can see that plainly.
What is happening is that the USA has overweening aspirations to control (and then suck dry) the entire world – and Europe, Russia
and China are next on its hit list.
So it naturally accuses those nations of aspiring to what it plans to do. Standard operating procedure.
The Priss Factor, May 19, 2015 at 7:19 am GMT • 100 Words
"The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will
inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now."
I can understand Ukrainian animus against Russia due to history and ethnic tensions.
But that is ridiculous. They can't possibly believe it. I think they're repeating Neocon talking points to persuade American
that the fate of the world is at stake.
It's really just a local affair.
And Crimea would still belong to Ukraine if the crazies in Ukraine hadn't conspired with Neocons like Nuland to subvert and
overthrow the regime.
Adam Schiff Has 'No Sympathy' For FBI Victim Carter Page; Page Responds by Tyler Durden Sun, 12/22/2019 -
13:00 0 SHARES
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) says it's hard to feel sympathetic for former Trump campaign aide
Carter Page, despite the fact that he was spied on by the FBI after the agency fabricated
evidence to obtain a surveillance warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
court.
After the FISA court denied their request, FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith fabricated evidence
to exclude the fact that Page was a CIA source, with "positive assessment," despite the fact
that the CIA informed Clinesmith of Page's prior work for the agency.
Schiff, however, has no love for Page despite DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz finding
16 significant 'errors' in the FBI's FISA applications used to surveil Page.
"I have to say, you know, Carter Page came before our Committee and for hours of his
testimony, denied things that we knew were true, later had to admit them during his testimony
," Schiff told PBS News ' Margaret Hoover. " It's hard to be sympathetic to someone
who isn't honest with you when he comes and testifies under oath . It's also hard to be
sympathetic when you have someone who has admitted to being an adviser to the Kremlin ."
Hoover countered, noting "But then was also informing the CIA," to which Schiff replies
"Yes, yes."
"Which we didn't know about," replied Hoover.
" Who was both targeted by the KGB but also talking to the United States and its agencies
and that should have been included , made clear, and it wasn't, according to the inspector
general," Schiff responded.
. @RepAdamSchiff is unsympathetic
to Carter Page, telling @FiringLineShow that Page
"denied things that we knew were true" in testimony, admitted to being an advisor to the
Kremlin & "was apparently both targeted by the KGB, but also talking to the United States
and its agencies." pic.twitter.com/GkjdGQZWLV
-- Firing Line with Margaret
Hoover (@FiringLineShow) December
20, 2019
After Schiff's comments were published, Page responded on Twitter: "There have been various
allegations of dishonesty regarding FBI lawyer Clinesmith. On information, belief and firsthand
experience since 2017, I have actually found @RepAdamSchiff to be even more untrustworthy and
dangerous with his misuse of @DNC lies. "
There have been various allegations of dishonesty regarding FBI lawyer Clinesmith. On
information, belief and firsthand experience since 2017, I have actually found @RepAdamSchiff to
be even more untrustworthy and dangerous with his misuse of @DNC lies: https://t.co/kMkRYFceGs
If you don't feel sympathy for someone who was wrongly smeared for years as being a
traitor, and who was spied on by his own government due to FBI lying & subterfuge, then
you're not only unqualified to wield power but probably also a sociopath.
The President of the USofA has no power to turn this ship around. The seat of power is no
longer residing in the hands of civilian/political actors prime ministers or presidents though
they may be.
Candidate Trump indicated very early on that he intended to withdraw from Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, he soon succumbed to his advisors and generals advice of increasing troop
strength in 2017 as part of a surge strategy. This makes him no better or worse than his two
predecessors who succumbed to the same kind of advice.
However Trump has recently restarted negotiations with the Taliban and has renewed his
pledged to remove several thousand troops. "We're going down to 8,600 [from the 12,000 and
13,000 US troops now there] and then we make a determination from there as to what happens,"
Trump told Fox last August. "We're bringing it down." Of course the drawdown will be seen by
the neocons as a unilateral concession to the Taliban. That shouldn't phase Trump. I think he
plans to reannounce this withdrawal next month. DoD officials have said that the smaller US
military presence will be largely focused on counterterrorism operations against groups like
al Qaeda and IS, and that the military's ability to train and advise local Afghan forces will
be reduced considerably. Sounds like they're still looking for a reason to stay.
Trump can break the cycle. He holds no ideological conviction for staying in Afghanistan.
If he could get over his BDS (Bezos derangement syndrome), he could seize this Washington
Post series, or at least the SIGAR lessons learned reports, and trumpet them through his
twitter feed and helicopter talks. I believe he alone can generate a public cry for getting
the hell out of Afghanistan and carry through with that action no matter how much his
generals scream about it. But without a loud public outcry, especially from his base, Trump
has no incentive to break the cycle. So all you deplorables better start hootin' and
hollerin'. Hopefully enough SJWs will join you to pump up the volume.
Excellent, right up to the last sentence. SJWs are mere tools of people like George Soros
and have zero anti-war agenda nor do they care about America's manufacturing base ect.. In
fact, many are chomping at the bit to join, what was once termed in the SST comments, the
LGBTQ-C4ISR sect. I refer you to mayor Pete's exchange with Tulsi on the matter; he even
invoked our sacred honor as a reason to stay the course in Afghanistan.
TTG,
It's a shrinking cohort. For some of these types, their TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) is
actually causing them to side with the CIA and military. Enemy of my enemy.....and since
there's no draft, they have no skin in that game.
For the past 2-3 years many generals and politicians have been using the threat of ISKP as
the new bogeyman for staying in Afghanistan. This threat is not wholly unfounded, a
disproportionately large number of US airstrikes since 2015-2016 have been against ISKP in
Nangarhar(remember the MOAB?) rather than against the Taliban. If my memory serves me
correctly ISKP was responsible for every single US casualty in 2016-2017. In the past two
months however ISKP has been collapsing in its erstwhile stronghold of Nangarhar,
surrendering to the ANA rather than fall into the hands of the Taliba,à la Jowzjan
in summer 2018. I was very surprised by the number of foreign fighters and their families
to come out of there. We have the Taliban to thank for these two collapses.
IMO American "exceptionalism" doomed our effort in Afghanistan Very few of us are set up
mentally to accept the notion that other peoples are legitimately different from us and
that they don't want to be like us and do things our way. I attribute this deformation on
our part to the puritan heritage that you much admire. In your case your recent immigrant
past seems to have immunized you from this deformation. As SF men we rightly fear and dread
the attitudes of The Big Army, but, truth be told, it is we who are the outlier freaks in
the context of American culture with its steamroller approach to just about everything.
Ah yes, all that shining city on the hill stuff biting us in the ass once again. Like the
Puritans, we seem to believe we alone are His chosen people and are utterly shocked that
all others don't see this. In truth, Jesus probably sees our self righteous selves and our
pilgrim forefathers much as he saw the Pharisees... a bunch of douche nozzles.
In May 2016, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, famously proclaimed that, "If
we [Republicans] nominate Trump, we will get destroyed and we will deserve it." Since then,
Graham has become one of President Donald Trump's staunchest defenders, making Graham the
target of critics who paint him as a hypocrite for repeatedly contradicting his previously
expressed stances.
In 2015, for example, Graham called Donald Trump a
"race-baiting xenophobic bigot," but by 2018 he was claiming that he had "never heard [Trump]
make a single racist statement." And in 1999, during impeachment proceedings against
President Bill Clinton (a Democrat), Graham asserted that an
impeachable offense "doesn't even have to be a crime," but then in 2019 Graham
challenged those calling for the impeachment of Trump to "show me something that is a
crime"
President Trump also had words for Pelosi on Monday after the Speaker called for "fairness"
in a Senate trial.
"Pelosi gives us the most unfair trial in the history of the U.S. Congress, and now she is
crying for fairness in the Senate, and breaking all rules while doing so," Trump tweeted,
adding "She lost Congress once, she will do it again!"
Pelosi gives us the most unfair trial in the history of the U.S. Congress, and now she is
crying for fairness in the Senate, and breaking all rules while doing so. She lost Congress
once, she will do it again!
Pelosi says she will only transmit the impeachment articles to the Senate after Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announces the process they will use for Trump's
trial.
The U.S. Senate trial for the Democratic Party's impeachment of President Donald Trump is in
limbo.
It's because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, pressing the Senate to comply with her demands, has
withheld the articles voted on by House Democrats.
Advertisement - story continues below
Some scholars, including a witness for the Democrats, believe the unprecedented move is
unconstitutional.
After all, that Constitution states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the
President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall
be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
The Founders inserted no clause giving the House speaker authority to make such demands.
It's why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell believes Pelosi eventually will give up her
power play.
Advertisement - story continues below
Fox News reported McConnell believes Pelosi "seems to think she can dictate the rules of a
Senate impeachment trial."
McConnell, a Republican senator from Kentucky, said on "Fox & Friends," "She apparently
believes she can tell us how to run the trial."
But that is "absurd," he said, saying she'll back down "sooner or later."
"We can't do anything until the speaker sends the papers over, so everybody enjoy the
holidays," McConnell said.
The Fox report explained Pelosi was trying "to pressure the Senate to agree to certain terms
for a trial."
Advertisement - story continues below
"She indicated the House would eventually send the articles over to the upper chamber but
insisted it is up to the Senate to determine how the process develops going forward," the
report said.
She doubled down on Monday, Fox News reported.
"The House cannot choose our impeachment managers until we know what sort of trial the
Senate will conduct," Pelosi said. "President Trump blocked his own witnesses and documents
from the House, and from the American people, on phony complaints about the House process. What
is his excuse now?"
Pelosi was referring to the contempt of Congress article of impeachment. The White House
argues it has the right to dispute any subpoenas for witnesses or documents and that such
disputes should be resolved in court.
Advertisement - story continues below
McConnell has argued for following the precedent of the Clinton impeachment.
"You listen to the opening arguments, you have a written question period, and at that point,
in the Clinton trial, we had a decision about which witnesses to call and, as you can imagine,
that was a pretty partisan exercise, but we didn't let the partisan part of it keep us from
getting started so all I'm doing is saying what was good for President Clinton is good for
President Trump," McConnell said.
President Trump has been mocking Pelosi's delay in presenting the articles of impeachment to
the Senate. He said the Senate can invalidate the articles if they're not delivered by a
certain date.
The president said on Twitter: "Pelosi feels her phony impeachment HOAX is so pathetic she
is afraid to present it to the Senate, which can set a date and put this whole SCAM into
default if they refuse to show up! The Do Nothings are so bad for our Country!"
Advertisement - story continues below
McConnell previously dismissed claims by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who has been
lobbying for impeachment for months, that the senators overseeing the trial should be
"impartial."
"Do you think Chuck Schumer is impartial? Do you think Elizabeth Warren is impartial? Bernie
Sanders is impartial?" McConnell said.
"So let's quit the charade. This is a political exercise. All I'm asking of Schumer is that
we treat Trump the same way we treated Clinton."
Schumer, contradicting himself, has claimed he could be an impartial juror in the Senate
even though he's already claimed Trump is guilty.
"Bruce Fein, a former senior official in the Department of Justice and a constitutional
scholar, has identified 12 impeachable offenses committed by Donald Trump. But, as he notes,
many of these constitutional violations are not unique to the Trump administration. They have
been normalized by Democratic and Republican administrations."
Impeachment blues: Can you believe the empire cant even manage a decent impeachment. There is
a broad debate going on in the crazed land of U$A and it turns on this
contradiction .
THIS empire is a lethal threat to our planet and they cock up all they touch. Can you
believe they held an impeachment hearing in the House of Representatives and didn't have the
accused present? They relied on a whistleblower that was prohibited to attend because he may
be revealed yet everyone knew Ciaramella was the leaker (whistleblower) relying on hearsay
evidence. There are no rules of natural justice in the U$A empire. Mendacity uber
alles.
John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr.
Brennan's emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed
on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former
F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.'s views of a notorious dossier of
assertions about Russia and Trump associates.
... ... ...
Mr. Durham is also examining whether Mr. Brennan privately contradicted his public comments,
including May
2017 testimony to Congress , about both the dossier and about any debate among the
intelligence agencies over their conclusions on Russia's interference, the people said.
... ... ..
"The president bore the burden of probably one of the greatest conspiracy theories --
baseless conspiracy theories -- in American political history," Mr. Barr told Fox News. He has
long expressed skepticism that the F.B.I. had enough information to begin its inquiry in 2016,
publicly criticizing an inspector general report released last week that affirmed that the
bureau did.
Mr. Barr has long been
interested in the conclusion about Mr. Putin ordering intervention on Mr. Trump's behalf,
perhaps the intelligence report's most explosive assertion. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported
high confidence in the conclusion, while the N.S.A., which conducts electronic surveillance,
had a moderate degree of confidence.
... ... ...
Critics of the intelligence assessment, like Representative Chris Stewart, Republican of
Utah, said the C.I.A.'s sourcing failed to justify the high level of confidence about Moscow's
intervention on behalf of Mr. Trump.
"I don't agree with the conclusion, particularly that it's such a high level of confidence,"
Mr. Stewart said, citing raw intelligence that he said he reviewed.
"I just think there should've been allowances made for some of the ambiguity in that and
especially for those who didn't also share in the conclusion that it was a high degree of
confidence," he added.
Mr. Durham's investigators also want to know more about the discussions that prompted
intelligence community leaders to include Mr. Steele's allegations in the
appendix of their assessment.
Mr. Brennan has repeatedly said, including in his 2017 congressional testimony, that the
C.I.A. did not rely on the dossier when it helped develop the assessment, and the former
director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has also testified before lawmakers that the
same was true for the intelligence agencies more broadly. But Mr. Trump's allies have long
asked pointed questions about the dossier, including how it was used in the intelligence
agency's assessment.
Some C.I.A. analysts and officials insisted that the dossier be left out of the assessment,
while some F.B.I. leaders wanted to include it and bristled at its relegation to the appendix.
Their disagreements were captured in the highly anticipated report released last week
by Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, examining aspects of the
F.B.I.'s Russia investigation.
Mr. Steele's information "was a topic of significant discussion within the F.B.I. and with
the other agencies participating in drafting" the declassified intelligence assessment about
Russia interference, Mr. Horowitz wrote. The F.B.I. shared Mr. Steele's information with the
team of officials from multiple agencies drafting the assessment.
Mr. Comey also briefed Mr. Brennan and other top Obama administration intelligence officials
including the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, and Mr. Clapper
about the bureau's efforts to assess the information in the dossier, Mr. Comey told the
inspector general. He said that analysts had found it to be "credible on its face."
... ... ...
Andrew G. McCabe, then the deputy director of the F.B.I., pushed back, according to the
inspector general report, accusing the intelligence chiefs of trying to minimize Mr. Steele's
information.
Ultimately the two sides compromised by placing Mr. Steele's material in the appendix. After
BuzzFeed News published the dossier in January 2017, days after the intelligence assessment
about Russia's election sabotage was released, Mr. Comey complained to Mr. Clapper about his
decision to publicly state that the intelligence community "has not made any judgment" about
the document's reliability.
Mr. Comey said that the F.B.I. had concluded that Mr. Steele was reliable, according to the
inspector general report. Mr. Clapper ignored Mr. Comey, the report said.
"... Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon pulled no punches in an interview with Fox Business Network's Trish Regan saying that the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump will be the "trial of the century." ..."
"... Bannon said Republicans ought to "turn the tables" on Democrats and demand a full trial that will force it to go into the Democratic presidential primary. ..."
"... "I think you ought to demand a full trial, where to get witnesses -- and, hey, if it takes too long, it's the Democrats to force this constitutional crisis over the Christmas holidays. If this trial goes on for a month or two into the Democratic primary, that's a tough break for them. They're the ones that forced this. One of the reasons they forced it is their field is so weak going in there. Nobody cares. Like I said, witness protection program. Nobody cares about their debate. They're the ones that force this. " ..."
"... "... this is the managed decline of the United States. This is about the Washington consensus. The Washington Post published the Afghanistan papers last week. Two trillion dollars. 2,400 dead. Tens of thousands wounded. What's that? That's the inter-agency consensus in 18 years that betrayed our country. That's what betrayed our countries. With Brennan, that's what betrayed our country, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump has stood up. The reasons people cheer for him, it's their sons and daughters that have died in Afghanistan. It's their lives, their kids' lives being thrown away, and their tax dollars. " ..."
Having blasted the liberal elites earlier in the week for
"not giving a f**k" about the average joe in America:
"Look, this is what drives me nuts about the left. All immigration is to flood the zone
with cheap labour, and the reason is because the elites don't give a fuck about African
Americans and the Hispanic working class . They don't care about the white working class
either. You're just a commodity" .
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon pulled no punches in an interview with
Fox Business Network's Trish Regan saying that the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald
Trump will be the "trial of the century."
" I think this trial is going to be the trial of the century, a nd the mainstream media is
going to be all over it," Bannon said.
"That's why I think it's so important not just for his legacy, but for his presidency and
his second term. He's got to engage in this. He's got to take them on. He's got to have the
whistleblower; we have to have the Bidens in front of the nation and the world. They're going
to have to stand and deliver under oath. And we're going to get to the bottom of this . And I
think that's going to lead to an exoneration, not just an acquittal, but an exoneration of
President Trump."
Bannon said Republicans ought to "turn the tables" on Democrats and demand a full trial
that will force it to go into the Democratic presidential primary.
"I think you ought to demand a full trial, where to get witnesses -- and, hey, if it
takes too long, it's the Democrats to force this constitutional crisis over the Christmas
holidays. If this trial goes on for a month or two into the Democratic primary, that's a
tough break for them. They're the ones that forced this. One of the reasons they forced it is
their field is so weak going in there. Nobody cares. Like I said, witness protection program.
Nobody cares about their debate. They're the ones that force this. "
Bannon went on to reiterate his belief that Hillary Clinton will "inevitably" be the
Democratic Presidential nominee... but will lose... again:
" Hillary Clinton comes in at the moment that she feels that she can step in to save the
Democratic Party and try to convince people that a rematch with President Trump is the best
way that they have to try to defeat President Trump," Bannon said.
"They won't beat him. Right now, there's nobody, including Hillary Clinton out there, that
can beat Donald Trump. But they're going to get desperate here because look at tonight.
Nobody cares about this debate, this debate's in Los Angeles."
Finally, the former strategist raged against "the Washington Consensus":
"... this is the managed decline of the United States. This is about the Washington
consensus. The Washington Post published the Afghanistan papers last week. Two trillion
dollars. 2,400 dead. Tens of thousands wounded. What's that? That's the inter-agency
consensus in 18 years that betrayed our country. That's what betrayed our countries. With
Brennan, that's what betrayed our country, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump has stood up. The
reasons people cheer for him, it's their sons and daughters that have died in Afghanistan.
It's their lives, their kids' lives being thrown away, and their tax dollars. "
And that, Bannon exclaimed, is why we need a trial in the Senate to expose the swamp.
"And they understand that Donald Trump is fighting that. That's why we need a trial, a
real trial and Senate with witnesses. So, before the world, Donald Trump could get his day in
court. "
Trish Regan: I do believe the president heard that she wants to run again from this show,
from none other than Mr. Stephen Bannon here on set with me, who talked about Hillary Clinton
getting back in potentially again. And also, you called Bloomberg as well. So, Bloomberg's in,
is Hillary going to join?
Steve Bannon: I think it's inevitable. They had a poll out today that showed Biden at like
28, Bernie 21, Elizabeth Warren in the high teens. It looks like something that's going to get
to a -- particularly with Super Tuesday, when Biden drops the nuclear weapon of his money on
these in these big states. It's going to lead to a brokered convention. Hillary Clinton, I
think, is going to come in when it's evident that none of the radical left of the Democratic
Party can beat the President Trump --
[cross talk]
Steve Bannon: -- A brokered convention. I think Hillary Clinton comes in at the moment that
she feels that she can step in to save the Democratic Party and try to convince people that a
rematch with President Trump is the best way that they have to try to defeat President Trump.
They won't beat him. Right now, there's nobody, including Hillary Clinton out there, that can
beat Donald Trump. But they're going to get desperate here because look at tonight. Nobody
cares about this debate, this debate's in Los Angeles.
Trish Regan : They should be watching you.
Steve Bannon: Well, I'm talking about on MSNBC and CNN and their networks. They're not
they're not running around saying, this thing is great. They understand these people, not just
are boring, it's not just about their star quality, it's what they're talking about is so off
the mainstream, it's not connecting with people. And they're going to start getting desperate.
Remember, their number one thing is that Donald Trump is an existential threat to the
Democratic Party, to the established order and to the mainstream media, and they will do
anything to take him down and destroy him. In particular, you saw last night what he's talking
about to the people; hey, they're trying to come after you, they're trying to come after me to
get to you. We are in this together. And he saw people respond to that. That response of that
audience last night for two hours, that stood out for hours in, what, 15- or 17-degree cold is
quite remarkable.
Trish Regan: What I find remarkable and, you know, we can say this is a couple Irishmen --
or Irishman and an Irishwoman. You think about traditional Democrats, right? And I think about
my family and how my dad's family was, historically, big Irish Catholic family and you were a
Democrat like you're Catholic. Like, it was part of your religion, right? And, you know, my --
and if you were lucky enough, you got a job in the union. And so, there was a feeling that you
always voted blue, and that has changed.
Steve Bannon: Last night you saw that. He's connected with working class -- listen to this.
It's the reason he won Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa. States they never thought
we'd win again. And altogether because he went and he got, you know, Democrats, blue collar
Democrats to vote for it and they believe in it. And they're seeing -- here's the thing they're
seeing, the manifestation of his actions are making their lives better. You know, the Zogby
poll today said that 53 percent of Democrats think that their party is spending too much time
on impeachment instead of getting things done legislatively. It is so --
Trish Regan: And they got that right. And it's not just, you know, we talk about Irish
Americans. I mean, I look at the African American population right now and you look at some of
the poll numbers there. And he's doing extremely well in a way that you wouldn't really think
he would with that particular population, given the media.
Steve Bannon: Well that's what the immigration policy -- remember everything was to make
sure that wasn't more labor pressure on African Americans and Hispanics. That's why you seen
the approval rate -- I think it's 34 percent of African Americans approve now by Pew, and 36
percent of Hispanics. Because you're seeing wages starting to rise. People -- unemployment's at
historic lows, wages starting to rise. That's why I think it's so important, since they've
smeared him in this process. He didn't get to call any witnesses in this trial. And I think
this trial will be -- it's going to be the trial of the century, and the mainstream media is
going to be all over it. That's why I think it's so important not just for his legacy, but for
his presidency and his second term. He's got to engage in this. He's got to take them on. He's
got to have the whistleblower; we have to have the Bidens in front of the nation and the world.
They're going to have to stand and deliver under oath. And we're going to get to the bottom of
this. And I think that's going to lead to an exoneration, not just an acquittal, but an
exoneration of President Trump.
Trish Regan: The trial of the century. Wow. You know, a lot of people are worried, well, you
get John Bolton. What is he going to do? What is John Bolton going to say? And what is this one
going to say? What is that one going to say? What do you say to those concerns?
Steve Bannon: The president -- the call was perfect. He looked at everything that led up to
it. This is why the American people heard him. And you just saw the bureaucrats that were in it
that were testified. This is because that is the managed decline of the United States. This is
about the Washington consensus. The Washington Post published the Afghanistan papers last week.
Two trillion dollars. 2,400 dead. Tens of thousands wounded. What's that? That's the
inter-agency consensus in 18 years that betrayed our country. That's what betrayed our
countries. With Brennan, that's what betrayed our country, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump has
stood up. The reasons people cheer for him, it's their sons and daughters that have died in
Afghanistan. It's their lives, their kids' lives being thrown away, and their tax dollars. And
they understand that Donald Trump is fighting that. That's why we need a trial, a real trial
and Senate with witnesses. So, before the world, Donald Trump could get his day in court.
Trish Regan: And you call them all. Disruption, right? It is the decade of disruption, and
you're one of the main disruptors there, according to The Wall Street Journal. In fact, one of
the most powerful people here in Washington, the power players. Can we see that? So, you're in
some pretty significant company, there Mr. Bannon.
Steve Bannon: Well, I got the disrupt look on President Trump. As President Trump says, I'm
his top student and that's where the top student got for being the top student. I got my
slot.
Trish Regan: Well, listen, we appreciate you being here tonight for that.
Steve Bannon: Thank you for having me, Trish.
Trish Regan: Very interesting insight, as always, Steve Bannon. I do want to point out to
everyone they can listen to you every day. You can tune into a syndicated radio show and
podcast on iTunes, War Room: Impeachment. Well, that's aptly named. It airs seven days a week.
Forgive me, I was thinking weekdays. Seven days a week, you're on the case.
Steve Bannon: Got to do it. Thank you so much for having me.
Speaking of Steve Bannon, here's what he had to say about Trump and conspiracy theories he
(Bannon) cooked up to distract the rubes and yahoos. From a review of Michael Wolff's book,
Siege: Trump Under Fire:
" . . . Wolff’s guide, the major-domo of Trump’s 2016 campaign who became a
White House adviser until he wasn’t, enjoys tweaking his former boss. Bannon volunteers
that he helped concoct the story that the Mueller investigation was the demon spawn of the
“deep state”, and says there was never much substance to it.
As Wolff tells it, “among the nimblest conspiracy provocateurs of the Trump age,
Bannon spelled out the … narrative in powerful detail”. But then Bannon’s
voice pierces his own self-generated din: “You do realize … that none of this is
true.” Allow that one to sink in.
Wolff also has Bannon calling the Trump Organization a criminal enterprise and
predicting its downfall : “This is where it isn’t a witch-hunt – even
for the hardcore, this is where he turns into just a crooked business guy … Not the
billionaire he said he was, just another scumbag.” Allow that to sink in, too.
Expect Bannon to be quoted by Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the
eventual Democratic candidate. Also look for the Democratic National Committee to send
chocolates to Bannon, once head of Breitbart and a partner in Cambridge Analytica, next
Easter."
Bannon is trying to save the now compromised and degenerated system throughout the West by
reversing the trend line, the social basis for determining a self-reform is there but the
opposing forces are those that manage real power.
Re: Ukraine games and the Democrats. There is much in this article I have not heard before.
Many very specific and therefore potentially testable allegations.
Isikoff is a part of conspiracy to depose Trump. and it shows.
OK. Let's assume that will drag the trial all the
January. Then what ?
If we believe polls it is amazing how brainwashed US public is: to assume that
marionette government has any say in what to do is the upper level of naivety: " Removing Trump from office (a step beyond impeachment) had the support of just under half
(49 percent) of registered voters
in the Yahoo News/YouGov poll . On the factual basis for the two articles of impeachment,
53 percent of registered voters said Trump abused his power in demanding help from Ukraine;
only 40 percent said he did not. Fifty-one percent said the president obstructed Congress;
again, only 40 percent said he did not."
Notable quotes:
"... Michael Isikoff was involved with Clinton and the Russian Dossier. ..."
A House Democrat who played a key role in the impeachment of President Trump says the House
should not "roll over" and quickly present the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a
trial that would amount to a "farce."
"We're not going to participate in a process that makes a mockery out of the Constitution,"
said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the House Judiciary Committee, who presented the
panel's case for impeachment to the House Rules Committee. Raskin has been widely mentioned as
a candidate to be one of the House managers to prosecute the case in an impeachment trial in
the Senate. "We are not gonna roll over and say, yeah, you can give us some drive-through
justice with one afternoon where everything is dealt with on a motion to dismiss and no
evidence is heard.
"My position is that, so long as they do not make the most minimal provisions for a fair
trial, then we should not participate in a farce."
Although Raskin emphasized he was speaking for himself, his comments on the Yahoo News
"Skullduggery" podcast illustrate the competing pressures House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is under
from her own caucus in the aftermath of the historic vote to impeach the president, which was
supported by virtually all House Democrats -- and not a single Republican. Public opinion among
registered voters shows a narrow (50-45)
plurality favoring impeachment , according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.
After the passage of the two articles of impeachment on Wednesday evening -- one for abuse
of power, the other for obstruction of Congress -- Pelosi has held off presenting them to the
Senate, citing doubts that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will permit a "fair" trial.
McConnell has said he will coordinate his efforts with the White House and has made up his mind
not to vote for conviction. Removal of the president requires a two-thirds majority in the
Senate, which Republicans control by a 53-47 margin.
Pelosi's move -- as the House adjourned for a two-week holiday break on Thursday -- has
created a new layer of uncertainty over when, or even if, the Senate will actually try the
president. Republicans have already jumped over Pelosi's tactics, accusing her of political
gamesmanship that undermines the solemnity with which Democrats presented the case against the
president.
But Raskin, one of the House's more progressive members, says it is McConnell's own comments
-- vowing to work with White House lawyers to ensure the acquittal of the president -- that
have made a mockery of impeachment.
"To say that you're not going to look at the evidence or the facts would get you
disqualified from every jury pool in the United States of America," Raskin said. "If you were
in a voir dire and the judge said to you, 'Will you pay attention to the facts? Will you pay
attention to the evidence? Will you pay attention to the law?' and you say, 'No. I've already
made up my mind,' you would be dismissed immediately."
Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo were blocked from appearing before the House during its
impeachment hearings by a White House claim that any conversations they had with the president
were shielded by executive privilege. Trump's defenders say the House could have tried to
compel their testimony by subpoena. But the certainty that White House lawyers would have
fought those subpoenas all the way up to the Supreme Court would have put off action until well
into next year, Raskin said.
"It just takes a very long time."
Raskin acknowledged that impeachment by its nature is both a judicial and political process
-- and that Pelosi's maneuvering is intended at least in part to put public heat on McConnell
to accede to the demand for witnesses.
"We want the country to put serious pressure on the Senate to conduct the trial with
seriousness," Raskin said. "And the polls show, for example, on the question of witnesses, that
even though I think only 51 percent or 52 percent of the people are declaring themselves right
now in favor of impeachment and removal, like 70 percent of the people are saying, 'Yes, the
president should make all witnesses available.'"
Removing Trump from office (a step beyond impeachment) had the support of just under half
(49 percent) of registered voters
in the Yahoo News/YouGov poll . On the factual basis for the two articles of impeachment,
53 percent of registered voters said Trump abused his power in demanding help from Ukraine;
only 40 percent said he did not. Fifty-one percent said the president obstructed Congress;
again, only 40 percent said he did not.
How effective Pelosi's strategy will be is far from clear. While President Trump is seeking
a quick Senate trial in January so he can proclaim vindication as he runs for reelection,
McConnell has suggested he is happy to forget the whole thing. "Do you think this is leverage,
to not send us something we'd rather not do?" he said to reporters this week. And with those
words, noted New York Times reporter Carl Hulse, the Senate majority leader " cracked a
broad smile outside the Senate chamber in a departure from his usual dour expression."
yesterday
Michael Isikoff was involved with
Clinton and the Russian Dossier. ThisSkullduggeryGroup is
another TokyoRoseYellowJournalistic attempt at presenting
propagandist commentaries as news articles.
Isekoff has replaced Marrissa Mayer
at Yawho News that's all.
There are many fake posters on the
message boards. They are not really fellow U.S.Citizens
and can easily be recognized by their one line insults
that have nothing to do with debate and only to do with
creating a hostile environment between so called liberals
and so called conservatives who I prefer to call
U.S.Citizens. Our differences are not that far apart but
there are Globalist, Anarchist, and other forces in this
country and outside of this country that would love to
see our country collapse and that we also discard our
Constitution and our freedoms protected under that
document.
Cass Sunstein
ObolaCzar proposed government
'infiltrate' social network sitesCassSunstein wants
agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards.
Published: 01/12/2012 at 10:56 PM
Just prior to his appointment as
President Obama's so-called regulatory czar,CassSunstein
wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government
should "infiltrate" social network websites, chat rooms
and message boards.Such "cognitive infiltration,"Sunstein
argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban
on "conspiracy theorizing."
Major Obama donor and former Google
executive Marissa Mayer will take the helm at Yahoo! as the
company's new CEO Tuesday In May, Neilsen listed
theYahooABC NewsNetwork as the leading news site on the
Web in the U.S., makingMayer the head of the
largest news site on the Web.
She
is also a major donor to both PresidentBarackObama and
the DemocraticParty.According to the Center for
ResponsivePolitics; in April 2011Mayer donated two
separate amounts of $2,500 dollars to Obama, and one
large sum of $30,800 to the Democratic National
committee.
Data from political data firm Aristotle, as
reported by the HuffingtonPost, reveals that, in the
second quarter of 2011,Mayer also contributed $35,800 to
Obama Victory Fund 2012.
Asked whether Mayer's political
leanings would not affect the editorial direction ofYahoo!, Yahoo nor Mayer returned The DC's request for
comment by the time of publication. [Full
Disclosure:TheDCandYahoo! have an editorial partnership.]
Well, maybe if Nancy used her
position to actually help the American economy instead of
using her political position to line the pockets of
herself, her husband and their cronies, she might have
remained Speaker.
Why do I say that ? Since Nancy has been "serving" the
nation in D.C., she has increased her personal wealth by
$100 MILLION. Not a typo. How did she do that ? According
to various bios, "good investing". What that really means
is insider trading. You, I and Martha Stewart go to jail
if we get caught doing that, but it was perfectly okay
for members of congress until exposed and the passing of
S.T.O.C.K ( Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge ) Act
in April 2012. The Act prohibited the use of non-public
information for private profit, including insider trading
by members of Congress and other government employees.
But, thanks to Nancy's piggish greed and abuse of her
position, she bought stocks in at least 8 Initial Public
Offerings (IPOs), with insider knowledge. If you have any
friends in the securities industry, ask them how
difficult it is to get in on even one IPO, let alone
eight. Pelosi’s husband’s purchase of shares in the 2008
initial public offering by Visa Inc as Congress was
considering new credit card regulations. Within two days
of the Visa offering, the 5,000 shares purchased by Paul
Pelosi had risen $20 each.
Nancy's greed led to the addition of the "Pelosi
Provision" to the S.T.O.C.K. Act.
The Pelosi provision prohibits members of Congress,
executive branch officials and their staffs from
receiving special access to initial public offerings
because of their position.
So, Nancy "led" a House that was in power during 10%
Unemployment. Lost control of the House while a Democrat
was in the White House and Democrat majority in the
Senate.
Meanwhile, Nancy was looking out for #1, big time.
"... Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown on
the "Nazis"? ..."
"... I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the term
"Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic. ..."
"... What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing? ..."
"... I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain a slow-burning
conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue to avoid the Ukraine.
..."
The recent Paris summit and the few days following the summit have brought a lot of clarity about the future of the Minsk Agreements.
Short version: Kiev has officially rejected them (by rejecting both the sequence of steps and several crucial steps). For those interested,
let's look a little further.
First, what just happened
First, here are the key excerpts from the Paris Conference and from statements made by "Ze" and his superior, Arsen Avakov right
after their return to Kiev:
The Minsk agreements (Minsk Protocol of 5 September 2014, Minsk Memorandum of 19 September 2014 and the Minsk Package of Measures
of 12 February 2015) continue to be the basis of the work of the Normandy format whose member states are committed to their
full implementation ( ) The sides express interest in agreeing within the Normandy format (N4) and the Trilateral Contact
Group on all the legal aspects of the Special Order of Local Self-Government – special status – of Certain Areas of the Donetsk
and Luhansk Regions – as outlined in the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements from 2015 – in order
to ensure its functioning on a permanent basis .They consider it necessary to incorporate the "Steinmeier formula" into the Ukrainian
legislation, in accordance with the version agreed upon within the N4 and the Trilateral Contact Group.
President 'Ze' statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation) source
" The most difficult question is the question of the transfer of the border control to Ukraine. It's very funny, because
its our border and the transfer of the control to us. But, it's a weak sport, the Achilles' heel of the Minsk Agreement." "It's
what was signed by us, unfortunately. We can discuss this for a very long time. Possibly, the conditions were as such." "But we
signed that we will get the control over our border only after the elections on the temporarily occupied territories." "We dedicated
a very long time to this question, we discussed it in details, we have a very different positions with the president of
Russia ." "But this is the Minsk position, we have to understand this. I only like one thing, that we started talking about
this. We agreed that we will continue talking about this in details and with the different variations during our next meeting."
"This is also a victory, because we will have a meeting in four months."
Q. What do you think, is it possible to change the Minsk Agreement? source
" This will be very difficult to do, but we have to do it. We have to change it . First, we have to understand
that it's been over four years since the Minsk Agreement was signed. Everything changes in our life. We have to understand that
it wasn't my team that signed the Minsk Agreement, but we as a power have to fulfill the conditions that our power at the time
agreed back then. But? I am sure that some things we will be able to change. We will be changing them." "Because the transfer
of the Ukraine's border after our control only after the elections, – it's not our position. I said about this don't know how
many times, but this is the final decision ."
Arsen Avakov's statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation):
" The philosophy of the border control the part of the border that we don't have control over is 408 kilometers. It's not that
easy to take it over, to equip it, even to get there across the enemy territories. It's a procedure. As a compromise, we offered
the following scheme: we will start taking the border under our control stating with the New Year, little by little, reducing the
length of the border that is not controlled by us, and a day before the local election we will close the border, we will close this
bottleneck. And this way will get the control over the border. Why isn't this a good compromise? Considering, that at the same time
according to the Steinmeier Formula, they have to disarm all the illegal armed formations of this pseudo-state DNR. This is how we
see the compromise."
In other words, both the official President and real President of the Ukraine agree: the Ukraine will not implement the Minsk
Agreements as written, made law by the UNSC and clarified by the so-called Steinmeier Formula.
Ukrainian propagandists on Russian TV (yes, Urkonazi and hardline nationalist propagandists do get air time on Russian TV on a
daily basis – for an explanation why, see here and here ) went into damage
control mode and explained it all away by saying " these are only words, what matters is what Zelenskii signed in Paris ".
They are wrong. First of all, statements made in their official capacity by the President or the Minister of Internal Affairs do
represent OFFICIAL policy statements. Second, this explanation completely overlooks the reason why Ze and Avakov said these things.
That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Urkonazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did, in
spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all we see
is Poroshenko 2.0.
So in the behind-the-scenes (but very real) struggle between the Zionist camp (Kolomoiskii and Zelenskii) and the Urkonazi camp
(Avakov and Poroshenko), the latter have successfully taken control of the former and now the chances for saving a unitary Ukraine
are down to, maybe not quite zero, but to something like 0.0000001% (I leave that one under the heading "never say never" and because
I have been wrong in the past).
So what happens next?
That is the interesting question. In theory, the Normandy Four will meet again in 4 months. But that assumes that some progress
was made. Well, it is possible that in a few sections of the line of contact there will be an OSCE supervised withdrawal of forces.
But, let's be honest here, the people have seen many, many such promised withdrawals, and they all turned out to be fake. Either
the Ukronazis return to the neutral zone (claiming huge victories over the (sic) "Russian armed force"), or they resume bombing civilians,
or they never even bother to change position. Any withdrawal is a good thing if it can save a single life! But no amount of withdrawals
will settle anything in this conflict.
Second, there are A LOT of Ukrainian politicians who now say that the citizens of the LDNR have to "return" to Russia if they
don't like the Urkonazi coup or its ideology. They either don't realize, or don't care, that there are very few Russian volunteers
in Novorussia and that the vast majority of the men and women who compose the LDNR forces are locals. These locals, by the way, get
the Ukie message loud and clear: you better get away while you can, because when we show up you will all be prosecuted for terrorism
and aiding terrorists, that is ALSO something the Urkonazis like to repeat day after day. By the way, while in Banderastan all Russian
TV channels are censored, and while they also try to censor the Russian language Internet, in Novorussia all the Ukrainian (and Russian)
TV stations are freely available. So as soon as some Nazi freak comes out and says something crazy like "we will create filtration
camps" (aka concentration camps) this news is instantly repeated all over Novorussia, which only strengthens the resolve of the people
of the LDNR to fight to their death rather than accept a Nazi occupation..
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not have
the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested. Whatever the case may be, it's now over, we are back
to square one.
The most likely scenario is a "slow freezing" of the conflict meaning now that Kiev has officially and overtly rejected the Minsk
Agreements, there will be some minor, pretend-negotiations, maybe, but that fundamentally the conflict will be frozen.
That will be the last nail in the coffin of the pro-EU, pro-NATO so-called "Independent Ukraine", since the most important condition
to try to salvage the Ukrainian economy, namely peace, is now gone. Furthermore, the political climate in the Ukraine will further
deteriorate (the hated Nazi minority + an even worse economic crisis are a perfect recipe for disaster).
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement. That
means that the LDNR will separate from the rump-Ukraine and, on time, rejoin Russia. Good bye Banderites and Urkonazis!
The rump-Ukraine will eventually break-up further: Crimea truly was the "jewel of the Black Sea" and its future appears to be
extremely bright while the Donbass was the biggest source of raw materials, energy, industry, high-tech, etc. etc. etc.). What is
left of the Ukraine is either poor and under-developed (the West) or needs to reopen economic ties with Russia (the South).
Besides, Zelenskii and his party are now trying to rush a new law through the Rada which will allow the sale of Ukrainian land
to private interests (aka foreign interests + a local frontman). As a result, there is now a new "maidan" brewing, pitting Iulia
Timoshenko and other nationalist leaders against Zelenskii and his party. This could become a major crisis very fast, especially
now that is appears that Zelenskii will also renege on this promise to call for a national referendum on the issue of the sale/privatization
of land .
As for the Russians, they already realize that Ze is a joke, unsurprisingly so since he is a comic by trade, and that the Ukrainians
are "not agreement capable". They will treat him like they did Poroshenko in the last years: completely ignore him and not even take
his telephone calls. Right now, there is just a tiny bit of good will left in Moscow, but it is drying up so fast that it will soon
totally disappear. Besides, the Russians really don't care that much anymore: the sanctions turned out to be a blessing, time is
on Russia's side, the Ukronazis are destroying their own state and, finally, the important stuff for Russia is happening in Asia,
not the West.
The Europeans will take a long time to come to terms with two simple facts:
Russia was never a party to this conflict (if she had, it would have been over long ago). The Ukronazis are the ones who won't implement
the Minsk Agreements
This means that the politicians who were behind the EU's backing of the Euromaidan (Merkel) will have to go before their successors
can say that, oops, we got our colors confused, and white is actually black and black turned out to be white. That's okay, politicians
are pretty good at that. The honeymoon between Kiev and Warsaw on the one hand and Berlin on the other will soon end as bad times
are ahead.
Macron looks much better, and he will probably pursue his efforts to restore semi-normal relations with Russia, for France's sake
first, but also eventually the rest of the EU. The Poles and the Balts will accuse him of "treason" and he will just ignore them.
As for Trump, he will most likely make small steps towards Russia, but most of his energy will be directed either inwards (impeachment)
or outwards (Israel), but not towards the Ukrainian conflict. Good.
Conclusion
It's over. Crimea and the Donbass are gone forever, the first is de jure , the latter merely de facto . The rump-Ukraine
is completely unconformable (barring some kind of coup followed by a government of national unity supported Moscow – I consider this
hypothesis as highly unlikely).
If you live in the West, don't expect your national media to report on any of this. They will be the LAST ones to actually admit
it (journos have a longer shelf life than politicians, it is harder for them to make a 180).
PS: to get a feeling for the kind of silly stunts the "Ze team" is now busying itself with, just check this one: they actually
tried to falsify the Ukrainian version of the Paris Communique. For details, see Scott's report here: https://thesaker.is/kiev-attempted-to-change-the-letter-and-meaning-of-paris-summit-communique/
. If the Ukraine was a Kindergarten, then "Ze" would be a perfect classroom teacher or visiting entertainer. But for a country
fighting for its survival, such stunts are a very, very bad sign indeed!
(*rump-Ukraine: In broad terms, a "rump" state is what remains of a state when a portion is carved away. Expanding on the "butcher"
metaphor, the rump is what is left when the higher-value cuts such as rib roast and loin have been removed.)
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not
have the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested.
Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown
on the "Nazis"?
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement.
So what is the Ukrainian thinking here -- that they are better off simply cutting bait on the east and letting Russia deal
with the headache of the Donbass's antiquated infrastructure? And that a truncated Ukraine would at least be mostly free of internal
pro-Russian sentiment?
I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the
term "Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic.
What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing?
I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain
a slow-burning conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue
to avoid the Ukraine.
"That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Ukronazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did,
in spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all
we see is Poroshenko 2.0."
This is interesting. It implies z actually meant what he said in order to gain votes to get elected. In fact, he is very similar
to trump in this respect. Lied about desiring an end to the conflict (conflicts in the case of trump), but once in office continued
the aggressive policies (and expanded them in the case of trump). Actually, if one considers poroshenko as the ukraine version
of obama/clinton and zelinsky as trump, it looks like the ukrainian regime is following in the footsteps of the american regime.
It's not just Minsk that has been abandoned by the Kiev junta. Kiev itself has been abandoned by the EU, which now looks to Nordstream-2
for its energy supplies from Russia, thus bypassing the thieves in Ukraine. Even sanctions from the Supreme Sanctioner in DC is
not going to persuade the Germans to shiver in the winter.
Where is AOC in all this? She was the prime mover on impeachment, specifically impeachment
over a phone call rather than concentration camps and genocide.
And now with impeachment she gave Pelosi cover to sell the country out again.
I was wondering why many libreral centrists were expreasing admiration for her, a
socialist. Maybe they recognized something?
"Prime mover"? What planet are you from? They were Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi. Did you
miss that Russiagate was in motion while AOC was still tending bar? AOC isn't even on any of
the key committees (Judiciary and Intel).
I shouldn't have said THE prime mover, but ONE OF the prime movers in the House in
actually pushing it over the line against Pelosi's opposition. It seems like the House Dem
consensus ever since Russiagate was just to tease their base with it and milk the suspense
for all it was worth, until AOC, among others, rallied the base.
There were other reps who pushed for impeachment, but AOC has one of the biggest platforms
and crucially, expanded popular support for impeachment outside the MSNBC crowd. So yes, a
key figure in the political/PR effort to move from conspiracy theories to actual
impeachment.
"AOC is one of the highest-profile members of Congress and she blasted Pelosi for
resisting impeachment since May."
Liz Warren is the one who made it a part of her campaign before anyone else. Rashida
Tlaib was the one who made t-shirt with her "impeach the mf'er" quote on it. A lot of them
were "blasting" Pelosi for dithering. AOC also "blasted" her for giving ICE more money and a
lot of their things .
Your central focus on AOC for the impeachment fiasco while ignoring her active role in
spotlighting so many other issues of importance which no one else speaks about is
interesting. Did you catch any of her speaking at the Sanders rally in LA today? Any other
"high profile" Dems pushing such important issues and campaigns?
Thanks for this comment. I don't trust *any of them* except Sanders, but AOC has been
making more good noises than bad, and to claim that it was she who's been driving Pelosi to
impeachment is quite a stretch. Poor, helpless/hapless Rep. Pelosi sure.
Pelosi has repeatedly stared down the progressives in the House. The overwhelming majority
of the freshmen reps are what used to be called Blue Dogs, as in corporate Dems. AOC making
noise on this issue would not move Pelosi any more than it has on other issues.
IMHO Pelosi didn't try to tamp down Russiagate, and that created expectations that
Something Big would happen. Plus she lives in the California/blue cities bubble.
What Dem donors think matters to her way more than what AOC tweets about. If anything,
Pelosi (secondarily, I sincerely doubt this would be a big issue in her calculus) would view
impeachment as a way to reduce the attention recently given to progressive issues like single
payer and student debt forgiveness.
1. G2 released nothing remotely damaging to the DNC, the first document was even the DNC's
oppo file on DJT
2. G2 did some copying and compress/decompress on files. Imbedded timestamps strongly suggest
a US Timezone location
3. G2 released some files claiming to be from the DNC, but which demonstrably came from John
Podesta's account
4. G2 did not claim to be involved with the Podesta account, which was phished and not hacked
as such
5. As an aside, both the Fancy and Cosy Bear packages had been available for third parties to
obtain since 2013-4 or so. So their use is not proof of Russian involvement. One or other has
been used in bank exploits before 2016.
I believe that G2 is arguably US based (the timestamps are reasonably conclusive), and is
either CIA or Crowdstrike. The existence of G2 is a diversionary one to strengthen the case
for blaming the Russians. It may be connected to wanting to divert attention from Seth Rich
and his subsequent murder, but may not be - that is Seth Rich's death may be just an
unfortunate coincidence, we have inadequate information to conclude either way.
Here's a key point - on June 12, Assange announces that Wikileaks will soon be releasing
info pertinent to Hillary. HE DOES NOT SAY THAT HE WILL BE RELEASING DNC EMAILS.
And yet, on June 14, Crowdstrike reports a Russian hack of the DNC servers - and a day later, Guccifer
2.0 emerges and proclaims himself to be the hacker, takes credit for the upcoming Wikileaks
DNC releases, publishes the Trump oppo research which Crowdstrike claimed he had taken, and
intentionally adds "Russian footprints" to his metadata.
So how did Crowdstrike and G2.0 know
that DNC EMAILS would be released?
Because, as Larry postulates, the US intelligence
community had intercepted communications between Seth Rich and Wikileaks in which Seth had
offered the DNC emails (consistent with the report of Sy Hersh's source within the FBI).
So
US intelligence tipped off the DNC that their emails were about to be leaked to Wikileaks.
That's when the stratagem of attributing the impending Wikileaks release to a Russian hack
was born - distracting from the incriminating content of the emails, while vilifying the Deep
State's favorite enemies, Assange and Russia, all in one neat scam.
"... It is noteworthy that not a single House Republican dared or even cared to question Schiff's framing of the issue, which was bolstered by witnesses from the permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic establishment, including Trump's appointees. ..."
"... Nor is any Republican Senator likely to point out the inconvenient truth that we have no defense treaty with Ukraine, which thus is not really our "ally." ..."
"... The sole retort from Trump's establishment defenders : He released the aid to Ukraine, including the Javelin missiles Obama denied them! He's every bit the warmonger you want him to be! So there! ..."
"... Senate Demaggotic Leader Chuck Schumer gave the game away when he demanded that the World Greatest Deliberative Body receive testimony from cashiered National Security Adviser John Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney but not from the man at the center of the whole Ukraine "drug deal" (as Bolton described it): Rudy Giuliani. ..."
For a century and a half American political life has been the exclusive preserve of the
duopoly of Democrats and Republicans, also known as
the Evil Party and the Stupid Party . (If something is both Evil and Stupid, we call that
"Bipartisan.") But the familiar Evil-Stupid dichotomy doesn't even begin to describe the
descent into national dysfunction and galloping irrationality that characterizes the Trump
impeachment hysteria.
Media chatter now centers on the nuts-and-bolts questions of "what's next?" Will House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate? (Yes. Even one of the
legal "scholars" enrolled in the impeachment lynch mob avers that
Trump isn't actually impeached until the Senate receives the articles .) Who will be the
trial managers? (Who cares.) Will there be a "real trial," with witnesses? (It hardly matters.)
Will Trump be removed? (Unlikely unless some bolt from the blue flips 20 GOP Senators.) Will
impeachment be the Democrats' albatross going into November 2020? (Most polls show independents
are turned off, but there's still almost a year to go.)
None of these questions, which are meaningful only in a mental universe of the Evils and the
Stupids shadowboxing over a partisan allocation of political spoils, touch upon the grim
– and occasionally sardonic – symptoms of America's seemingly unstoppable terminal
slide.
With Trump's impeachment it's time to say goodbye to yesteryear's Team Evil and Team Stupid.
Say hello in 2020 to Team Maggot and Team Corpse!
In short, Democrats hate Trump not so much for what he's done (which, contrary to what his
passionate supporters think based on his Tweets, isn't much) but as an expression of an
amorphous dread that by some mysterious populist alchemy he might still breathe life back into
the Corpse Party's deplorable base.
With that in mind, here are a few things to note as we cruise on into Bizarro World
:
As the impeachment spectacle unfolded in the House, one could not fail to be touched by the
hushed, heartfelt reverence with which Democrat after Democrat cited the sage words of the
Founding Fathers: Madison especially, but also Jefferson and Washington. No doubt they can
hardly wait for this spectacle to be over so they can go back to denouncing the Founders as
dead, racist, Christian, patriarchal, " Anglo
," and (presumably) heterosexual slaveholders
in wigs and knee-breeches whose memory should be expunged from the historical record . It's
instructive to glance at the members of
the House Judiciary Committee who – solemnly, reluctantly, and prayerfully, they
assure us! – voted out articles of impeachment in the name of "the American people." But
which "people" might that be? Of the 23 Democrats who voted, only four even arguably fit the
heritage American, male profile of the Founding Fathers. The " gender
balance " (as it's ungrammatically called nowadays) on the voting majority side of the
Committee is 12-11. That's not quite up to
Barack Obama's exhortation that "every nation on earth" should be "run by women ," but it's
progress in that direction! (Just imagine how much more serene the world would be if all
countries were ruled by peaceniks like Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice, Susan
Rice, Samantha Power, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Michèle Flournoy, Evelyn Farkas, etc., plus
a
bevy of Deep State Democrats now installed in Congress .) By contrast, the 17 Republicans
on the Committee have approximately the same demographic composition they'd have had in 1950
– and aside from the inclusion of two women, that of the First Congress seated in
1789.
In short, in the Congressional Maggot Caucus the approaching
Dictatorship of Victims defined by race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language,
religion, migratory status, etc., is already becoming a reality, and they voted to get rid of
Trump. Members of the Corpse Caucus defending him still belong demographically and morally to
the declining legacy America, though they'd never, ever admit it. Impeachment is thus more than
just the latest iteration of the years-long anti-constitutional coup to overturn a presidential
election,
though it is that too . Even more fundamentally, it's a coup against the people whose
identity, traditions, and values the Constitution was intended to ensure for themselves and
their posterity.
Foreign interference in our deMOCKracy.
Even more absurd than Democrats' presumption in lip-synching the venerable principles of an
American constitutional tradition they despise almost as much as they loathe the ethnos that
ordained and established it is their feigned horror – horror! – that Trump's phone
chat with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky realized the Founders' worst fears of foreign influence
over American domestic politics. Leaving aside the fact that Ukraine under Zelensky's
predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, did try to queer the 2016 election in favor of Hillary, and that
Hunter and Joe Biden are crooks, the Maggoteers' ability to maintain a straight face of shocked
indignation smack in the middle of a souk, a flea market, a bazaar where both domestic and
foreign interests buy, sell, and trade favors like vintage baseball cards is nothing less than
heroic.
Argentina Caucus, Armenian Issues Caucus, Azerbaijan Caucus, Bangladesh Caucus, Bosnia
Caucus, Brazil Caucus, Cambodia Caucus, Central America Caucus, Colombia Caucus,
Congressional Caucus on Bulgaria, Croatian Caucus, Czech Caucus, Ethiopian-American Caucus,
Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka, EU Caucus, Friends of Australia Caucus, Friends of
Denmark Caucus, Friends of Egypt Caucus, Friends of Finland Caucus, Friends of Ireland
Caucus, Friends of Liechtenstein Caucus, Friends of New Zealand Caucus, Friends of Norway
Caucus, Friends of Scotland Caucus, Friends of Spain Caucus, Friends of Sweden Caucus,
Friends of the Dominican Republic Caucus, Friends of Wales Caucus, Georgia Caucus, Hellenic
Caucus, Hellenic Israel Alliance Caucus, House Baltic Caucus, Hungarian Caucus, India and
Indian Americans Caucus, Iraq Caucus, Israel Allies Caucus, Israel Victory Caucus, Kingdom of
Netherlands Caucus, Korea Caucus, Kyrgyzstan Caucus, Macedonia and Macedonian-American
Caucus, Moldova Caucus, Mongolia Caucus, Montenegro Caucus, Morocco Caucus, Nigeria Caucus,
Pakistan Caucus, Peru Caucus, Poland Caucus, Portuguese Caucus, Qatari-American Strategic
Relationships Caucus, Republican Israel Caucus, Romania Caucus, Serbian Caucus, Slovak
Caucus, Sri Lanka Caucus, Taiwan Caucus, UK Caucus, Ukraine Caucus, U.S.-Bermuda Friendship
Caucus, U.S.-China Working Group, U.S.-Japan Caucus, U.S.-Kazakhstan Caucus, U.S.-Lebanon
Friendship Caucus, U.S.-Philippines Friendship Caucus, U.S.-Turkey Relations and Turkish
American, Uzbekistan Caucus, Venezuela Democracy Caucus
Recalling
Your Working Boy 's years at the State Department – where there still exists no
"American Interests Section" – the reader can search the above in vain for anything that
looks remotely like "Friends of the United States of America."
In fact, the Democrats' core impeachment narrative – Russia bad, Ukraine good –
is itself an example to which American policy is in the grip of foreign antipathies and
attachments against which the
Father of Our Country warned us in his 1796 farewell address :
"[N]othing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against
particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in
place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which
indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.
It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it
astray from its duty and its interest."
"[W]e should care about our allies. We should care about Ukraine. We should care about a
country struggling to be free and a Democracy. We used to care about Democracy. We used to
care about our allies. We used to stand up to Putin and Russia. We used to. I know the party
of Ronald Reagan used to. 'Why should we care about Ukraine?' But of course it's about more
than Ukraine. It's about us. It's about our national security. Their fight is our fight.
Their defense is our defense. When Russia remakes the map of Europe for the first time since
World War II by dint of military force [ JGJ : Well, there was Kosovo, but never mind ] and
Ukraine fights back, it is our fight too."
Indeed, one wonders how hysterical Democrats missed accusing Trump outright of treason ,
which actually is specified as grounds for impeachment in
Article II, Section 4 . After all, as described by Schiff, didn't Trump's actions
constitute (under Article
III, Section 3 ) "adhering" to our evil enemies the Russians, and "giving them aid and
comfort"? It's an open and shut case of a capital crime – and the
House Majority Whip is ready to get the rope ! (Really, how did the Democrats miss this?
Maybe GOP stupidity has migrated to the other side of the aisle )
It is noteworthy that not a single House Republican dared or even cared to question Schiff's
framing of the issue, which was bolstered by witnesses from the permanent military,
intelligence, and diplomatic establishment, including Trump's appointees.
Nor is any Republican
Senator likely to point out the inconvenient truth that we have no defense treaty with Ukraine,
which thus is not really our "ally." Partisanship is the variable; Russophobia is the constant.
The sole retort
from Trump's establishment defenders : He released the aid to Ukraine, including the
Javelin missiles Obama denied them! He's every bit the warmonger you want him to be! So
there!
Thus, even with Trump's almost (at this point) certain survival of a Senate impeachment
trial, the relevant foreign inveterate antipathies and passionate attachments will remain
entrenched. (Not just in the case of Ukraine/Russia but with respect to the rest of the world
our habitual hatreds and fondnesses remain firmly in place and are unlikely to change for the
balance of Trump's presidency, if ever. Trump's
Korea initiative is on life support. Israel/Iran is a flashpoint that could explode at any
time : "Israel, even less than the US, cannot take casualties. A couple of bull's eyes, a
lot of Israelis go back to Brooklyn. The 82 million people in Iran have no place else to
go.")
If there was anyone who should have been impeached, it was George Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin
Powell and George Tenet, who was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom, for assisting
Cheney in the Iraq WMD lies.
But...what did Nancy say then?
Nancy Pelosi: I Knew Bush Jr Was Lying About WMD To Start War, But Didn't See It As
Impeachable
But there are multiple reasons not to delay a Senate trial past that window. The most common
argument in favor of this tactic is that it would give Democrats some sort of leverage as the
process moves beyond their control. "As a tactical matter, it could strengthen Senate Minority
Leader Charles E. Schumer's (D-N.Y.) hand in bargaining over trial rules with McConnell because
of McConnell's and Trump's urgent desire to get this whole business behind them," Tribe argued
earlier this week. House Democratic leaders have made similar suggestions in recent
days.
The last three years suggest that the majority leader would be more than happy to keep
running the Senate as a judicial-confirmation factory and a legislative graveyard.
This is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, it assumes that McConnell actually wants the
Senate to hold an impeachment trial for Trump. The last three years suggest that the majority
leader would be more than happy to keep running the Senate as a judicial-confirmation factory
and a legislative graveyard. It's doubtful that any other Republican senators are thrilled
about the prospect of acting as the president's jurors, either. Given the choice between
holding a trial that could force vulnerable members of his caucus to make uncomfortable votes
and not holding a trial at all, it seems more likely that McConnell would choose the
latter. Second, it assumes that Trump also wants to, in Tribe's words, "get this whole
business behind [him]." There's a certain logic to the proposition that Trump is eager to tell
his supporters that he was acquitted in a Senate trial. But I doubt that eagerness outweighs
his desire not to undermine his own case in said trial. After all, if Mulvaney or Bolton could
give testimony that would exculpate Trump in the Ukraine scandal, the president would have
frog-marched them to the House Intelligence Committee himself last month. (The idea that Trump
truly cares about the separation of powers, as his lawyers argued when blocking those witnesses
from testifying, is contradicted by the rest of his presidency.)
The other half of Tribe's argument is also unconvincing. In making the case for withholding
the articles, he argues that it would vindicate higher civic and democratic ideals. "On a
substantive level, [the House] would be justified to withhold going forward with a Senate
trial," Tribe wrote. "Under the current circumstances, such a proceeding would fail to render a
meaningful verdict of acquittal. It would also fail to inform the public, which has the right
to know the truth about the conduct of its president."
"... My paranoid fear is that Pelosi or McConnell might try to time the proceedings so as to take Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail at a crucial moment, helping Biden. ..."
"... Amfortas the hippie , December 21, 2019 at 5:40 pm ..."
"... that, and sucking the air out of the room for the primaries. When's super tuesday, again? surely they can engineer it so that their "high drama" coincides. ..."
"... "let's talk about universal material benefits" " ok, Vlad trying to distract us from whats really important " ..."
"... Hepativore , December 21, 2019 at 6:49 pm ..."
"... Happy winter Solstice, everyone! ..."
"... Anyway, the funny thing is, that Biden himself has said that he only wants to be a one-term president. It makes me wonder if he knows that he has neither the energy or presence of mind to hold the office, and that he is merely doing so because of establishment pressure to stop Sanders at all costs. ..."
Please bone up on US procedure. It's not good to have you confuse readers.
The Senate can't do anything until the House passes a motion referring the impeachment to
the Senate. The House ALSO needs to designate managers as part of that process.
Michael
Tracey argued that it's only Senate rules that require that the House formally transmit
the impeachment verdict. The Constitution says that the Senate has to try an impeached
president, and the Constitution trumps the Senate's rules. Logically, then, the Senate could
just modify its rules to try the president.
But the whole delay is weird and impeachment has only been done twice before, so not a lot
of precedent.
My paranoid fear is that Pelosi or McConnell might try to time the proceedings so as
to take Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail at a crucial moment, helping Biden.
that, and sucking the air out of the room for the primaries. When's super tuesday,
again? surely they can engineer it so that their "high drama" coincides.
"let's talk about universal material benefits" " ok, Vlad trying to distract us from
whats really important "
Anyway, the funny thing is, that Biden himself has said that he only wants to be a
one-term president. It makes me wonder if he knows that he has neither the energy or presence
of mind to hold the office, and that he is merely doing so because of establishment pressure
to stop Sanders at all costs. Plus, if the Democrats get the brokered convention they
are after, he can bow out, satisfied that he helped the DNC protect the donor class from the
Sanders threat.
The impeachment, what it means, panic in the establishment, as justice continues to creep
ever closer, biting at their heels. They can feel the heat of the reformation is closing in
on them, real justice, real trials and real convictions. They have good reason to fear and
panic, the deep state is apparently quite shallow at the end of the day, those seeking
justice for outweighing the corrupt political appointees and their falsely promoted minions
and they will pursue the shadow government for the chaos, loss of life, loss of wealth and
for the coming collapse as a result of shallow pathetic insatiable greed.
"... If the impeachment in the House of Representatives was such a brilliant piece of work, why is Nancy Pelosi now reluctant to forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate? ..."
There are lots of dismal reasons why Trump will be elected, but the Democrats just gave
him the greatest gift of all: the only thing he does well in the morbid circus that his
administration/political life is campaign. He's useless at everything else. And he campaigns
best when he's railing against something, and better still when he is campaigning as the
victim of some perceived injustice, which he as a remarkable knack of convincing the audience
is an injustice vested on them, too.
It feels like nothing because it is nothing.
Democrats have been talking impeachment since the election. They have now accomplished
that, in a strict Party line vote. (The previous two impeachments were not party-line
votes.)
So, what will be the result?
In my opinion, this puts Trump in a better position running up to the Election. In the
Spring, we will see the Republican party-line rejection of conviction in the Senate. And,
they get the opportunity to call witnesses. Any one think they will not drag Biden up to the
Hill to question?
Trump gets to claim martyrdom (the Right loves to be martyrs, just as the Left loves to be
victims.) He gets to point at all this, and just as with the Mueller Report, crow that all
the investigations turned up nothing illegal.
But, IMO, the big story is that Democrats just emptied their cannon. They have nothing
left. And they wasted the shot.
There is no way that Donald Trump, a New York City real estate developer, has not broken
multiple laws. I am a bit offended by the laziness of the Democrats, in that they did not do
any work to investigate and accuse Trump of actual codified crimes. They impeached him over
rather minor and confusing matters of opinion. And now Trump can claim that all those
investigations yielded no actual law breaking.
Its a farce. A purely political, poorly directed farce. And, I am now almost certain that
they have guaranteed us another 4 years of Donald Effing Trump.
Its a bad mistake. Impeachment will be used exactly in the same way as Brexit was used as a
means to gametheory Johnson back into 10 Downing St. You will be regarded as friend or foe,
as the nation is utterly divided down the middle. Expect Trump and the Republicans to
steamroller the next Presidential Election as the Democrats will be painted as dangerous,
undemocratic , totally Anti American. What a truly depressing world we live in.
If the impeachment in the House of Representatives was such a brilliant piece of work, why is
Nancy Pelosi now reluctant to forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate?
It appears
that she has little confidence in the work and despite claiming that it was urgent that the
process proceed as rapidly as possible, she is now dragging her feet. The American public was
expressing reduced enthusiasm for impeachment as it progressed and now the Democrats won't
even send the articles to the Senate. The will be hell to pay for this malfeasance at the
voting booth in less than a year.
But it was totally partisan based what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called
"non-crimes". Trump would wear such as badge of honour--in the sense he was attacked non-stop
by what he calls "The Deep State" and survived.
He would also claim that the elitist bureaucracy in Washington tried to destroy a
President who was for "We the People"--whom the elitist classes call "deplorables" and whom
can even be smelt at Walmart.
I was against the impeachment of Bill Clinton. At that time democrat supporters made
pantomime protests by dressing as puritans and Mrs Clinton referred to the "Vast Right Wing
Conspiracy". The case for Trump impeachment is even weaker and unlike with Clinton there has
been a lack of due process and no bipartisan support. Impeachment has now become the pursuit
of politics by other means which is a bad precedent for the future.
But if you want to re-energise Trump's base, this is a good move.
In the U.S. Schiff is seen as dishonest, a parody make-up trickster, a liar, etc. Pelosi is
seen as intellectually feeble and somewhat ditzy. She was pushed onto the impeachment path by
the hard Left of the Democratic party. An example of that is the words used by Democrat
Rashida Tlaib to refer to Trump--a very vulgar "Impeach the mfer[abbreviation".
'a new Gallup poll released Wednesday morning, before the House vote, which shows two
things happening since House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, opened up
a formal impeachment inquiry in October:
1) Trump's job approval rating has gone from 39% to 45%
2) Support for Trump's impeachment and removal has dipped from 52% to 46%.'
Tulsi Gabbard on Twitter a few minutes ago, explaining her refusal to vote:
"A house divided cannot stand. And today we are divided. Fragmentation and polarity are
ripping our country apart. Today, I come before you to make a stand for the center, to appeal
to all of you to bridge our differences and stand up for the American people.
#StandWithTulsi"
According to the latest polls her support is about 2% nationally but higher in Iowa and
New Hampshire. Will her supporters stick with her? If not, where do they go? Sanders?
It feels anti-climatic because it was purely political. Democrats have set a terrible
precedent here. With no votes from the opposition party and cheers afterwards from the
majority party, they proved the impeachment was just a laborious exercise in bold faced
politics.
Now impeachment can be used whenever the roles are reversed and one party simply hates the
president from the other party.
So it's ok to have half of the court made up of people who have stated from before he was
elected they would impeach him, but wrong for him to have people in the court who are
prepared to defend him?
You want a show trial in which only the prosecutors get to make their case?
This impeachment is at best a symbolic act of defiance with no consequences.
At worst, it's a cynical ploy by establishment Dems to keeps Sanders and Warren tied up in
pointless Senate hearings, making it difficult for them to campaign for the election, and
giving Grandpa Joe an easy ride. Might Sound a bit tinfoil-hatty, but they'll do just about
anything to prevent meaningful change.
That being said, I also don't believe in the strange notion that this has somehow handed
Trump reelection. Why? The only people enraged by this are his cult, and they'll show up
anyway.
Nahh... We Brazilians have additional reasons to celebrate Trump's Fake Impeachment because
Dilma Rousseff was the victim of a Fake Impeachment sponsored by US Embassy in Brazil.
The self-destruction of the American political system sounds like music in my ears, as the
motherfucker Americans helped a handful of bandits tear my vote. Fuck US very much.
And now the poor Jair Bolsonaro is crying for his ass. Each politician mourns the loss of
his protector through his hole that it misses him, as we all say in Brazil.
This will likely backfire. Regardless of the rights and wrongs.
It will entrench most of his supporters and it will turn some waverers agains the Democrats.
That's a different debate. And one in which everything is viewed trough a short term
opportunistic myoptic lens. In some occasions that might be -accidentally - successful. But
mostly short term opportunistic behaviour is strategically (long term) stupid.
I agree that it was not very smart for Trump and later republicans to focus on the
Biden/Ukraine episode :-). I remember this cartoon with the one person covered in lots and
lots of spots pointing at another person who had just the one small spot while crying out:
'look: you have a spot'. Whatever you think about rich offspring getting into high end
schools and getting board positions (not a fan): the problem is a lot bigger on the
republican side.
Two days ago, the President sent a fuck-you letter to Pelosi. And she deserved it. Dems have nothing to offer to electorate so they engages in those witch hunts. They derailed
Tulsi, now they might face another four years of Trump.
Pelosi sponsored war of terror "completely democratized" more more then a million people
and nobody was impeached for that.
Torquemada's subjects never endured such inhumane treatment as Trump in the hands of Pelosi ;-) But we should not forget that
Pelosi sponsored war of terror "completely democratized" more more then a million people and nobody was impeached for that.
This Kabuki theater became more interesting: On 10th December 2019, Senator Mich McConnell (Republican Kentucky)
publicly declared, &"I'm not impartial about this at all. I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not
anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision."
America is a write-off. It was a terrible idea from the beginning. An empire? Now? Really?
Not learning anything from the history books, eh? Ye need an American Union, asap, before
ye destroy us all.
Mark Galli, its current editor (who is leaving the publication in two weeks)
takes on Trump directly -- a courageous move on his part, as his magazine has largely been
apolitical. "The facts in this instance are unambiguous: the president of the United States
attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of
the president's political opponents," Galli writes. He draws the obvious conclusion for
Christians: "That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is
profoundly immoral." Galli goes further, digging into the behavior of the man in the Oval
Office, noting that Trump "has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration." He gets
specific: "He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals." As if
that wasn't enough, Galli adds, "He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his
relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone -- with its
habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders -- is a near perfect example of a
human being who is morally lost and confused." Galli's warning to Christians is clear. "To the
many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we
might say this: remember who you are and whom you serve," Galli writes. "Consider how your
justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an
unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump's immoral words and behavior
in the cause of political expediency. If we don't reverse course now, will anyone take anything
we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come?" Galli also
acknowledged Friday in an interview on CNN's "New Day" that his stand is unlikely to shake
loose Trump's strong hold on this voter segment, a crucial portion of his political base.
Galli's move is even more admirable when you consider that he published his editorial even
knowing that, as he said in his interview, he's not optimistic that his editorial will alter
Trump's support among white evangelicals. It's not a stretch to say that white evangelicals put
Trump into office in 2016. About
80% of them voted for him. They did so because of the abortion issue, mostly. They wanted
pro-life judges throughout the justice system. But this was a devil's bargain, at best.
<img alt="Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us"
src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191121180252-20191121-fractured-states-religious-leaders-large-169.jpg">Faith
could bring us together. But too often it divides us Younger evangelicals, those under 45,
have been slowly but steadily
moving away from Trump during the past two years or so, unhappy about his example. A key
topic that has driven them away is immigration. Loving your neighbor as yourself has always
been a bedrock Christian value. And Trump's stance on immigrants (especially those of color)
has upset the younger generation of evangelicals, with two-thirds of them saying in surveys
that immigrants strengthen our country, bringing their work ethic and talents with them from
Mexico or Central America or Syria. Climate change is another issue that has caught the
imagination of younger evangelicals. "I can't love my neighbor if I'm not protecting the earth
that sustains them and defending their rights to clean water, clean air, and a stable climate,"
Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, a national organizer for Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, told
Grist . Needless to say, Trump's contempt on this subject grates badly on these young
Christians. Perhaps naively, Americans have always looked to the presidency for exemplary moral
behavior, and when there are obvious personal or moral failures, as with Nixon and Clinton,
there is disappointment, even anger. But if you're a Christian -- and I lay claim to this for
myself -- you understand that it's human to fail at perfect behavior. There is always
forgiveness. And, as T.S. Eliot wrote, "Humility is endless."
Humility lies at the heart of
Christian behavior. As does honesty. In these, Trump has set a terrible example, and he's now
been taken down for this by an important Christian voice. If only another 10 percent of
evangelicals take this seriously, and I suspect they will, Donald J. Trump's presidency is
destined for the ash heap of history.
Delaying the Senate trial erodes the Democrats' argument that impeachment was so urgent that
they could not wait for the courts to act on Trump's aggressive claims of privilege.
Seven Democratic presidential candidates who gathered on a debate stage in Los Angeles on
Thursday represent another argument for moving beyond impeachment.
... ... ...
Washington is fixated on the daily turns of the impeachment saga, but polls indicate that
most Americans are not. Business executive Andrew Yang pointed out that, even when the current
president is gone, the struggles of many people will remain, particularly in parts of the
country that helped elect Trump in 2016.
"We blasted away 4 million manufacturing jobs that were primarily based in Ohio, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri. I just left Iowa -- we blasted 40,000 manufacturing jobs
there," Yang said. "The more we act like Donald Trump is the cause of all our problems, the
more Americans lose trust that we can actually see what's going on in our communities and solve
those problems."
That is what voters are waiting to hear, and the sooner the better for Democrats.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin there are going to be three things in life that are certain.
Death, taxes and the impeachment of a US President when the House is held by a different
party. American politics is going to get a whole lot nastier now than what it has been.
This Punch and Judy show has achieved nothing. The House impeached him and the Senate
won't convict him. Trump now will be playing the victim card. Come November the key thing
that will matter is the economy. If it as successful as it is now then he will get a second
term. If it is in a recession then advantage Democratic candidate.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has called for the Senate to subpoena four new witnesses that
the House never heard. Nancy Pelosi signaled Wednesday night that she might not send over to
the Senate the articles of impeachment the House had just approved.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor both Wednesday night and Thursday morning.
To have the Senate, which is judge and jury of the impeachment charges, start calling witnesses
whom House prosecutors failed to pursue "could set a nightmarish precedent."
Said McConnell, Schumer "would apparently like our chamber to do House Democrats' homework
for them."
Schumer's plea for new witnesses is an admission that the House's case for impeaching Trump
is inadequate and deficient and could prove wholly noncredible to the American people. After
all, if you need more witnesses, you probably do not have the smoking gun.
The message sent by Pelosi's call for more time before the trial, and Schumer's call for
more witnesses, is one of fear that not only could the House's case for impeachment fail, it
could be laughed out of the Senate. And the American people might be fine with that.
The Democratic Party has bet the ranch on the impeachment and removal of Trump for
imperiling our "national security." But are Schumer and Pelosi behaving as though the republic
is in mortal peril?
Schumer's call for new witnesses also underscores the thinness of Article I of the
impeachment, Trump's alleged "Abuse of Power."
Beneath Article I, there is not a single crime listed -- no treason, no bribery, no
extortion, no high crimes.
What kind of impeachment is this, with not one crime from the list the Founding Fathers
designated as impeachable acts?
Why did the Democratic House not impeach Trump for conspiring with Russia to steal the 2016
election? Answer: Congress could no more prove this charge than could Robert Mueller after two
years.
Other events are breaking Trump's way.
The James Comey-FBI investigation Mueller inherited has begun to take on the aspect of a
"deep state" conspiracy.
According to the Justice Department's IG Michael Horowitz, the FISA court warrants used to
justify FBI spying were the products not only of incompetence but also of mendacity and
possible criminality.
The "essential" evidence used by the FBI to get the FISA judge to approve warrants for
surveillance was the Steele dossier.
An ex-British spy, Christopher Steele was working in mid-2016 for a dirt-diving operation
commissioned by the DNC and Clinton campaign to go after Trump. His altarpiece, the dossier, we
learn from Horowitz, was a farrago of fabrications, rumors, and lies fed to Steele by a Russian
"sub-source."
In the four FBI submissions to the FISA courts for warrants to spy on Carter Page, there
were "at least 17 significant errors or omissions."
And all 17 went against Team Trump.
Moreover, the discrediting of the Comey investigation has just begun. U.S. Attorney John
Durham will report this spring or summer on his deeper and wider investigation into its
roots.
As IG of Justice, Horowitz's investigation was confined to his department and the FBI. But
Durham is looking into the involvement of U.S. and foreign intelligence in the first days of
the FBI investigation.
Attorney General Bill Barr and Durham have both said that they do not share Horowitz's view
that there was no political bias at the beginning of the investigation of the Trump campaign.
Durham's writ is far wider than Horowitz's and he has the power to impanel grand juries and
bring criminal indictments.
Among the fields Durham is plowing are reports that agents and assets of the FBI and CIA may
have "set up" Trump foreign policy aide George Papadopoulos. Possible purpose: to feed him
intel about Russia having dirt on Hillary Clinton, and then entrap him, put him in legal
jeopardy, and turn him into an investigative instrument to be used against Trump.
With the Horowitz report confirming what the Trumpers have been reporting and saying about
Comey's investigation for years, and the newly proven manipulation of the FISA courts, the
media hooting about "right-wing conspiracy theories" seems to have been toned down.
Carter Page, once considered a dupe of the Russians, is now seen as a patriot who assisted
his country's intelligence services only to be made a victim of injustice who saw his civil
rights trampled upon by his own government.
The cards appear to be falling Trump's way.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan
and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
On Tuesday, Donald Trump showed that it is not only through the spoken word or his Twitter
account that he is able to raise eyebrows, when he sent an angry and frequently bizarre letter
to House speaker Nancy Pelosi .
The six-page missive was remarkable for a number of reasons, not least for Trump's claim he
has been subjected to worse treatment than that endured by people accused of witchcraft in the
17th century.
Here are five highlights, or otherwise, from Trump's dispatch. 1) 'More due process was
afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.'
Fourteen women and five men were hanged in colonial Massachusetts the late 1690s, for
supposedly engaging in witchcraft. "Spectral evidence" was admissible in the trials –
evidence where a witness had a dream, or apparition, which featured the alleged witch engaged
in dark deeds. Spectral evidence is yet to feature in Trump's impeachment hearings.
2)
'You [Nancy Pelosi] are offending Americans of faith by continually saying: "I pray for the
president," when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense.
It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!'
Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she prays for Donald Trump. In October, the House speaker
said
she was praying for his "health", after Trump had what she described as a "meltdown" during a
meeting with Democratic leaders.
It's not the first time she has claimed to be appealing to a higher power on Trump's
behalf. It seems Trump doesn't like it. Or believe it.
3) 'There are not many people who
could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for
the success of America and its citizens.'
Trump's claims that he alone could withstand such rough treatment from his opponents
rather fall down here – located as they are in a six-page ode to
self-pity.
4) 'You view democracy as your enemy!'
This exclamation comes midway through the letter, after Trump claims the Democrats have
developed "Trump Derangement Syndrome". Trump is not confident of the odds Democrats will
recover from the malady: "You will never get over it!" he writes.
5) 'I write this letter
to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.
100 years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and
learn from it, so that it can never happen to another president again.'
There's a slightly self-satisfied air to the final paragraph of the letter, as if Trump
feels he has delivered a piece of soaring oratory which will be pored over by scholars in years
to come. At least here, in a sense, Trump is correct. People are unlikely to forget "this
affair" – his presidency – for a long, long time and historians of the future will
certainly examine this letter: just perhaps not in the way Trump would want them to.
Muellergate and biased MSM overcame weak minded Americans and apparently caused Pu$$y
hatted evangelicals not to vote conservative in the 2018 Midterms. (If you believe there was
no ballot, voting machine or illegal voter fraud.).....
On to 2019, where the impeachment in name only in suspended animation will be used as the
Same Mullergate style main stream narrative to sway weak minded Americans and Voter fraud to
get Trump in 2020.
You had better hope Trump wins, because all your republican gun registered names are on
Google Databases. What do you think Hillary who invited NATO in during Bill's dalliance as
President was for, A Tea Party ?
But it was totally partisan based what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called
"non-crimes". Trump would wear such as badge of honour--in the sense he was attacked non-stop
by what he calls "The Deep State" and survived.
He would also claim that the elitist bureaucracy in Washington tried to destroy a
President who was for "We the People"--whom the elitist classes call "deplorables" and whom
can even be smelt at Walmart.
Like it or not, impeaching a President is a very significant moment. It only happened twice
before, and came close a third. It IS an imporant occasion. And the principle is NO ONE IS
ABOVE THE LAW. This is why the Founding Fathers put it in the Constitution. And the occasion
impinged on one thing that the Founding Fathers dreaded most: a foreign nation involving
itself in our electoral process. IT IS THAT SERIOUS
Removing a president is a very significant moment, which isn't going to happen.
Impeaching a president is just another TV show, which will be forgotten by the general public
in a couple of years or so. Bubba's situation is only remembered in America and abroad due to
Monica's salacious role. Ask the first person on the street what the actual accusations
against Bubba were. Most won't even coherently explain what Donnie's current situation is
about. And in neither case it will be their fault, because it is politicians who are to be
fully blamed - Democrats are as inarticulate now as Republicans were then.
Regarding foreign ivolvements - you're a "little" bit too late to become concerned about
that. Saudi and Israeli interests have already attained a permanent residency within
America's political system, elections included.
But back in 2007, when Fein was working on impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney, Pelosi said that impeachment was off the table completely.
So "long as they think their party has a chance to get the White House back they're eager to
take Trump's usurpations and imitate them with executive orders of their own," Fein said.
Ultimately, according to Fein, both parties in Congress "have no concept of the separation
of powers. It's all about loyalty to party. None of the Democrats did anything about Obama
going to war illegally, the Snowden revelations, DACA. Democrats didn't complain at all about
that. Republicans are exactly the same. There's no longer any loyalty to the oath of office.
That's why the country's institutions are collapsing."
Nancy Pelosi is worried that impeachment will cost the Democrats their 2016 purple gains,
and with it, her speaker's gavel.
Yet in the end, her political calculation may prove shortsighted. After all, her limp and
rushed use of the House impeachment inquiry has unified Trump supporters, calcified executive
overreach, and played directly into Trump's hands.
Hence why impeachment is so rare. If evidence isn't so obvious that you have to rely on the
President's own supporters to get at it, you probably shouldn't be trying to impeach in the
first place. That's a political choice you have to make carefully.
I tend to think this is going to be a disaster for Democrats. The GOP-controlled Senate
will spend all of its time asking questions about Biden and his son and then fully acquit,
GOP voters will come out in force and rally around the President, and Democratic voters
will be disillusioned and stay home.
I'd be happy to see Trump impeached for leaving our troops in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq
and the rest. But then I would have impeached Bush and Obama for the same.
The Trump Campaign Promises Monitor has posted a month-by-month timeline of the impeachment
inquiry, from the day Congress approved Ukrainian military aid to yesterday's impeachment
vote. See Promise #50: Drain the Swamp/Topic #14 - Impeachment Inquiry @
http://trumpcampaignpromise...
With the House set to vote on two impeachment articles Wednesday, President Trump has
broken his 2016 campaign promise to "drain the swamp." For a list of the 15 different ways
President Trump has, in fact, failed to drain the swamp, see Promise #50 at the Trump
Campaign Promises Monitor @
http://trumpcampaignpromise...
"... "growing evidence that the public impeachment proceedings in the House against Trump may actually be helping him politically." ..."
"... "open war on American Democracy." ..."
"... the end of his six-page letter shows that he is fully aware of the Democrats' gambit, bringing it out in the open: he wrote it not because he expected them to see reason but "for the purpose of history" and to create a "permanent and indelible record." ..."
"... It is said that history is written by the winners. That's almost true. It is made by the winners, but written by the loud. Trump is a real-estate developer and reality TV star who talked his way into the White House against two major political dynasties – Clinton and Bush – and both the Republican and Democrat establishments; through a gauntlet of US intelligence agencies, as it turns out; and in the face of near-unanimous opposition from the media. ..."
"... So his impeachment is indeed a historic moment – just not in the way his enemies think. ..."
...If the plan was to sabotage Trump's second-term campaign, it seems to have backfired spectacularly. With every
hearing before the Intelligence or Judiciary Committee, the public support for impeachment actually decreased. Even
CNN
was forced to admit the existence of
"growing evidence that the public impeachment proceedings in the House
against Trump may actually be helping him politically."
Indeed, what better way for Trump to solidify his bona
fides as the populist outsider than to be impeached by the coastal elites and the Washington Swamp, in what amounted to
a nakedly partisan process?
Definition of Impeachment (modern): A process by which the party out of power shows the
world how they got that way. Happens most commonly right before a landslide reelection.
...Trump never gets tired of pointing out the accomplishments of his administration: jobs, stock market growth, trade
deals, etc. He did so again, in a scathing letter to Pelosi on Impeachment Eve, contrasting that to her party's
"open war on American Democracy."
However,
the end of his six-page letter shows that he is fully aware of the
Democrats' gambit, bringing it out in the open: he wrote it not because he expected them to see reason but "for the
purpose of history" and to create a "permanent and indelible record."
It is said that history is written by the winners. That's almost true. It is made by the winners, but written by
the loud. Trump is a real-estate developer and reality TV star who talked his way into the White House against two major
political dynasties – Clinton and Bush – and both the Republican and Democrat establishments; through a gauntlet of US
intelligence agencies, as it turns out; and in the face of near-unanimous opposition from the media.
So his impeachment is indeed a historic moment – just not in the way his enemies think.
"... Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious. It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest of the wealthy. ..."
"... America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla. ..."
"... Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators; it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending your kids to die. Never. ..."
Idealistic Realist , Apr 27, 2019 1:24:45 PM |
link
Best analysis by a candidate for POTUS ever:
American foreign policy is not a failure. To comfort themselves, observers often say that our leaders -- presidents, advisors,
generals -- don't know what they're doing. They do know. Their agenda just isn't what we like to imagine it is.
To quote Michael Parenti: "US policy is not filled with contradictions and inconsistencies. It has performed brilliantly
and steadily in the service of those who own most of the world and who want to own all of it."
The vision of our leaders as bunglers, while more accurate than the image of them as valiant public servants, is less accurate
and more rose-tinted than the closest approximation of the truth, which is that they are servants of their class interest.
That is why we go to war.
Those who buy the elite class's foreign policy BS, about the Emmanuel Goldsteins they conjure up every three years, are
fools. Obviously Hussein and Milošević were bad; but "government bad" does not mean we must invade. Wars occur for economic,
not humanitarian, reasons.
Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the president of Equatorial Guinea, is a kleptocrat, murderer, and alleged cannibal. This is
him and his wife with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, was said to have boiled political prisoners to death, massacred hundreds
of prisoners, and made torture an institution. This is him with John Kerry.
Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda, has been involved in the assassination of political opponents, perpetrated obvious
election fraud, and had his term extended until 2034. This is him with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious.
It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest
of the wealthy.
America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian
reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support
Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla.
Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators;
it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending
your kids to die. Never.
"... While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and liberation". ..."
"... Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia? Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining ground btw. Ask yourself why ? ..."
"... Sphere of influence, the same reason why Cuba and Venezuela will pay for their insolence against the hegemon. The world is never a fair place. ..."
While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and
liberation".
I hate how America exploit the weak. president moon should offer an olive branch to fatty Kim by sending back the
thaad to America and pulling out American base and troops. he should convince fatty Kim that should he really like to proliferate
his nuclear missile development as deterrence, aim it only to America and America only. there is no need for Koreans to kill fellow
Koreans.
Very good idea, after having pushed Ukraine and Georgia to a war lost in advance, lets hope US will abandon South Korea and
Japan because they were helpless in demilitarizing one of the poorest countries in the world....
Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia?
Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life
isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say
farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining
ground btw. Ask yourself why ?
In this person's opinion, the article raises a good point with regards to US defense subsidies. However, its examples are dissimilar.
Japan spends approximately 1% of its GDP on defense; South Korea spends roughly 2.5% of its GDP defense.
In fact, it seems to this person that a better example of US Defense Welfare would be direct subsidies granted to the state
of Israel.
"... It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. ..."
"JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon has two big pronouncements as the Trump administration starts reshaping
the government: "The United States of America is truly an exceptional country," and "it is clear that something is wrong."
Dimon, leader of world's most valuable bank and a counselor to the new president, used his 45-page annual letter to shareholders
on Tuesday to list ways America is stronger than ever -- before jumping into a much longer list of self-inflicted problems that
he said was "upsetting" to write.
Here's the start: Since the turn of the century, the U.S. has dumped trillions of dollars into wars, piled huge debt onto students,
forced legions of foreigners to leave after getting advanced degrees, driven millions of Americans out of the workplace with felonies
for sometimes minor offenses and hobbled the housing market with hastily crafted layers of rules.
Dimon, who sits on Donald Trump's business forum aimed at boosting job growth, is renowned for his optimism and has been voicing
support this year for parts of the president's business agenda. In February, Dimon predicted the U.S. would have a bright economic
future if the new administration carries out plans to overhaul taxes, rein in rules and boost infrastructure investment. In an
interview last month, he credited Trump with boosting consumer and business confidence in growth, and reawakening "animal spirits."
But on Tuesday, reasons for concern kept coming. Labor market participation is low, Dimon wrote. Inner-city schools are failing
poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure planning and spending
is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous it's driving capital
and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive.
" It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and
governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free
enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. "...
"Inner-city schools are failing poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure
planning and spending is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous
it's driving capital and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive."
Let's unpack his list. The 4th (last) sentence is his hope that his bank can back to the unregulated regime that brought us
the Great Recession. His 3rd sentence is a call for more tax cuts for the rich.
We may like his first 2 sentences here but who is going to pay for this? Not Jamie Dimon. See sentence #3.
"... The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya. ..."
"... Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course, his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed. ..."
"... Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. ..."
"... We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact. ..."
The start of current decade revealed the most ruthless face of a global neo-colonialism. From Syria and Libya to Europe and Latin
America, the old colonial powers of the West tried to rebound against an oncoming rival bloc led by Russia and China, which starts
to threaten their global domination.
Inside a multi-polar, complex terrain of geopolitical games, the big players start to abandon the old-fashioned, inefficient direct
wars. They use today other, various methods like
brutal proxy
wars , economic wars, financial and constitutional coups, provocative operations, 'color revolutions', etc. In this highly
complex and unstable situation, when even traditional allies turn against each other as the global balances change rapidly, the forces
unleashed are absolutely destructive. Inevitably, the results are more than evident.
Proxy Wars - Syria/Libya
After the US invasion in Iraq, the gates of hell had opened in the Middle East. Obama continued the Bush legacy of US endless
interventions, but he had to change tactics because a direct war would be inefficient, costly and extremely unpopular to the American
people and the rest of the world.
The result, however, appeared to be equally (if not more) devastating with the failed US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US
had lost total control of the armed groups directly linked with the ISIS terrorists, failed to topple Assad, and, moreover, instead
of eliminating the Russian and Iranian influence in the region, actually managed to increase it. As a result, the US and its allies
failed to secure their geopolitical interests around the various pipeline games.
In addition, the US sees Turkey, one of its most important ally, changing direction dangerously, away from the Western bloc. Probably
the strongest indication for this, is that Turkey, Iran and Russia decided very recently to proceed in an agreement on Syria without
the presence of the US.
Yet, the list of US failures does not end here. The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have
proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have
witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya.
Evidence from
WikiLeaks has shown that the old colonial powers have started a new round of ruthless competition on Libya's resources.
The usual story propagated by the Western media, about another tyrant who had to be removed, has now completely collapsed. They don't
care neither to topple an 'authoritarian' regime, nor to spread Democracy. All they care about is to secure each country's resources
for their big companies.
The Gaddafi case is quite interesting because it shows that
the Western
hypocrites were using him according to their interests .
Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they
had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order
to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course,
his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed.
Economic Wars, Financial Coups – Greece/Eurozone
It would be unthinkable for the neo-colonialists to conduct proxy wars inside European soil, especially against countries which
belong to Western institutions like NATO, EU, eurozone, etc. The wave of the US-made major economic crisis hit Greece and Europe
at the start of the decade, almost simultaneously with the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutionary wave and the subsequent disaster
in Middle East and Libya.
Greece was the easy victim for the global neoliberal dictatorship to impose catastrophic measures in favor of the plutocracy.
The Greek experiment enters its seventh year and the plan is to be used as a model for the whole eurozone. Greece has become also
the model for the looting of public property, as happened in the past with the East Germany and the
Treuhand Operation
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
While Greece was the major victim of an economic war, Germany used its economic power and control of the European Central Bank
to impose unprecedented austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction through silent financial coups in
Ireland ,
Italy and
Cyprus . The Greek political establishment collapsed with the rise of SYRIZA in power, and the ECB was forced to proceed
in an open financial coup against
Greece when the current PM, Alexis Tsipras, decided to conduct a referendum on the catastrophic measures imposed by the ECB, IMF
and the European Commission, through which the Greek people clearly rejected these measures, despite the propaganda of terror inside
and outside Greece. Due to the direct threat from Mario Draghi and the ECB, who actually threatened to cut liquidity sinking Greece
into a financial chaos, Tsipras finally forced to retreat, signing another catastrophic memorandum.
Through similar financial and political pressure, the Brussels bureaufascists and the German sado-monetarists along with the IMF
economic hitmen, imposed neoliberal disaster to other eurozone countries like Portugal, Spain etc. It is remarkable that even the
second eurozone economy, France,
rushed to
impose anti-labor measures midst terrorist attacks, succumbing to a - pre-designed by the elites - neo-Feudalism, under
the 'Socialist' François Hollande, despite the intense protests in many French cities.
Germany would never let the United States to lead the neo-colonization in Europe, as it tries (again) to become a major power
with its own sphere of influence, expanding throughout eurozone and beyond. As the situation in Europe becomes more and more critical
with the ongoing economic and refugee crisis and the rise of the Far-Right and the nationalists, the economic war mostly between
the US and the German big capital, creates an even more complicated situation.
The decline of the US-German relations has been exposed initially with the
NSA interceptions
scandal , yet, progressively, the big picture came on surface, revealing a
transatlantic
economic war between banking and corporate giants. In times of huge multilevel crises, the big capital always intensifies
its efforts to eliminate competitors too. As a consequence, the US has seen another key ally, Germany, trying to gain a certain degree
of independence in order to form its own agenda, separate from the US interests.
Note that, both Germany and Turkey are medium powers that, historically, always trying to expand and create their own spheres
of influence, seeking independence from the traditional big powers.
A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio Macri allegedly took the power normally,
the constitutional
coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the
usual actions
of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicolás Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.
The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in the
global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies away
from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.
Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team
of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff
was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known
situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.
The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen
the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an
alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic
that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant
impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chávez era, in
order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since
Chávez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicolás Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality
of Hugo Chávez - to achieve their goal.
The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth,
with a big overdose of exaggeration.
The establishment
parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the
Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about
the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.
Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation
with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina
could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal
monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina
is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's
happening right
now in eurozone's debt colony, Greece.
'Color Revolutions' - Ukraine
The events in Ukraine have shown that, the big capital has no hesitation to ally even with the neo-nazis, in order to impose the
new world order. This is not something new of course. The connection of Hitler with the German economic oligarchs, but also with
other major Western companies, before and during the WWII, is well known.
The most terrifying of all however, is not that the West has silenced in front of the decrees of the new Ukrainian leadership,
through which is targeting the minorities, but the fact that the West allied with the neo-nazis, while according to some information
has also funded their actions as well as other extreme nationalist groups during the riots in Kiev.
Plenty of indications show that US organizations have 'put their finger' on Ukraine. A
video , for
example, concerning the situation in Ukraine has been directed by Ben Moses (creator of the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam"), who is
connected with American government executives and organizations like National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US Congress.
This video shows a beautiful young female Ukrainian who characterizes the government of the country as "dictatorship" and praise
some protesters with the neo-nazi symbols of the fascist Ukranian party Svoboda on them.
The same organizations are behind 'color revolutions' elsewhere, as well as, provocative operations against Leftist governments
in Venezuela and other countries.
Ukraine is the perfect place to provoke Putin and tight the noose around Russia. Of course the huge hypocrisy of the West can
also be identified in the case of Crimea. While in other cases, the Western officials were 'screaming' for the right of self-determination
(like Kosovo, for example), after they destroyed Yugoslavia in a bloodbath, they can't recognize the will of the majority of Crimeans
to join Russia.
The war will become wilder
The Western neo-colonial powers are trying to counterattack against the geopolitical upgrade of Russia and the Chinese economic
expansionism.
Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine
in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. Besides, Trump has already shown his hostile feelings against China, despite
his friendly approach to Russia and Putin.
We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation
in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that
they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian
borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact.
And Ms. Pelosi believes that Mr. Trump is so eager for the public vindication of a Senate
acquittal that he will put pressure on the majority leader to make it happen even if it means
offering some concessions to Mr. Schumer.
For now, however, Mr. McConnell -- and many other Senate Republicans -- seem unmoved by the
House posture. He spent much of Thursday gleefully ridiculing Democrats' negotiating
tactics.
"Do you think this is leverage, to not send us something we'd rather not do?" he asked
reporters this week as he cracked a broad smile outside the Senate chamber, in a departure from
his usual dour expression.
"... Three billion dollars of USAID money sent to Ukraine over 3 years is not accounted for, no documents, no audits. The Clinton Foundation has received $10 million in donations of $500K and up from Ukraine this century. Igor Pasternak had a fundraiser in Washington for Adam Schiff; $1000/plate- guest, $2500/plate-sponsor. Ukranians and US taxpayers should like to know where did our dollars go, and who else in addition to the Bidens are at the trough. ..."
"... So the documents were released three weeks ago? Giuliani had the evidence in JANUARY? So the Quid Pro Quo kerfuffle was manufactured thereafter? ..."
"... So the QPQ is actually by Dems' trying to stop prosecution of Biden and above? Clinton and Obama? Which is why the impeachment bs? Or is it to stop the prosecution of the chiefs of the 3 letter agencies in their manufacturing of Russiagate? And their 5+1 eyed cohorts? In a conspiracy against the potus? Now just fit in Syria, White Helmets and Skripals and all the dots join up. ..."
On November 22nd, a 100-page Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data-dump was made by the U.S.
Department of State, to the Democratic-Party-aligned nonprofit "American Oversight," which had been founded in March
2017 by liberals (really by some of the
main billionaires who fund the Democratic Party
) after the 2016 Democratic electoral defeat (by
Republican billionaires
).
The now Republican-headed U.S. State Department made it as difficult as possible to report the contents of this
dump; Most especially by providing only a photographic image of each page, making it impossible to search on most
systems; and also impossible to Copy/Paste any quotations.
Consequently, on November 23rd, I made a pdf copy of that document to the Web Archive (the first of probably many
that will become posted there), in order to be able to link here to something that will come onscreen less sluggishly
for any interested reader who will want to see the document.
I am herewith pasting below what I consider to be the most important extended passage in the document, so as to
make that passage especially available online. I have manually transcribed the photos, in order that any portion of
this important passage (pages 61-66) can now be easily found and cited by other reporters.
This way, at least that passage might become more widely disseminated to the public -- which it should be, because
the information there contradicts many of the 'news'-reports about Ukrainegate, or the impeachment case against
Trump. (Some excerpts from this extended passage were reported on
November 25th
by the great non-mainstream news-site Zero Hedge, and that was entirely accurate.)
In this passage, President Trump's lawyer Rudolphe Giuliani, on January 23, 25, and 26, of 2019, took a deposition
from Viktor Shokin, whom Joe Biden had forced to be fired on 29 March 2016 as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, and also
a deposition from Yuriy Lutsenko, who replaced Shokin and thereby freed-up from the Obama Administration in 2016 a
one-billion-dollar donation ('loan guarantees' to the then-and-now bankrupt Government of Ukraine) from America's
taxpayers, to fund the then just-recently-installed-by-Obama anti-Russian Government
of Ukraine, for it to stay afloat just a while longer.
Shokin – January 23, 2019, 445 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022:
On January 23, 2019, a telephone interview with Mr. Viktor Shokin the former General Prosecutor of Ukraine was
conducted. Present in the New York location were: Rudolph Giuliani, Mr. Igor Fruman, Mr. Lev Parnas and Mr. George
Boyle.
The conversation was conducted through the use of two (2) interpreters one (1) in Ukraine and one (1) Lev
Parnas in New York. The sum and substance of the conversation are as follows:
Mr. Shokin stated that he was appointed to the position of General Prosecutor of Ukraine from 2015 until April
of 2016 when he was removed at the request of Mr. Joseph Biden the Vice President of the United States. Mr. Shokin
was a Deputy Prosecutor prior to becoming the General Prosecutor. He became involved in a case against Mr. Mykola
Zlochevsky the former Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine.
The case was opened as a result of Mr. Zlochevsky giving himself/company permits to drill for gas and oil in
Ukraine. Mr. Zlochevsky is also the owner of Burisma Holdings, which is a corporation registered in Cyprus. Mr.
Shokin stated that there are documents that list five (5) criminal cases in which Mr. Zlochevsky is listed, with
the main case being for issuing illegal gas exploration permits. The following complaints are in the criminal
case.
Mr. Zlochevsky was laundering money
Obtained assets by corrupt acts bribery
Mr. Zlochevsky removed approximately twenty three million U.S. dollars out of Ukraine without permission
While seated as the Minister he approved two addition[al] entities to receive permits for gas exploration
Mr. Zlochevsky was the owner of two secret companies that were part of Burisma Holdings and gave those
companies permits which made it possible for him to profit while he was the sitting Minister
The above cases were closed after Mr. Zlochevsky was dismissed from the Ministry.
Mr. Shokin further stated that there were several Burisma board appointees [that] were made in 2014 as follows:
Hunter Biden son of Vice President Joseph Biden
Joseph Blade former CIA employee assigned to Anti-Terrorist Unit
Aleksander Kwasnieski former President of Poland
Devon Archer roommate to Christopher Heinz the step-son of Mr. John Kerry United States Secretary of State
Mr. Shokin stated that these appointments were made by Mr. Zlochevsky in order to protect himself. Mr.
Zlochevsky left Ukraine while the above-mentioned cases were open.
Mr. Shokin stated that the investigations stopped out of fear of the United States. Mr. Shokin attempted to
continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015 the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him
that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which, according to Mr. Shokin, implied to do nothing.
On or about September 2015, Mr. Pyatt gave a speech in Odessa where he stated that the cases were not investigated
correctly and that Mr. Shokin may be corrupt.
Mr. Shokin stated that in 2014 Mr. Zlochevsky was in the UK and that the twenty three million dollars were
frozen in the UK in the BNP Bank. Mr. Shokin stated that false documents were prepared and the money was released
so Mr. S[sp]lochevski before Mr. Shokin took office. That release of the money made Mr. Shokin look into the above
cases again.
Mr. Shokin stated that there were several articles written about bribes being taken during the investigation of
the cases. The bribes were an effort to have the cases closed. On April [actually
29 March
] of 2016 Mr. Shokin was dismissed as the General Prosecutor of Ukraine [and
both the U.S. and its stooge the EU celebrated his firing
-- the EU aquiesced in the
U.S. regime's Ukrainian coup
]. In November of 2016 the cases were closed by the current Prosecutor General
Yuriy Lutsenko.
Mr. Shokin further stated that on February of 2016 warrants were placed on the accounts of multiple people in
Ukraine. There were requests for information on Hunter Biden to which nothing was received. It is believed that
Hunter Biden receives a salary, commission, plus one million dollars. Mr. Shokin stated he was warned to stop by
Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt.
President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not in the interest
of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko's office and told that the investigation
into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one
billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.
Mr. Shokin stated that on or around April of 2016 Mr. Petro Poroshenko called him and told him he had to be
fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden. Mr. Biden told Mr. Poroshenko that he had
evidence that Mr. Shokin was corrupt and needed to be fired. Mr. Shokin was dismissed in April of 2016 and the
U.S. aid was delivered within one and one half months.
On a different point, Mr. Shokin believes the current [U.S.] Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch denied his visa to
travel to the U.S. Mr. Shokin stated that she is close to Mr. Biden. Mr. Shokin also stated that there were leaks
by a person named Reshenko of the Ukrainian State Secret Service about the Manafort Black Book. Mr. Shokin stated
that there is possible deceit in the Manafort Black Book.
End of interview.
*
Yuriy Lutsenko January 25, 2019, 445 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022:
On January 25, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine was present at 445 Park Av e,
New York, NY. He was present to speak about corruption in Ukraine. He was accomapnied by Glib Zagoriy, Gyunduz
Mamedov, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman. Also present were Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and George Boyle.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that he is currently the Prosecutor General for Ukraine. He was the Minister of Interior
from 2007 to 2010. He further stated that he was placed in jail for two and one half years as a political
prisoner.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has the following units under his purview:
Police Department
Fiscals
Secret Service
Investigative Department
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has recovered several billion dollars and has had two thousand six hundred
thirty-seven [2,637] verdicts of corruption. Mr. Lutsenko went on to explain that there is a unit called
Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutors Office (SAP) which has under its purview National Anticorruption Bureau
Ukraine (NABU) which investigates corruption cases that involve public figures from Mayors upward. He stated that
the current U.S. Ambassador protects SAP and NABU.
He feels they are good organizations but have terrible leadership. His office has absolutely no control over
SAP or NABU and can't even ask what they are working on, however they fall under his 'control'.
He further state[s] that he believes Mr. Viktor Shokin, the former Prosecutor General, is honest.
Mr. Lutsenko went on to say that he began looking at the same case Mr. Shokin was looking at (mentioned above)
and he believes Hunter Biden receives millions of dollars in compensation from Burisma. He produced a document
from Latvia that showed several million dollars that were distributed out of Burisma's account.
The record showed two (2) companies and four (4) individuals receiving approximately sixteen million dollars in
disbursements, as follows [the breakdown is shown].
Mr. Lutsenko feels that the total disbursements can be as high as $100,000,000.
Ambassador Pyatt gave a speech on September 25, 2015 in Odessa against the Prosecutor Generals' Office. Yuriy Lutsenko Continued:
On January 26, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine, was present at 445 Park
ave., New York, NY. [His second day of testimony contained only one specific mention which was not vague and
which had not been indicated previously by Shokin: A "system was set up in order to remove money from the Ukraine,
have it laundered, and then collect the laundered money.
These companies were all headed by one Chief Financial Officer.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that about twenty (20) to forty (40) of these companies were shell companies. He further
stated that there were twenty-three (23) companies located offshore, and that two of them had approximately seven
billion dollars that were placed in the Templeton Fund. The system ran similar to a 'pyramid' scheme and all of
the beneficiaries were pro-Russian [which was undefined but presumably meant associated with the pre-coup
Ukrainian Government].
Zlochevsky is actually the decoy, but the real person who has majority-ownership of Burisma, after Zlochevsky sold
to him most of his shares in 2011, is the key Ukrainian billionaire who had backed Obama's February 2014 coup, Ihor
Kolomoysky. And Kolomoysky is now far more interested in recovering a few billions from his bankrupt PrivatBank,
Ukraine's largest bank, than in trying to extract the relative pittance that might still be entailed in Burisma
(which probably isn't much, now that
no established fracking company has found it
to be worth developing).
Apparently, Trump hasn't yet decided whether to continue the Obama-installed regime in Ukraine or else to expose
it and to go after both Obama and Kolomoysky, and to abandon the cover-story of Biden and Zlochevsky. If he does
decide to go after the principals in the case, then he'll have to expose whom were the actual principals, and whom
were merely their agents.
Thus far, in the American press, all of the attention has been only on actual agents, no principals. Given the way
in which Trump's State Department buried the release of that data-dump, Trump has not been particularly eager to get
the real story out there. Nor, of course, are the Democratic Party billionaires whose "American Oversight" has
likewise done nothing to facilitate the exposure of the actual historical narrative in this case.
Dec. 9, 2015
: Hunter Biden and business partner Devon Archer meet at State
Department regarding Burisma Holdings prosecution. [But no online record is provided, no documentation here, of
what was said.]
Feb. 11, 16, 19, 2016
: VP Biden holds series of phone calls with President Poroshenko to check
on status of pending items from their December 2015 meeting. Removal of general prosecutor raised again. [But,
again, no online record is provided. No evidence is provided of any mention of replacing the prosecutor.]
March 15, 2016:
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland demands
Ukraine "appoint and confirm a new, clean Prosecutor
General, who is committed to rebuilding the integrity of the PGO, and investigate, indict and successfully
prosecute corruption and asset recovery cases -- including locking up dirty personnel in the PGO itself." She
offers no proof that special prosecutor's [General Prosecutor's] office is corrupt.
March 22, 2016:
VP Joe Biden engages in a phone call from Washington DC with Ukrainian
President Poroshenko about U.S. loan guarantees [there is actually no indication in the official readout regarding
any "loan guarantees"].
It is believed in this call that Biden renews his demands that the president fire Prosecutor General Shokin,
but this time Biden warns Ukraine risk[s] losing the next $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees [and, yet again,
Pompeo's State Department falsifies, because
the official readout
says nothing of the sort].
[The only useful information that's provided there is that seven days before Shokin was fired, Biden did phone
Poroshenko, and that Pompeo's State Department isn't to be trusted in anything it asserts, because it
misrepresents here what that readout says. Therefore, the "Dec. 9, 2015" entry also isn't to be trusted, since no
accompanying documentation is provided for its allegation.]
I thought that the Republicans and Democrats decided to, essentially, kill the impeachment (hoax) in
order to protect the entire political class. I mean, Really, the contest between Republicans is phony so
that development is not surprising. Also, according to Alexander Mercouris (who wants to see Trump
re-elected!), both Shokin and Lutsenko (who doesn't have a lawyer background) were doing dirty work on
behalf of their respective oligarch patrons. That's Ukraine now and peviously.
It does seem that
there's a lot of dislike for Trump by the Dems and many Repubs but there's an even stronger dislike by
those enemies of Trum, together with the rest of the political class, of democracy. And there's a culture
of criminalit and impunity which members of the American political share or the exposure of Russiagate
would have seen a chastening of the Democratic Party et al instead of a doubling down on whatever lies
might help remove Trump. Neither is Trump chastened by his brush with the tainting of his crown as he
signs laws that codify the lie that peaceful protest and honest criticism of Israel is antisemitism.
Antonym
,
Imagine the confidence the Democrats
still have today
that with
"Ukrainegate" they can criminalize sitting president Trump instead of their own much more guilty
opposition leaders: US deep state is almost 50 rooted with many appointees in all power branches.
ttshasta
,
Three billion dollars of USAID money sent to Ukraine over 3 years is not accounted for, no documents, no
audits.
The Clinton Foundation has received $10 million in donations of $500K and up from Ukraine this century.
Igor Pasternak had a fundraiser in Washington for Adam Schiff; $1000/plate- guest, $2500/plate-sponsor.
Ukranians and US taxpayers should like to know where did our dollars go, and who else in addition to the
Bidens are at the trough.
Ukraine is not quite the most corrupt country on the planet, but it gives Afghanistan and Somalia some
pretty stiff competition.
Many tens of billions have been poured into the country by the US and EU
taxpayer, via the IMF, CIA, NED, and similar organisations. It has promptly vanished into thin air. There
is nothing to show for it. Ukraine is a Big Black Hole. It is now just a CIA/ NATO playground in the
grand scheme of things to install an openly Fascist Regime in Kiev to encircle and destabilise Russia.
The main players in Ukraine are Levantine oligarchs like Kolomoisky and his ilk, who have stolen
everything that wasn't nailed down in Ukraine since independence. And everything that was nailed down.
Just like Russia in the 1990s. They were joined by a whole host of all the usual suspects, dual/ triple
national Jews with a visceral hatred of Russia. The Nulands, the Vindmans, the Ioanovitches and all the
rest. Ukraine has been a happy hunting ground for these people. There has been a virtually unlimited
bonanza of western taxpayers' money to divvy up between them. Together with a few goy stooges like the
Bidens, who were also allowed to wet their beaks. There was enough to go around, after all.
No wonder they hate Trump so much for spoiling the party. Over to Schiff, Nadler, Cohen, Cohen and
Cohen. Reacting with all the fury of a dog that has had its bone taken away.
Dungroanin
,
So the documents were released three weeks ago?
Giuliani had the evidence in JANUARY?
So the Quid Pro Quo kerfuffle was manufactured thereafter?
So the QPQ is actually by Dems' trying to stop prosecution of Biden and above? Clinton and Obama?
Which is why the impeachment bs? Or is it to stop the prosecution of the chiefs of the 3 letter agencies in their manufacturing of
Russiagate?
And their 5+1 eyed cohorts? In a conspiracy against the potus? Now just fit in Syria, White Helmets and Skripals and all the dots join up.
It can lead to the immediate collapse of the new bozo house of cards and clear the swamp in one
Herculean flushing! You may even be able to save Assange from martyrdom in the British dungeon.
What's it to be Me Zuesse?
George Cornell
,
Thanks for this. It is surely complex and after all why shouldn't Miss Vicki decide who should lead the
Ukraine. And why should anyone begrudge the right of an exemplar sovereign state to deep six a prosecutor
who went after criminal corruption? But even the incognoscenti can appreciate that Hunter Biden, the
cokeheaded nitwit who was shoehorned into the Navy, by his fathers' friends, was unable to forgo the coke
till his urine got tested. His length of service could be measured in hours or days (how long does it
take to get the urine test results) as he was immediately dishonourably discharged. Further, that he
could not possibly provide service to Burisma that was not corrupt, simply because he had no demonstrable
expertise in their affairs. Unless Biden Jr's expertise in marital infidelity, fathering children out of
wedlock with strippers, and spending his marital income on lap dancers and drugs (according to his
ex-wife) dovetailed with Burisma's undeclared interests.
It was reported in the NYT that Bidens presence on the Burisma board gave it respectability. Of course
it must have, although presumably by error, Burisma was left out of any of the lists of most admired
companies. Perhaps these were compiled before Jr. was taken on board, so to speak. Ukrainians can hold
their heads high, such an incredible coup it was to have Biden Jr. grace their country. And he picked the
Ukraine over the horde of other countries which must relentlessly vie for his services, whatever they
might be. Just his accepting their cheques is surely enough.
It is not difficult to appreciate how the Democratic Party leapt at the chance to show the American
public how those big meanie Republicans have wagged their tongues so uncharitably against the upstanding
and virtuous seed of the loins of their leading 77 yr. old presidential candidate. After all, boys will
be boys. Say what you like about the Dems but you can't deny their canny shrewdness and ability to sniff
out talent.
Gossufer2.0 and CrowdStrike are the weakest links in this sordid story. CrowdStrike was nothing but FBI/CIA contractor.
So the hypothesis that CrowdStrike employees implanted malware to implicate Russians and created fake Gussifer 2.0 personality
is pretty logical.
Notable quotes:
"... Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of then CIA Director John Brennan ..."
"... In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust. ..."
"... We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the Vault 7 documents : ..."
"... Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович" is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.) ..."
"... Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA. ..."
"... The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich. Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia. ..."
"... The only source for the claim that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch, but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June. That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction. ..."
"... The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU. ..."
"... LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU." ..."
"... ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments? ..."
"... With the Russians not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet), would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report insists that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Russia's military intelligence organization,
the GRU, as part of a Russian plot to meddle in the U.S. 2016 Presidential Election. But this is a lie. Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
were created by Brennan's CIA and this action by the CIA should be a target of U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation. Let me
explain why.
Let us start with the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment aka ICA. Only three agencies of the 17 in the U.S. intelligence
community contributed to and coordinated on the ICA--the FBI, the CIA and NSA. In the preamble to the ICA, you can read the following
explanation about methodology:
When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as "we assess" or "we judge," they are conveying an analytic assessment or
judgment
To be clear, the phrase,"We assess", is intel community jargon for "opinion". If there was actual evidence or source material
for a judgment the writer of the assessment would state, "According to a reliable source" or "knowledgeable source" or "documentary
evidence."
Pay close attention to what the analysts writing the ICA stated about the GRU and Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks:
We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data
obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims
about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer
2.0 interacted with journalists.
Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting
in June.
We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.
Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did
not contain any evident forgeries.
Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or
electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and
DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump
campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of
then CIA Director John Brennan.
Here's Mueller's take (I apologize for the lengthy quote but it is important that you read how the Mueller team presents this):
DCLeaks
"The GRU began planning the releases at least as early as April 19, 2016, when Unit 26165 registered the domain dcleaks.com
through a service that anonymized the registrant.137 Unit 26165 paid for the registration using a pool of bitcoin that it had
mined.138 The dcleaks.com landing page pointed to different tranches of stolen documents, arranged by victim or subject matter.
Other dcleaks.com pages contained indexes of the stolen emails that were being released (bearing the sender, recipient, and date
of the email). To control access and the timing of releases, pages were sometimes password-protected for a period of time and
later made unrestricted to the public.
Starting in June 2016, the GRU posted stolen documents onto the website dcleaks.com, including documents stolen from a number
of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign. These documents appeared to have originated from personal email accounts
(in particular, Google and Microsoft accounts), rather than the DNC and DCCC computer networks. DCLeaks victims included an advisor
to the Clinton Campaign, a former DNC employee and Clinton Campaign employee, and four other campaign volunteers.139 The GRU released
through dcleaks.com thousands of documents, including personal identifying and financial information, internal correspondence
related to the"Clinton Campaign and prior political jobs, and fundraising files and information.140
GRU officers operated a Facebook page under the DCLeaks moniker, which they primarily used to promote releases of materials.141
The Facebook page was administered through a small number of preexisting GRU-controlled Facebook accounts.142
GRU officers also used the DCLeaks Facebook account, the Twitter account @dcleaks__, and the email account [email protected]
to communicate privately with reporters and other U.S. persons. GRU officers using the DCLeaks persona gave certain reporters
early access to archives of leaked files by sending them links and passwords to pages on the dcleaks.com website that had not
yet become public. For example, on July 14, 2016, GRU officers operating under the DCLeaks persona sent a link and password for
a non-public DCLeaks webpage to a U.S. reporter via the Facebook account.143 Similarly, on September 14, 2016, GRU officers sent
reporters Twitter direct messages from @dcleaks_, with a password to another non-public part of the dcleaks.com website.144
The dcleaks.com website remained operational and public until March 2017."
Guccifer 2.0
On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents.
In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as "Fancy Bear")
were responsible for the breach.145 Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona
Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into
a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including
"some hundred sheets," "illuminati," and "worldwide known." Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer
2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English
words and phrases that the GRU officers had searched for that day.146
That same day, June 15, 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress blog to begin releasing to the public documents
stolen from the DNC and DCCC computer networks.
The Guccifer 2.0 persona ultimately released thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC in a series of blog posts
between June 15, 2016 and October 18, 2016.147 Released documents included opposition research performed by the DNC (including
a memorandum analyzing potential criticisms of candidate Trump), internal policy documents (such as recommendations on how to
address politically sensitive issues), analyses of specific congressional races, and fundraising documents. Releases were organized
around thematic issues, such as specific states (e.g., Florida and Pennsylvania) that were perceived as competitive in the 2016
U.S. presidential election.
Beginning in late June 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release documents directly to reporters and other
interested individuals. Specifically, on June 27, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to the news outlet The Smoking Gun offering
to provide "exclusive access to some leaked emails linked [to] Hillary Clinton's staff."148 The GRU later sent the reporter a
password and link to a locked portion of the dcleaks.com website that contained an archive of emails stolen by Unit 26165 from
a Clinton Campaign volunteer in March 2016.149 "That the Guccifer 2.0 persona provided reporters access to a restricted portion
of the DCLeaks website tends to indicate that both personas were operated by the same or a closely-related group of people.150
The GRU continued its release efforts through Guccifer 2.0 into August 2016. For example, on August 15, 2016, the Guccifer
2.0 persona sent a candidate for the U.S. Congress documents related to the candidate's opponent.151 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer
2.0 persona transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of Florida-related data stolen from the DCCC to a U.S. blogger covering Florida
politics.152 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a U.S. reporter documents stolen from the DCCC pertaining to the
Black Lives Matter movement.153"
Wow. Sounds pretty convincing. The documents referencing communications by DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 with Wikileaks are real. What
is not true is that these entities were GRU assets.
In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE
OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the
work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust.
We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it
appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the
Vault 7 documents :
Vault 7 is a series of documents that WikiLeaks began to publish on 7 March 2017, that detail activities and capabilities of the
United States' Central Intelligence Agency to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare. The files, dated from 2013–2016,
include details on the agency's software capabilities, such as the ability to compromise cars, smart TVs,[1] web browsers (including
Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera Software ASA),[2][3][4] and the operating systems of most smartphones (including
Apple's iOS and Google's Android), as well as other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, macOS, and Linux[5][6
One of the tools in Vault 7 carries the innocuous name, MARBLE.
Hackernews explains the purpose and function
of MARBLE:
Dubbed "Marble," the part 3 of CIA files contains 676 source code files of a secret anti-forensic Marble Framework, which is basically
an obfuscator or a packer used to hide the true source of CIA malware.
The CIA's Marble Framework tool includes a variety of different algorithm with foreign language text intentionally inserted into
the malware source code to fool security analysts and falsely attribute attacks to the wrong nation.
Marble is used to hamper[ing] forensic investigators and anti-virus companies from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks
to the CIA," says the whistleblowing site.
"...for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then
showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion," WikiLeaks
explains.
So guess what
gullible techies "discovered" in mid-June 2016? The meta data in the Guccifer 2.0 communications had "Russian fingerprints."
We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0 -- the nom
de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove
it -- left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era.
Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside
the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured
to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович"
is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the
Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren
Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.)
Just use your common sense. If the Russians were really trying to carry out a covert cyberattack, do you really think they
are so sloppy and incompetent to insert the name of the creator of the Soviet secret police in the metadata? No. The Russians are
not clowns. This was a clumsy attempt to frame the Russians.
Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they
had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA.
The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering
those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich.
Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign,
would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia.
It is essential to recall the timeline of the alleged Russian intrusion into the DNC network. The only source for the claim
that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. Here is the timeline for the DNC "hack."
Here are the facts on the public record. They are at odds with the claims of the Intelligence Community:
It was
29 April 2016 , when the DNC claims it became aware its servers had been penetrated. No claim yet about who was responsible.
And no claim that there had been a prior warning by the FBI of a penetration of the DNC by Russian military intelligence.
According to CrowdStrike founder , Dimitri Alperovitch, his company first supposedly detected the Russians mucking around
inside the DNC server on 6 May 2016. A CrowdStrike intelligence analyst reportedly told Alperovitch that:
Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike's experts believed was affiliated
with the FSB, Russia's answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.
The Wikileaks data shows that the last message copied from the DNC network is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35.
10 June 2016 --CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up the DNC network. Alperovitch told
Esquire's Vicky Ward that: 'Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC.
Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were instructed to leave
their laptops in the office."
On June 14, 2016 , Ellen Nakamura, a Washington Post reporter who had been briefed by computer security company hired by the
DNC -- Crowdstrike--, wrote:
Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the
entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security
experts who responded to the breach.
The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said
DNC officials and the security experts.
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential
candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political
action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.
15 June, 2016 , an internet "personality" self-described as Guccifer 2.0 surfaces and claims to be responsible for the hacks
but denies being Russian. The people/entity behind Guccifer 2.0:
Used a Russian VPN service provider to conceal their identity.
Created an email account with AOL.fr (a service that exposes the sender's IP address) and contacted the press (exposing his
VPN IP address in the process).
Contacted various media outlets through this set up and claimed credit for hacking the DNC, sharing copies of files purportedly
from the hack (one of which had Russian error messages embedded in them) with reporters from Gawker, The Smoking Gun and other
outlets.
Carried out searches for terms that were mostly in English, several of which would appear in Guccifer 2.0's first blog post.
They chose to do this via a server based in Moscow. (this is from the indictment,
"On or about June 15, 2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455")
Created a blog and made an initial blog post claiming to have hacked the DNC, providing links to various documents as proof.
Carelessly dropped a "Russian Smiley" into his first blog post.
Managed to add the name "Феликс Эдмундович" (which translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, also known as "Iron Felix") to the metadata
of several documents. (Several sources went beyond what the evidence shows and made claims about Guccifer 2.0 using a Russian
keyboard, however, these claims are just assumptions made in response to the presence of cyrillic characters.)
The only thing that the Guccifer 2.0 character did not do to declare its Russian heritage was to take out full page ads in the
New York Times and Washington Post. But the "forensic" fingerprints that Guccifer 2.0 was leaving behind is not the only inexplicable
event.
Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch,
but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June.
That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction.
It is only AFTER Julian Assange announces on 12 June 2016 that WikiLeaks has emails relating to Hillary Clinton that DCLeaks or
Guccifer 2.0 try to contact Assange.
The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's
team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source
of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham
should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that
the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA,
not the GRU.
LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential
election was the CIA, not the GRU."
Larry, thanks -- vital clarifications and reminders. In your earlier presentation of this material did you not also distinguish
between the way actually interagency assessments are titled, and ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or
the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments?
Thank you Larry. You have discovered one more vital key to the conspiracy. We now need the evidence of Julian Assange. He is kept
incommunicado and He is being tortured by the British in jail and will be murdered by the American judicial system if he lasts
long enough to be extradited.
You can be sure he will be "Epsteined" before he appears in open court because he knows the source of what Wikileaks published.
Once he is gone, mother Clinton is in the clear.
I can understand the GRU or SVR hacking the DNC and other e-mail servers because as intelligence services that is their job, but
can anyone think of any examples of Russia (or the Soviet Union) using such information to take overt action?
With the Russians
not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet),
would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump.
espite fond youthful memories of Bill Clinton/Kenneth Starr/Monica Lewinsky jokes on
late-night television, my interest in the current impeachment saga can pretty much be summed up
as follows: "Get back to me when they launch an impeachment inquiry over Yemen
." Watching the House vote along party lines to impeach President Donald Trump while barely
stifling a yawn over the
Afghanistan Papers does little to alter my skepticism about this constitutional crisis
built for cable news.
Progressive commentator Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre
priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future
military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the
government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a
forgettable non-issue."
Nobody will be impeached for lying about Afghanistan. There will be no intelligence
community whistleblower setting in motion an impeachment inquiry over weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. In fact, the same Nancy Pelosi who ultimately caved to the Resistance shut
down antiwar Democrats who wanted such hearings into George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But here
John Bolton, an advocate
of preventive presidential war during this very administration, may finally get his wish of
being
greeted as a liberator .
Even as Representative Adam Schiff led the drive to impeach Trump, the California Democrat
voted for a defense bill that lavishes the executive branch with money without restraining
presidential war powers. But this seeming inconsistency is practically the point -- the entire
impeachment inquiry was wrapped in hawkish assumptions and rhetoric as liberal Democrats
unthinkingly stumbled into a Cold War 2.0 mindset that few of them this side of Hillary Clinton
would have willingly embraced absent
frequently overhyped Trump-Russia headlines dating back to the 2016 campaign.
No, Trump isn't Jesus Christ being handed
over by Pontius Pilate. His phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wasn't "
perfect
" and neither side of this partisan morality tale has exactly covered itself in glory. Rudy
Giuliani's escapades seem particularly likely to end badly. One need not even necessarily
defend Trump's conduct to oppose an impeachment inquiry largely predicated on threat inflation.
Arm Ukraine, Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan testified, so they can "fight the Russians
there and we don't have to fight them here." She could have been starring in a Democratic
reboot of Red Dawn decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated.
There's no question Trump to some extent dangled a White House visit and congressionally
authorized aid to Ukraine before Kyiv in pursuit of the talking point that Joe Biden was under
investigation. The only matters in dispute are how determined the effort was, whether Trump's
motives were at least partially publicly spirited, the degree of the Bidens' shadiness, and why
the aid was ultimately disbursed (Byron York
makes the case that it wasn't necessarily because of the whistleblower).
House Democrats began with a presumption of corrupt intent on all counts and a definition of
foreign election interference elastic enough to include Trump utterances about WikiLeaks and
Hillary's deleted emails but not Ukraine's (smaller, less systematic and arguably less
effective than Russia's) 2016 influence
campaign . And while not all investigations are created equal -- if Hunter Biden's business
dealings are to be probed, it should not be as a favor to any president -- the impeachment
inquiry itself is an investigation of a political rival, who was also investigated during his
previous campaign .
If shortcuts were taken in the beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation, the origins of
Trump-Ukraine resemble a template for undermining any seriously antiwar or civil libertarian
president. Trump is not that president himself, of course -- his acquiescence to the Beltway
blob on lethal military aid is precisely what increased his leverage over Ukraine -- but some
plausible and even the
occasional Republican could be. Trump's mild rhetorical dissents on foreign policy are
clearly a factor in why he has reason to be suspicious of his own subordinates (it's also why
it is disingenuous to suggest that replacing Trump with Mike Pence is no different than
replacing Bill Clinton with ideologically identical Al Gore or that people who have worked for
Bush, Cheney or John McCain
would have no reason to oppose Trump).
Many Democrats sincerely believed they were impeaching Trump for the least of his crimes,
like Al Capone and tax evasion, and that Robert Mueller let him escape last time. They are also
making a case against Trump's ability to separate personal and national interests in a way that
speaks to his fitness for the office, with Ukraine merely being their specific example. But in
doing so, they are also ratifying a bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has failed the
American people, and that's bigger than any one president.
W. James Antle III is the editor of The American Conservative.
Giving military aid to foreign countries and spreading our military power across the globe
is a threat to our national security. Our military spending is obscene. Its how all empires
crumble, when they just can't give up control of the entire world. Time to retreat from the
world-wide power projection insanity and restructure our strategy to provide true national
defense.
James isn't it possible that the Dems concern for Ukraine is perceived to be phony, in the
same way people saw Republican's concern about Clinton's sex perjury as cynical. It could
make voters more aware of our involvement in foreign conflict. Clinton was impeached for
being awful to women, and now Trump, for whom PG does not mean parental guidance, is
cruising toward reelection. Trump's been impeached for being a Dove, who knows we might get
a Rand Paul isolationist within the next decade. Just a thought.
The Democrats declared war this week. Not on Donald Trump but on the United States and the
Constitution.
What started as a coup to overturn the 2016 election has now morphed into a Civil War as
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Fran-feces) presided over the passage of a bill which creates a
clear Constitutional Crisis.
And that means we have multiple factions vying for control of our government, the definition
of a Civil War.
In passing these articles of impeachment against President Trump Congress has arrogated to
itself powers it does not have.
The first article asserts a motive to Trump's actions to invalidate his role as chief law
enforcement officer for the country. It doesn't matter if you like him or any President having
this power, he does have it.
Read that first article and then apply it to a country other than Ukraine where Trump
didn't have 'probable cause' for investigation into corruption and malfeasance there.
That could be Abuse of Power.
But this happened in Ukraine where Trump clearly has probable cause.
The following is the scenario the first impeachment article is asserting as the basis for
abuse of power, through ascribing political motives to the President:
One day President Trump wakes up and says, "Shit! Joe Biden's leading me in the polls. I
need to do something about this."
So, Trump twirls his orange comb-over and calls up the Prime Minister of Armenia, a
Russian ally, to whom we've pledged aid. Since it's a Russian ally and Trump may have
colluded with the Russians, they would be a good candidate to help him.
But Joe Biden has no history of diplomacy or oversight in Armenia as Vice-President.
There's no record of any contact of any kind with Biden in Armenia, for argument's sake.
Trump then, during the phone call, shakes down the Armenian PM for that aid, explicitly
saying he must create dirt on Joe Biden or he would withhold appropriated aid funds to the
country.
Then, after getting caught, Trump tries to hide the record of the phone call by hiding
behind Executive Privilege.
That would be Abuse of Power and an impeachable offense. It would be regrettable but
indefensible that the odious jackals in Congress were right to impeach him. They would,
actually, be defending the Constitution and fully within their rights.
But, that's not what happened.
Biden was put in charge of Ukraine by President Obama. He had full discretion on policy
towards Ukraine and was caught on tape bragging about doing exactly what the impeachment
article is accusing Trump of doing. Shaking Ukraine down for favors in order to get $1 billion
in aid.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/KCF9My1vBP4
Since the prosecutor who Biden had fired was investigating corruption into his son Hunter's
involvement with Ukrainian gas company Burisma, this admission is pretty damning, showing clear
personal motive to use his office to stop investigation into his family.
This is Abuse of Power. This is subjecting U.S. foreign policy to the whims of an elected
official, squelching an investigation into his personal family, using the office for personal
gain.
So, when viewed through this lens the first impeachment article is a complete lie. Trump
didn't do the things asserted. The transcript of the phone call with Ukrainian President
Zelensky proves that.
Trump made the phone call public immediately.
The phone call and Trump's order to review the foreign aid were contemporaneous but not
conditional. If you have a non-charitable view of the President it may raise some questions,
but there was probable cause here.
Your opinions on Trump do not add up to High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The implications of this impeachment article are, however, staggering.
It says explicitly that the U.S. president cannot discharge his duties as a law enforcement
official if the person of interest is someone of the opposite party or a potential electoral
opponent.
It says that probable cause is not a standard for investigation only political
considerations.
That's a clear violation of Congress' role. Congress writes laws. The President executes
them. If the Congress wants to assume law enforcement powers it should work to amend the
Constitution.
This is a clear example of why impeachment is a political process not a legal one. But, if
they are going to act this politically, at least they should put the veneer of legality on it.
Even the equally odious Republicans who impeached Bill Clinton did that.
But in asserting this as an offence Congress seeks to place the Legislative Branch as
superior to the Executive in matters of law enforcement and implementation.
That's a clear violation of the separation of powers. It may suck that the guy holding the
Office of the Presidency is someone you don't like or not willing to turn a blind eye to
corruption, but doing his job is not a 'high crime or misdemeanor.'
The second article is even worse. Because asserts the power to subpoena members of the
Executive branch under the impeachment inquiry into the first article. And since Congress has
sole authority over impeachment, no judicial review of its subpoena power can be made.
This is fully unconstitutional since it subverts the power of the Judicial branch to settle
disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches as established by the Constitution.
Pelosi and company are broadening the definition of 'the sole power of impeachment' to say
that whatever Congress deems as worthy of an impeachment inquiry is therefore law and the other
branches have no say in the matter.
This is patent nonsense and wholly tyrannical.
Rod Rosenstein and Andrew Weismann tried to use an equally broad interpretation of
'obstruction of justice' to include future harm to continue the special council's investigation
into Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.
Moreover it renders the concept of judicial review as laid down in Marbury vs. Madison null and void.
Congress cannot just make up laws and crimes out of whole cloth and then unilaterally declare
them constitutional under the rubric of impeachment.
The Supreme Court has the right to strike down bills Congress passes as
unconstitutional.
This drives a massive wedge through the separation of powers in a blatant power grab by
Pelosi and the Democratic House majority to protect themselves from Trump's investigations into
their crimes surrounding events in Ukraine.
When viewed dispassionately, Obstruction of Congress is not a crime but rather a function of
each of the other two branches of government. It's no better when the President hides behind
Executive Orders to legislate unconstitutionally.
And it's even worse when the Supreme Court makes up laws from the bench rather than kick the
ball back to Congress and start the process all over again.
That's what the whole three co-equal branches of government is supposed to mean.
Now, in practice I don't believe the three branches are equal, as the Judicial branch
routinely oversteps its authority. But in this case if it does not step in immediately and
defend itself from this Congress then the basic fabric of our government unravels
overnight.
That the second impeachment article is directly dependent on the flawed (or non-existent)
logic of the first impeachment article renders the whole thing simply laughable on the face of
it.
I'm no legal scholar so when I can see how ridiculous these articles are then you know this
has nothing to do with the law but everything to do with power.
And the reality is, as
I discussed in my latest podcast , what this impeachment is really about is distracting and
covering up the multiple layers of corruption in U.S. foreign and domestic policy stretching
back decades. Many of the tendrils emanating from the events surrounding the FISA warrants
improperly granted connect directly to the Clintons, Jeffrey Epstein, William Browder and the
rape of Russia in the post-Soviet 90's.
We're talking an entire generation or more of U.S. officials and politicians implicated in
some of the worst crimes of the past thirty years.
The stakes for these people are existential. This is why they are willing to risk a
full-blown constitutional crisis and civil war to remove Trump from office.
They know he's angry at them now. This is personal as well as philosophical. Trump is a
patriot, a narcissist and a gangster. That's a powerful combination of traits.
The polls are shifting his way on this as the average person knows this impeachment is
pathetic. They are tired of the Democrats' games the same way British voters are over the
arguments against Brexit.
So the old adage about killing the king come to mind. If Pelosi et.al. miss here, the
retribution from Trump will be biblical.
The damage to the society is too great to argue irrelevancies. No one outside of the Beltway
Bubble and the Crazies of the Resistance cares about what Trump did here. It's too arcane and
most people are against giving a shithole like Ukraine taxpayer money in the first place.
The whole thing is a giant pile of loser turds steaming up the room and impeding getting any
work done.
In the end We'll know if Trump has his ducks in a row in how Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell plays his cards versus Pelosi. If McConnell pussy-foots around and gives Pelosi
anything on how the trial in the Senate is conducted then the fix is in and Trump is done.
But, if McConnell shuts this down then what comes next will be a righteous smackdown of
Trump's political opponents that will make the phone call with Zelensky look like a routine
call to Dominos' for a double pepperoni.
Either way, this coup attempt by Pelosi is now open warfare. There will be casualties.
* * *
Join My Patreon if you
want help navigating what's the next stop on the short bus to Crazytown. Install the Brave Browser to suck the money away from
Google and protect your privacy.
The inescapable truth is that Trump has 1) not delivered on his 2016 promises, and 2) has
surrounded himself with some of the vilest NeoCon scum on the planet. If he was a true
patriot, as he claimed during the 2016 election campaign, why would he not honor his promises
and surround himself with certifiable gangsters? It raises an important question. Is trump
controlled opposition who was installed as president to undermine and neutralize true
conservatives and patriots? His actions and deeds since becoming president would support this
interpretation.
If true, then the Democratic Party impeachment is little more than kabuki theater that
provides cover for Trump while ensuring his election in 2020 when all hell breaks loose as
the bubble or fake economy built on debt and counterfeit money crashes.
Patriotic and true conservative Americans according to this scenario are being setup up as
the fall guys to take the blame for the Greater Depression instead of the real culprits which
are the Fed and banksters on Wall Street.
Trump appears to be playing the role of Hoover who during the 1930s Great Depression paved
the way for Roosevelt and the Marxist New Deal which was imposed on an unsuspecting American
people struggling to survive during a depression created for them by the Fed. The words of
Franklin Roosevelt speak for themselves.
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that
way."
He won't be removed from office but the brainwashed Trumpeteers and satanic "Christian"
Zionists will be riled enough to elect him in 2020...all part of the grand plan.
Trump's
executive order -- deceptively called "An Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism" --
issued this past week, will empower the federal Department of Education to withhold funding
to college campuses that do not squash anti-Israel rhetoric. In other words, it is now
official government policy to deny college students and faculty members their Natural and
constitutional right to criticize -- especially and primarily if they criticize any and all
things Israel. This will also doubtless include speech that supports Palestinian rights.
Trump also declared that the religion of Judaism is a nationality or ethnicity and is
beyond criticism. Can you imagine the outcry if he had declared Christianity to be a
nationality?
Plus, by issuing this Executive Order, Donald Trump has made every Christian and non-***
in the United States a second-class citizen. But don't expect Robert Jeffress and his gaggle
of Christian Zionists to figure that out.
I have said repeatedly that Donald Trump is America's first Zionist president. And Trump's
actions continue to prove that statement true.
As I wrote in another article this impeachment circus may very well be a Zionist ploy to
keep people thinking Trump is anti deep state, like the QAnon psyop.
He may be anti globalist but not deep state. Well in any case if the Dems don't send the
impeachment to the Senate then this is just a mock trial for appearances sake only. And the
fact Pelosi balked yesterday strengthens that possibility!
The Constitution is itself a farce and a mask for the exercise of power. How does one
interpret "general welfare"? To whom do you petition for the transgressions of "rights"? Is
it not a branch of the same government? We are not in the same situation as the colonists of
the 13 colonies. The enemy is not separated by an ocean. The political decline and conflict
questioned in this article is a result of the economic decline worldwide. Prepare for what
comes after the USA and don't dwell on legal trivialities within.
There are very few Christians, in truth. Professing to be Christian means nothing if you
don't believe every word from the mouth of Yahweh. The judeo-christian churches are the great
apostasy.
"I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump
is guilty of wrongdoing," she said. "I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment
because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process,
fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."
A censure would "send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their
abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from
office to the voters to decide," Gabbard said.
So, if the President wanted to, he could be impeached by the house over and over again
without that helping the Senate to find any illegal, and therefore convictable behavior for the
President?
May be if the house impeach him three times and never send the impeachment articles to the
Senate, the dear President would faint. May be then the doctors would finally decide that he is
incapable of fulling his duties in the White House and declare him officially so sicko that he
gets forced to stay in bed. /sad snark attempt.
"The CIA was the central protagonist in Russiagate. The origins of the New Cold War are found
in Bill Clinton's first term, when administration neo-cons looted, plundered and moved NATO
against a prostrate Russia in
contradiction to explicit guarantees not to do so made by the George H.W. Bush
administration. Vladimir Putin's apparent crime was to oust the Clintonites from Russia and
restore Russian sovereignty." CounterPunch.org
"Russiagate was a declaration of war by the 'intelligence community' against a duly elected
President. As argued below, the CIA's motive is to move its own foreign policy agenda forward
without even the illusion of democratic consent." CounterPunch.org
Notable quotes:
"... Actions in the Washington cesspool never surprise -- by members of both right wing of the US war party. They represent the greatest threat to world peace and ordinary people everywhere at home and abroad. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-progressive Speaker Pelosi is part of the problem, never part of the solution. ..."
Actions in the Washington cesspool never surprise -- by members of both right wing of the US
war party. They represent the greatest threat to world peace and ordinary people everywhere at home and
abroad. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-progressive Speaker Pelosi is part of the
problem, never part of the solution.
Her long disturbing congressional record shows she exclusively serves wealth and power
interests at the expense of the vast majority of Americans she disdains, proving it time and
again.
Her deplorable voting record speaks for itself, backing:
the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Blily Act repeal of Glass-Steagall, permitting some of the most
egregious financial abuses in the modern era;
the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), permitting endless
wars of aggression in multiple theaters, raging endlessly;
annual National Defense Authorization Acts and US wars of aggression;
Obama's neoliberal harshness, continuing under Trump, along with tax cuts for the rich,
benefitting her and her husband enormously, without admitting it;
increasingly unaffordable marketplace medicine, ripping off consumers for profit, leaving
millions uninsured, most Americans way underinsured;
the USA Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Act and other police state law;
the 9/11 whitewash Commission Recommendation Act;
the FISA Amendments Act -- permitting warrantless spying post-9/11, Big Brother watching
everyone;
NAFTA and other anti-consumer/corporate coup d'etat trade bills;
the repressive US gulag prison system, the world's largest by far; incarcerating
millions by federal, state, and local authorities, it includes global torture prisons;
unapologetic support for Israeli apartheid viciousness;
fierce opposition to Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, and other
nonbelligerent sovereign states threatening no one;
the Russiagate witch hunt and Ukrainegate scams.
Calling exploitive/predatory "free market (capitalism) our greatest asset" shows her
contempt for equity and justice.
Her support for the military, industrial, security, media complex is all about backing
endless wars of aggression against invented enemies. No real ones exist.
Pelosi represents what belligerent, plutocratic, oligarchic, increasingly totalitarian rule
is all about, notably contemptuous of nations on the US target list for regime change --
Russia, China and Iran topping the list.
On Friday, she falsely accused Russia of involvement in Ukrainegate, a failed Russiagate
scam spinoff with no legitimacy, supported by undemocratic Dems and their echo-chamber
media.
Repeating the long ago debunked Russian US election meddling Big Lie that won't die, she
falsely accused Moscow of "ha(ving) a hand in this."
Referring to the Ukrainegate scam, she offered no evidence backing her accusation because
none exists.
During a Friday press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York,
Sergey Lavrov slammed Pelosi's Big Lie, saying:
"Russia's been accused of all the deadly sins, and then some. It's paranoia, and I think
it's obvious to everyone."
It's unacceptable anti-Russia hate-mongering, what goes on endlessly, Cold War 2.0
raging.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the following on her facebook
page:
"Speaker of the lower house of Congress Nancy Pelosi believes that Russia is involved in the
scandal over July telephone conversation between us and Ukraine Presidents Donald Trump and
Vladimir Zelensky."
"This (baseless) assumption was made on Friday Pelosi (not) explaining what it means, and
without providing evidence of her words."
"Considering that it was Nancy Pelosi who caused the 'Scandal around the telephone
conversation between the presidents of the United States and Ukraine,' then, according to the
speaker's logic, Russia attached the hand to her."
What's going on is continuation of the most shameful political chapter in US history,
ongoing since Trump took office, along with railroading Richard Nixon.
Both episodes represent McCarthyism on steroids – supported by establishment media,
furious about Trump's triumph over Hillary, targeting him largely for the wrong reasons,
ignoring plenty of right ones.
Mueller's probe ended with a whimper, not the bang Dems wanted, Ukrainegate their second
bite of the apple to try discrediting Trump for political advantage ahead of November 2020
elections.
That's what Russiagate and Ukrainegate are all about.
These actions by undemocratic Dems and their media press agents are further clear proof that
Washington's deeply corrupted political system to its rotten core is far too debauched to
fix.
While Nancy Pelosi
threatens to withhold articles of impeachment passed Wednesday night by the House, Harvard
Law Professor Noah Feldman says that President Trump isn't technically impeached until the
House actually transmits the articles to the Senate. Feldman, who testified in front of the
House Judiciary Committee's impeachment proceedings earlier this month, argues in a
Bloomberg Op-Ed that the framers' definition of impeachment "assumed that impeachment was a
process, not just a House vote," and that " Strictly speaking, "impeachment" occurred –
and occurs -- when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at
that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial ."
If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually
impeached the president . If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say
that he wasn't truly impeached at all.
That's because "impeachment" under the Constitution means the House sending its approved
articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the
president is impeached.
As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, "TRUMP IMPEACHED," those are a
media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement . So far, the House has voted to
impeach (future tense) Trump. He isn't impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the
Senate and the House members deliver the message . -Noah Feldman
Pelosi, meanwhile, won't transmit the articles until the Senate holds what she considers a
"fair" trial.
Roughly modeled after England's impeachment procedures, the framers in Article I of the
constitution gave the House "the sole power of impeachment," while giving the Senate "the sole
power to try all impeachments."
Article II outlines says the president "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
There's more:
But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is empowered to judge the
fairness of its own trial – that's what the "sole power to try all impeachments"
means.
If the House votes to "impeach" but doesn't send the articles to the Senate or send
impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn't directly violated the text of the
Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution's
description of impeachment.
A president who has been genuinely impeached must constitutionally have the opportunity to
defend himself before the Senate . That's built into the constitutional logic of impeachment,
which demands a trial before removal.
To be sure, if the House just never sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, there
can be no trial there . That's what the "sole power to impeach" means.
In closing, Feldman says " if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with
strong justification that he was never actually impeached ," adding "And that's probably not
the message Congressional Democrats are hoping to send."
In times past the Senate would have guarded its power against the House. I'm guessing the
Democrat Senators thinks party is more important than all that.
This pansy has no standing about anything related to impeachment.
He has not made any academic studies on the topic nor did he even take the time to prepare
for his biased and totally ridiculous testimony in the "impeachment."
It is all part of our lesson from this event.
Schiff is a graduate of Harvard. And this pansy teaches at Harvard.
The lesson to take away from all this is never ever hire anyone from Harvard nor to
believe anything from them because they are not educated they are indoctrinated.
Think about it people CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, all in lock step with the Democratic
Party no objective reporting at all anymore. These national media outlets and the Democratic
Party continue to publish and propagate false and fake new stories and never retract them or
admit it was all pure fiction.
Why, we have to ask why? Because they deem the American public not smart enough to think
for themselves. If the truth does not fit the pre-determined narrative it is buried or
covered-up by the national media. Their position is you will think do and say as we tell you,
since you're just not smart enough to think for yourself or decide for yourself on how you
want to live your own lives. We know what's best for you. The self-appointed Elite and the
Dems on both Coasts deem all of us in the flyover states not smart enough to vote for a
President, You're just not smart enough to raise your children and teach your kids as you
deem fit, you should not be allowed to worship as you desire or own guns, you're just not
smart enough to control and manage your retirement savings. They desire to eliminate the
Electoral College so your vote is eliminated. Trump scares the hell out of them because they
see their money pot being taken away from them and their ill-conceived control over our
Country slipping away. They have looted and pillaged this country for decades and built a
lavish lifestyle using your hard earned tax dollars. The area around Washington DC is not the
richest area in America by accident.
What have the Democrat party done for the citizens of the US the last 3 years or the last
20 years for that matter. Do you think their impeachment push and the attacks for the last 3
years are because they have the American people's best interest at heart? Think again. They
care absolutely nothing about the American people and have one goal and one goal only and
that is to control every single aspect of your life. They will try and seize every bit of
your retirement savings through taxes and fees for their own enrichment. They will sell out
America at every turn only to enrich themselves. If they ever regain power they will unleash
unimaginable carnage on America and you are all regardless of your political party Fodder for
their fire.
A vote for any Democrat is a vote for your own and our Country's demise.
"... You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense -- it is no more legitimate than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power. ..."
"... You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars. You know this because Biden bragged about it on video. Biden openly stated: "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars' I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." Even Joe Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it "looked bad." Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did. ..."
"... This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth. You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party. But because of this colossal injustice, our party is more united than it has ever been before. History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade. Your legacy will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution. ..."
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madam Speaker:
I write to express my strongest and most powerful protest against the partisan impeachment crusade being pursued by the Democrats
in the House of Representatives. This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers,
unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.
The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional
theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses whatsoever. You have cheapened
the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!
By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution,
and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification
scheme -- yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America's founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy
that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build. Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans
of faith by continually saying "I pray for the President," when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative
sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!
Your first claim, "Abuse of Power," is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless invention of your imagination. You know
that I had a totally innocent conversation with the President of Ukraine. I then had a second conversation that has been misquoted,
mischaracterized, and fraudulently misrepresented. Fortunately, there was a transcript of the conversation taken, and you know from
the transcript (which was immediately made available) that the paragraph in question was perfect. I said to President Zelensky: "I
would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it." I said do
us a favor, not me , and our country , not a campaign. I then mentioned the Attorney General of the United States.
Every time I talk with a foreign leader, I put America's interests first, just as I did with President Zelensky.
You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense -- it is no more legitimate
than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power.
You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing
the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars. You know this because Biden bragged about it
on video. Biden openly stated: "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars' I looked at them and said: 'I'm
leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." Even Joe
Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it "looked bad." Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing
me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did.
President Zelensky has repeatedly declared that I did nothing wrong, and that there was No Pressure. He further emphasized that
it was a "good phone call," that "I don't feel pressure," and explicitly stressed that "nobody pushed me." The Ukrainian Foreign
Minister stated very clearly: "I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance." He also said there
was "No Pressure." Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a supporter of Ukraine who met privately with President Zelensky, has said:
"At no time during this meeting was there any mention by Zelensky or any Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything
in return for the military aid." Many meetings have been held between representatives of Ukraine and our country. Never once did
Ukraine complain about pressure being applied -- not once! Ambassador Sondland testified that I told him: "No quid pro quo. I want
nothing. I want nothing. I want President Zelensky to do the right thing, do what he ran on."
The second claim, so-called "Obstruction of Congress," is preposterous and dangerous. House Democrats are trying to impeach the
duly elected President of the United States for asserting Constitutionally based privileges that have been asserted on a bipartisan
basis by administrations of both political parties throughout our Nation's history. Under that standard, every American president
would have been impeached many times over. As liberal law professor Jonathan Turley warned when addressing Congressional Democrats:
"I can't emphasize this enough if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it
is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the President for doing."
Everyone, you included, knows what is really happening. Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College
landslide (306-227), and you and your party have never recovered from this defeat. You have developed a full-fledged case of what
many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it! You are unwilling and unable to accept the
verdict issued at the ballot box during the great Election of 2016. So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn
the will of the American people and nullify their votes. You view democracy as your enemy!
Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party's impeachment effort has been going on for "two
and a half years," long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine. Nineteen minutes after I took the oath of office,
the Washington Post published a story headlined, "The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun." Less than three months
after my inauguration, Representative Maxine Waters stated, "I'm going to fight every day until he's impeached." House Democrats
introduced the first impeachment resolution against me within months of my inauguration, for what will be regarded as one of our
country's best decisions, the firing of James Comey (see Inspector General Reports) -- who the world now knows is one of the dirtiest
cops our Nation has ever seen. A ranting and raving Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, declared just hours after she was sworn into office,
"We're gonna go in there and we're gonna impeach the motherf****r." Representative Al Green said in May, "I'm concerned that if we
don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Again, you and your allies said, and did, all of these things long before
you ever heard of President Zelensky or anything related to Ukraine. As you know very well, this impeachment drive has nothing to
do with Ukraine, or the totally appropriate conversation I had with its new president. It only has to do with your attempt to undo
the election of 2016 and steal the election of 2020!
Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to the present day, even going so far as to fraudulently make up, out
of thin air, my conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine and read this fantasy language to Congress as though it were said
by me. His shameless lies and deceptions, dating all the way back to the Russia Hoax, is one of the main reasons we are here today.
You and your party are desperate to distract from America's extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock market,
soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens. Your party simply cannot compete with our record: 7 million new jobs; the lowest-ever
unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans; a rebuilt military; a completely reformed VA with Choice
and Accountability for our great veterans; more than 170 new federal judges and two Supreme Court Justices; historic tax and regulation
cuts; the elimination of the individual mandate; the first decline in prescription drug prices in half a century; the first new branch
of the United States Military since 1947, the Space Force; strong protection of the Second Amendment; criminal justice reform; a
defeated ISIS caliphate and the killing of the world's number one terrorist leader, al-Baghdadi; the replacement of the disastrous
NAFTA trade deal with the wonderful USMCA (Mexico and Canada); a breakthrough Phase One trade deal with China; massive new trade
deals with Japan and South Korea; withdrawal from the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal; cancellation of the unfair and costly Paris Climate
Accord; becoming the world's top energy producer; recognition of Israel's capital, opening the American Embassy in Jerusalem, and
recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights; a colossal reduction in illegal border crossings, the ending of Catch-and-Release,
and the building of the Southern Border Wall -- and that is just the beginning, there is so much more. You cannot defend your extreme
policies -- open borders, mass migration, high crime, crippling taxes, socialized healthcare, destruction of American energy, late-term
taxpayer-funded abortion, elimination of the Second Amendment, radical far-left theories of law and justice, and constant partisan
obstruction of both common sense and common good.
There is nothing I would rather do than stop referring to your party as the Do-Nothing Democrats. Unfortunately, I don't know
that you will ever give me a chance to do so.
After three years of unfair and unwarranted investigations, 45 million dollars spent, 18 angry Democrat prosecutors, the entire
force of the FBI, headed by leadership now proven to be totally incompetent and corrupt, you have found NOTHING! Few people in high
position could have endured or passed this test. You do not know, nor do you care, the great damage and hurt you have inflicted upon
wonderful and loving members of my family. You conducted a fake investigation upon the democratically elected President of the United
States, and you are doing it yet again.
There are not many people who could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for the
success of America and its citizens. But instead of putting our country first, you have decided to disgrace our country still further.
You completely failed with the Mueller report because there was nothing to find, so you decided to take the next hoax that came along,
the phone call with Ukraine -- even though it was a perfect call. And by the way, when I speak to foreign countries, there are many
people, with permission, listening to the call on both sides of the conversation.
You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing
Justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.
Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. Against all evidence, and regardless of the truth, you and your deputies
claimed that my campaign colluded with the Russians -- a grave, malicious, and slanderous lie, a falsehood like no other. You forced
our Nation through turmoil and torment over a wholly fabricated story, illegally purchased from a foreign spy by Hillary Clinton
and the DNC in order to assault our democracy. Yet, when the monstrous lie was debunked and this Democrat conspiracy dissolved into
dust, you did not apologize. You did not recant. You did not ask to be forgiven. You showed no remorse, no capacity for self-reflection.
Instead, you pursued your next libelous and vicious crusade -- you engineered an attempt to frame and defame an innocent person.
All of this was motivated by personal political calculation. Your Speakership and your party are held hostage by your most deranged
and radical representatives of the far left. Each one of your members lives in fear of a socialist primary challenger -- this is
what is driving impeachment. Look at Congressman Nadler's challenger. Look at yourself and others. Do not take our country down with
your party.
If you truly cared about freedom and liberty for our Nation, then you would be devoting your vast investigative resources to exposing
the full truth concerning the FBI's horrifying abuses of power before, during, and after the 2016 election -- including the use of
spies against my campaign, the submission of false evidence to a FISA court, and the concealment of exculpatory evidence in order
to frame the innocent. The FBI has great and honorable people, but the leadership was inept and corrupt. I would think that you would
personally be appalled by these revelations, because in your press conference the day you announced impeachment, you tied the impeachment
effort directly to the completely discredited Russia Hoax, declaring twice that "all roads lead to Putin," when you know that is
an abject lie. I have been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever even thought to be.
Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment -- against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle
-- is showing how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America's Constitutional order. Our Founders feared the
tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life.
Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until
the present. I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence,
to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses, like the so-called whistleblower who
started this entire hoax with a false report of the phone call that bears no relationship to the actual phone call that was made.
Once I presented the transcribed call, which surprised and shocked the fraudsters (they never thought that such evidence would be
presented), the so-called whistleblower, and the second whistleblower, disappeared because they got caught, their report was a fraud,
and they were no longer going to be made available to us. In other words, once the phone call was made public, your whole plot blew
up, but that didn't stop you from continuing.
More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.
You and others on your committees have long said impeachment must be bipartisan -- it is not. You said it was very divisive --
it certainly is, even far more than you ever thought possible -- and it will only get worse!
This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth.
You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party. But because of this colossal injustice, our party
is more united than it has ever been before. History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade. Your legacy
will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution.
Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People
that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. No intelligent person
believes what you are saying. Since the moment I won the election, the Democrat Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever. There
is no reticence. This is not a somber affair. You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are scarcely concealing your hatred
of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans. The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through
this empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing.
I have no doubt the American people will hold you and the Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 election. They will
not soon forgive your perversion of justice and abuse of power.
There is far too much that needs to be done to improve the lives of our citizens. It is time for you and the highly partisan Democrats
in Congress to immediately cease this impeachment fantasy and get back to work for the American People. While I have no expectation
that you will do so, I write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.
One hundred years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and learn from it, so that it
can never happen to another President again.
Sincerely yours,
DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America
cc: United States Senate
United States House of Representatives
Historic speech from McConnell. He nailed exactly what makes the ideology of the Democrats antithetical to the very principles
that founded this nation.
"...[to] insure domestic tranquility..." THIS is in the preamble to the Constitution the Dems claim to support. Someone please
tell us all how they are supporting this. I'll wait.
Senator McConnell's FINEST HOUR. A great speech that will live forever in the annals of history itself. Our Founding Fathers
would be so proud of you. Thank you for stepping up to the plate and protecting our Republic Senator McConnell. God Bless you
sir.
ext-content expanded"> I've never heard a more brilliant or eloquent summary and analysis of the Impeachment case. Sloppy,
hurried, careless without regard for due process, the Democrats in 12 weeks have committed an abuse of their constitutional authority
and to the spirit of historical precedent regarding impeachment as a weapon to use just because you don't like the President.
This group of democrats have done serious damage to our government.
DemoRats became the second War party. Which means two parties merged on this issue forming
Uniparty, like in the USSR.
Feeding and care MIC is No.1 task for both. Ordinary Americans well being does matter much
for either party. New generation of Americans is punished with crushing debt and low paying jobs.
They do not care that people over 50 who lost their jobs are essentially thrown out like a
garbage.
Counting dollars they got from MIC and Wall Street they are oblivious to the growing danger
of converting the USA and Russia territories into radioactive desert. That does not bather them
one bit. They have shelters, You don't. Vote accordingly. .
But all of these fundamental democratic issues have been excluded from the
Democrats' impeachment drive, which is centered on claims that Trump has been insufficiently
aggressive in fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
"In the end, this impeachment is the first over a question of whether the president is
selling out American national security," writes David Sanger in the New York Times.
"While Ukraine is the proximate event, how the president has dealt with Mr. Putin is the
overarching theme."
Sanger concludes, "the argument about Ukraine, the ostensible reason for the president's
impeachment, was not really about Ukraine at all. It was about Russia."
But it was House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff -- the pivotal figure in the
impeachment drive -- who left no question about the central demand of the Democratic Party for
an escalation of the US conflict with Russia.
"Ukraine is fighting our fight against the Russians, against their expansionism. That's our
fight, too." Schiff said. "We used to stand up to Putin and Russia. I know the party of Ronald
Reagan used to."
"That's why we support Ukraine with the military aid that we have," Schiff continued. "The
President may not care about it, but we do. We care about our defense, we care about the
defense of our allies, and we darn well care about our constitution."
Nowhere has anyone explained why Ukraine's war with Russia should be "our fight, too," or
why the failure to fight this war to the Democrats' satisfaction constitutes an impeachable
offense.
The Democrats' attempt to remove Trump aims to legitimize an intense escalation of the US
conflict with Russia, a policy for which there exists no support among the mass of the
population.
The Democratic Party is aware of the broad popular hatred of the Trump administration. But
what this party of the rich and affluent fears far more than Trump's reelection is a mass
mobilization to remove him, which would inevitably challenge their own wealth and the
capitalist system.
In the terms defined by the Democrats, the impeachment has no democratic or legitimate
content. The complete remoteness from and indifference to any popular sentiment or demands
gives it the character of a palace coup. The innumerable claims by various Democrats that their
impeachment constitutes a defense of democracy are both unconvincing and untrue.
Even as they have moved ahead with their impeachment drive, the Democrats have worked with
Trump to expand the military, gut congressional restrictions on the use of military force, and
expand his immigration crackdown. On Tuesday, they approved the largest military budget in US
history, and on Thursday, the day after the impeachment, they plan to pass USMCA (United
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), a trade war measure targeting China.
As the impeachment votes were being cast, Trump was in Battle Creek, Michigan, making a
violent, demagogic and fascistic appeal to his supporters. Trump echoed the letter he had
earlier sent to the House of Representatives in which he accused the Speaker of the House of
"declaring open war on American Democracy."
But in excluding all democratic issues that would succeed in mobilizing the population
against Trump, the Democrats have actually played into the hands of the President, who has
sought to mobilize his fascistic base on the grounds that he is a victim of a "deep state"
plot.
The central lie peddled by Trump is to equate the Democrats' efforts to remove him --
together with those of the intelligence agencies and media -- with socialism. This is his label
for any form of popular opposition to his administration. In the traditions of fascism, Trump
falsely presents himself as the victim of a conspiracy between the "elites," socialists and
communists.
Whatever the outcome of the impeachment crisis, it will see a dangerous further movement of
American politics to the right. If the Democrats fail to remove Trump -- as seems likely -- it
will strengthen him. If they somehow succeed in orchestrating Trump's removal, it would be seen
as illegitimate by broad sections of the population, and would virtually guarantee an
escalation of military conflict with Russia.
Whatever its outcome, the impeachment must be seen in context of the greatest crisis of
American capitalism since the Civil War. In their own way, both parties represent the twin
imperatives of American imperialism under conditions of social crisis and the loss of its
global hegemony.
The Democrats embody the drive to war; the Republicans, in the form of Trump, embody the
move toward fascistic and authoritarian forms of rule.
The fight against Trump can only unfold on the basis of a social and political struggle
rooted in the working class. The essential prerequisite for the emergence of such a movement is
a total and unequivocal break with the Democratic and Republican parties. The attitude of the
working class to this impeachment must be, amending Shakespeare, "A plague on both political
parties."
Historic speech from McConnell. He nailed exactly what makes the ideology of the Democrats
antithetical to the very principles that founded this nation.
"...[to] insure domestic tranquility..." THIS is in the preamble to the Constitution the
Dems claim to support. Someone please tell us all how they are supporting this. I'll
wait.
Senator McConnell's FINEST HOUR. A great speech that will live forever in the annals of
history itself. Our Founding Fathers would be so proud of you. Thank you for stepping up to
the plate and protecting our Republic Senator McConnell. God Bless you sir.
If anyone was watching The Horowitz hearing in the senate today it would be hard to conclude
that RussiaGate and Ukrainegate will not have serious consequences going forward.
The whole sordid, nasty conspiracy seems on the verge of being exposed, maybe as high as
Obama himself, although he is just a puppet himself, and indictments are sure to follow. I
don't see how anyone could think that this will not be catastrophic for the democratic
party.
All pretense of our country being a representative democracy@snoopydawg
is gone. Our two party uniparty government has completely turned its back on serving
the needs of the vast majority of the people of this country, and of the wider world. Profit
sits at the head of our government. The monikers "Fascist" and "Totalitarian" are apt
descriptors of the direction of our current trajectory. A dystopian future surely awaits us on
this beautiful, fragile and life sustaining planet that we are trashing with such abandon.
Other than that, things are going quite nicely. Nancy is wearing her power pants and fools
are applauding.
It still amazes me... that people actually think impeachment accomplishes anything other
than diverting attention from the Dems giving Trump everything he wants.
Kayfabe.
Impeachment without conviction means next to nothing.
The Senate will not convict. Trumps chances of being re-elected are continuing to improve as
Democratic Party insiders work overtime to see to it that Bernie Sanders has to fight the
Republican Party, a MSM that either dismisses or ignores his candidacy, AND the Democratic
Party which has, once again, stacked the deck against him.
... Never-Trump conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin released a scorching
assessment ... "Even Trump knows he will be lumped in with the 'losers' in the presidential
history rankings such as Richard Nixon and Andrew Johnson," wrote Rubin. "Impeachment will
define his presidency, dwarfing any other foreign or domestic action. No wonder he rages
against a speaker he is powerless to stop. His worst nightmare is to be humiliated, and if
not now, history certainly will regard him as a pitiful, damaged man utterly unfit for the
role he won through a series of improbable events ... Just as Watergate figures ... were
lionized as defenders of the Constitution, so too will Pelosi and House Democrats ... be
among those admired for their lucidity, intellect and character. ... For every clownish,
contemptible, screeching and dishonest House Republican, there is a sober, admirable,
restrained and honest Democrat.
"No letter, no tweet, no Fox News spin can repair the reputations of Trump enablers," Rubin
wrote. The right-wing media that cheered them on will, like outlets that rooted for Jim Crow
and demonized Freedom Riders, be shunned by decent, freedom-loving people who reaffirm
objective reality. The Republican Party will be known not as the Party of Lincoln but the
Party of Trump, a quisling party that lost its bearings and its soul to defend an unhinged
narcissist.
The Trump Card was and is a masterstroke of scripting live, non-stop, divisive, politically
paralytic distraction while the US oligarchy goes all-tard-in for private power.
Since the whole impeachment farce already has been a political loser for the idiot Democrats,
they'd have to be doubly stupid to double down on political stupidity by obstructing the
transmission to the Senate, when most Americans just want this crap to be over with.
Meanwhile the Senate Republicans, once they get the charges, would be stupid to do
anything but vote them down immediately. Otherwise they'll become complicit in the odious
circus and rightly incur their share of the political blame.
So from now on the party which hold the House can start impeachment process on false premises
the day the President from other party was elected. As simple as that.
That open a huge can to worms for future Presidents,
Notable quotes:
"... Let me explain something. This will set a precedent for house of reps to come. When we have a liberal president and a republican house we will do the same and impeach him for nothing because this just shows that if you own the house you can impeach him for nothing and that isn't good for the future ..."
I don't know anything about politics but i know that impeaching a president with radical
fans might not be the smartest move for a country that's all ready divided , just my
opinion.
The claim its a danger to our constitution when they have no pronlem with infringing our
2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment and pledge to do away with the elctorial college...
Hypocrisy
Let me explain something. This will set a precedent for house of reps to come. When we
have a liberal president and a republican house we will do the same and impeach him for
nothing because this just shows that if you own the house you can impeach him for nothing and
that isn't good for the future
Trump is doing a great job,and doing every thing he promises. The only high crime was
defying Dems authority.He has become a clear and present danger to their chances of ever
winning another election.
Afghan war demonstrated that the USA got into the trap, the Catch 22 situation: it can't
stop following an expensive and self-destructive positive feedback loop of threat inflation
and larger and large expenditures on MIC, because there is no countervailing force for the
MIC since WWII ended. Financial oligarchy is aligned with MIC.
This is the same suicidal grip of MIC on the country that was one of the key factors
in the collapse of the USSR means that in this key area the USA does not have two party
system, It is a Uniparty: a singe War party with two superficially different factions.
Feeding and care MIC is No.1 task for both. Ordinary Americans wellbeing does matter much
for either party. New generation of Americans is punished with crushing debt and low paying
jobs. They do not care that people over 50 who lost their jobs are essentially thrown out
like a garbage.
"41 Million people in the US suffer from hunger and lack of food security"–US Dept.
of Agriculture. FDR addressed the needs of this faction of the population when he delivered
his One-Third of a Nation speech for his 2nd Inaugural. About four years later, FDR expanded
on that issue in his Four Freedoms speech: 1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship;
3.Freedom from want; 4.Freedom from fear.
Items 3 and 4 are probably unachievable under neoliberalism. And fear is artificially
instilled to unite the nation against the external scapegoat much like in Orwell 1984.
Currently this is Russia, later probably will be China. With regular minutes of hate replaced
by Rachel Maddow show ;-)
Derailing Tulsi had shown that in the USA any politician, who try to challenge MIC, will
be instantly attacked by MIC lapdogs in MSM and neutered in no time.
One interesting tidbit from Fiona Hill testimony is that neocons who dominate the USA
foreign policy establishment make their living off threat inflation. They literally are
bought by MIC, which indirectly finance Brookings institution, Atlantic Council and similar
think tanks. And this isn't cheap cynicism. It is simply a fact. Rephrasing Samuel Johnson's
famous quote, we can say, "MIC lobbyism (which often is presented as patriotism) is the last
refuge of scoundrels."
The House impeachment is driven by several factors:
After Russiagate, when Trump began to investigate its fraudulent origins, the Dems feared the exposure of Obama-era
corruption if not high crimes. Hence Ukrainegate is preemptive political tactics.
The investigation into Russiagate led right to Ukraine, and thus to Biden. In the context of Sanders' campaign,
Ukrainegate became an imperative for the factions of the capitalist class that dominates the DNC. If Biden falls on Ukraine
issues, then Sanders is inevitable; an anathema to Wall Street and Big Tech DNC donors.
3. While 1 and 2 dominate DNC machinations, foreign policy is also a factor. The foreign policy establishment is absolutely
against any hesitation with respect to confronting Russia as part of a regional and global strategy for primacy. Trump's limited
prevarications on Russia might threaten the long established strategy to expand Nato to Ukraine and thereby to encircle Russia
and maintain US dominance over Europe. So, even though Trump names great power rivalry as the name of the game today, his inclination
for making nice with Putin threatens to weaken the US hold over Europe, which Trump wants to label as an economic competitor.
It is with these points that the strategic differences become apparent: Trump is raising a realist, neo-mercantalist strategy
against ALL potential competitors; the DNC and the deep state hold a strategy of liberal hegemony: globalization and US primacy
through dominating regional alliances, and impregnating US hegemony INSIDE the vassal States of the empire.
All of this, however, is bound to fail for the DNC, and down the road for Trump himself.
The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones.
"... Zlochevsky is actually the decoy, but the real person who has majority-ownership of Burisma, after Zlochevsky sold to him most of his shares in 2011, is the key Ukrainian billionaire who had backed Obama's February 2014 coup, Ihor Kolomoysky. ..."
"... Kolomoysky is now far more interested in recovering his bankrupt PrivatBank, Ukraine's largest bank, than in trying to extract the relative pittance that might still be entailed in Burisma. ..."
"... Thus far, in the American press, all of the attention has been on the agents. Given the way in which Trump's State Department buried the release of that data-dump, Trump has not been eager to get the real story out there. Nor, of course, are the Democratic Party billionaires whose "American Oversight" has likewise done nothing to facilitate the exposure of the actual historical narrative in this case. ..."
On November 22nd, a 100-page Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data-dump was made by the
U.S. Department of State, to the Democratic-Party-aligned nonprofit "American Oversight," which
had been founded in March 2017 by liberals (really by the main billionaires who fund the
Democratic Party) after the 2016 Democratic electoral defeat (to Republican billionaires). The
now Republican-headed U.S. State Department made as difficult as possible for news-media to
pick up on and report about the contents of this dump; they did this by providing only a
photographic image of each page, impossible on most systems to do any "Edit" "Find"; and also
impossible to perform any "Edit" "Copy" "Paste" of any quotation from the document.
Consequently, I made the first copy of that document to the Web Archive, in order to expedite
its coming onscreen, and I am herewith pasting below an extended passage in the document, which
I then manually transcribed from it, where President Trump's lawyer Rudolphe Giuliani, on
January 23, 25, and 26, took depositions from both Viktor Shokin, whom Joe Biden had forced in
April 2016 to be fired as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, and also from Yuriy Lutsenko, who
replaced Shokin and thereby freed-up from the Obama Administration in 2016 a one-billion-dollar
donation from America's taxpayers to the then-recently-installed-by-Obama anti-Russian
Government of Ukraine.
Shokin/Lutsenko Notes
U.S. Department of State
January 23, 2019
445 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Shokin:
On January 23, 2019, a telephone interview with Mr. Viktor Shokin the former General
Prosecutor of Ukraine was conducted. Present in the New York location were: Rudolph Giuliani,
Mr. Igor Fruman, Mr. Lev Parnas and Mr. George Boyle. The conversation was conducted through
the use of two (2) interpreters one (1) in Ukraine and one (1) Lev Parnas in New York. The sum
and substance of the conversation are as follows:
Mr. Shokin stated that he was appointed to the position of General Prosecutor of Ukraine
from 2015 until April of 2016 when he was removed at the request of Mr. Joseph Biden the Vice
President of the United States. Mr. Shokin was a Deputy Prosecutor prior to becoming the
General Prosecutor. He became involved in a case against Mr. Mykola Zlochevsky the former
Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine. The case was opened as a result of Mr.
Zlochevsky giving himself/company permits to drill for gas and oil in Ukraine. Mr. Zlochevsky
is also the owner of Burisma Holdings, which is a corporation registered in Cyprus. Mr. Shokin
stated that there are documents that list five (5) criminal cases in which Mr. Zlochevsky is
listed, with the main case being for issuing illegal gas exploration permits. The following
complaints are in the criminal case.
Mr. Zlochevsky was laundering money
Obtained assets by corrupt acts bribery
Mr. Zlochevsky removed approximately twenty three million U.S. dollars out of Ukraine
without permission
While seated as the Minister he approved two addition[al] entities to receive permits for
gas exploration
Mr. Zlochevsky was the owner of two secret companies that were part of Burisma Holdings
and gave those companies permits which made it possible for him to profit while he was the
sitting Minister
The above cases were closed after Mr. Zlochevsky was dismissed from the Ministry.
Mr. Shokin further stated that there were several Burisma board appointees [that] were made
in 2014 as follows:
Hunter Biden son of Vice President Joseph Biden
Joseph Blade former CIA employee assigned to Anti-Terrorist Unit
Aleksander Kwasnieski former President of Poland
Devon Archer roommate to Christopher Heinz the step-son of Mr. John Kerry United States
Secretary of State
Mr. Shokin stated that these appointments were made by Mr. Zlochevsky in order to protect
himself.
Mr. Zlochevsky left Ukraine while the above mentioned cases were open.
Mr. Shokin stated that the investigations stopped out of fear of the United States. Mr.
Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015 the U.S.
Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white
gloves, which, according to Mr. Shokin, implied to do nothing. On or about September 2015, Mr.
Pyatt gave a speech in Odessa where he stated that the cases were not investigated correctly
and that Mr. Shokin may be corrupt.
Mr. Shokin stated that in 2014 Mr. Zlochevsky was in the UK and that the twenty three
million dollars were frozen in the UK in the BNP Bank. Mr. Shokin stated that false documents
were prepared and the money was released so Mr. S[sp]lochevski before Mr. Shokin took office.
That release of the money made Mr. Shokin look into the above cases again. Mr. Shokin stated
that there were several articles written about bribes being taken during the investigation of
the cases. The bribes were an effort to have the cases closed. On April of 2016 Mr. Shokin was
dismissed as the General Prosecutor of Ukraine. In November of 2016 the cases were closed by
the current Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko.
Mr. Shokin further stated that on February of 2016 warrants were placed on the accounts of
multiple people in Ukraine. There were requests for information on Hunter Biden to which
nothing was received. It is believed that Hunter Biden receives a salary, commission, plus one
million dollars. Mr. Shokin stated he was warned to stop by Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt.
President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not
in the interest of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko's office
and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on
the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.
Mr. Shokin stated that on or around April of 2016 Mr. Petro Poroshenko called him and told
him he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden. Mr. Biden
told Mr. Poroshenko that he had evidence that Mr. Shokin was corrupt and needed to be fired.
Mr. Shokin was dismissed in April of 2016 and the U.S. aid was delivered within one and one
half months.
On a different point, Mr. Shokin believes the current [U.S.] Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch
denied his visa to travel to the U.S. Mr. Shokin stated that she is close to Mr. Biden. Mr.
Shokin also stated that there were leaks by a person named Reshenko of the Ukrainian State
Secret Service about the Manafort Black Book. Mr. Shokin stated that there is possible deceit
in the Manafort Black Book.
End of interview.
–
January 25, 2019 445 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022
Yuriy Lutsenko:
On January 25, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine was
present at 445 Park Av e, New York, NY. He was present to speak about corruption in Ukraine. He
was accomapnied by Glib Zagoriy, Gyunduz Mamedov, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman. Also present were
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and George Boyle.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that he is currently the Prosecutor General for Ukraine. He was the
Minister of Interior from 2007 to 2010. He further stated that he was placed in jail for two
and one half years as a political prisoner.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has the following units under his purview:
1 Police Department
Fiscals
Secret Service
Investigative Department
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has recovered several billion dollars and has had two
thousand six hundred thirty-seven [2,637] verdicts of corruption. Mr. Lutsenko went on to
explain that there is a unit called Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutors Office (SAP) which
has under its purview National Anticorruption Bureau Ukraine (NABU) which investigates
corruption cases that involve public figures from Mayors upward. He stated that the current
U.S. Ambassador protects SAP and NABU. He feels they are good organizations but have terrible
leadership. His office has absolutely no control over SAP or NABU and can't even ask what they
are working on, however they fall under his 'control'.
He further state[s] that he believes Mr. Viktor Shokin, the former Prosecutor General, is
honest.
Mr. Lutsenko went on to say that he began looking at the same case Mr. Shokin was looking at
(mentioned above) and he believes Hunter Biden receives millions of dollars in compensation
from Burisma. He produced a document from Latvia that showed several million dollars that were
distributed out of Burisma's account. The record showed two (2) companies and four (4)
individuals receiving approximately sixteen million dollars in disbursements, as follows [the
breakdown is shown].
Mr. Lutsenko feels that the total disbursements can be as high as $100,000,000.
Ambassador Pyatt gave a speech on September 25, 2015 in Odessa against the Prosecutor
Generals' Office.
Yuriy Lutsenko Continued:
On January 26, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine, was
present at 445 Park ave., New York, NY. [His second day of testimony contained only one
specific mention which was not vague and which had not been indicated previously by Shokin: A
"system was set up in order to remove money from the Ukraine, have it laundered, and then
collect the laundered money. These companies were all headed by one Chief Financial Officer.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that about twenty (20) to forty (40) of these companies were shell
companies. He further stated that there were twenty-three (23) companies located off shore, and
that two of them had approximately seven billion dollars that were placed in the Templeton
Fund. The system ran similar to a 'pyramid' scheme and all of the beneficiaries were
pro-Russian [which was undefined but presumably meant associated with the pre- coup Ukrainian Government].
Zlochevsky is actually the
decoy, but the real person who has majority-ownership of Burisma, after Zlochevsky sold to him
most of his shares in 2011, is the key Ukrainian billionaire who had backed Obama's February
2014 coup, Ihor Kolomoysky.
And Kolomoysky is now far more interested in recovering his
bankrupt PrivatBank, Ukraine's largest bank, than in trying to extract the relative pittance
that might still be entailed in Burisma.
Apparently, Trump hasn't yet decided whether to
continue the Obama-installed regime in Ukraine or else to expose it and to go after both Obama
and Kolomoysky, and abandon the cover-story of Biden and Zlochevsky. If he does decide to go
after the principlals in the case, then he'll have to expose who were the actual principals,
and who were merely their agents.
Thus far, in the American press, all of the attention has
been on the agents. Given the way in which Trump's State Department buried the release of that
data-dump, Trump has not been eager to get the real story out there. Nor, of course, are the
Democratic Party billionaires whose "American Oversight" has likewise done nothing to
facilitate the exposure of the actual historical narrative in this case.
On the Republican side, Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee,
was the first Republican to respond, accusing the Dems of running an unfair and deeply partisan
impeachment inquiry...
"This is an impeachment based on presumption," Mr. Collins said. "This is a poll-tested
impeachment about what actually sells to the American people. Today is going to be a lot of
things. What it is not is fair. What it is not is about the truth."
...While failing to prove their case against Trump.
...fully one half of Americans believe the president is innocent, and that the impeachment
push is merely a politically calculated smear job.
Trump started to play victim and this is really dangerous situation fro neoliberal democrats,
as he is a master in this genre. The President Doth Protest Too Much. While the Schiff
impeachment trial was neocon clowns show, he did committed crimes while in office (Douma false
flag, Oil grab in syria, Yeamen, etc) . But both Republicans and DemoRats are ob board for those,
and are afraid to talk about the real issues, converting impeachment into a second rate Kabuki
theatre
Pelosi now probably has the second thought about impeachment. There is a profound belief
among neoliberal Dems that politically things for them are much worse than they really are. but
while neoliberal is dead people still are voting for those jerks became the other party is even
worse.
Looks like neoliberal Democrats (aka DemoRats) made a political mistake
Notable quotes:
"... "This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history." ..."
"... Maybe we should rename the Trump impeachment and call it what it really is... ..."
The following are ten of the key highlights from that letter
#1 "This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by
Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative
history."
#2 "By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office,
you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on
American Democracy."
#3 "Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith
by continually saying you pray for the President when you know this statement is not true,
unless it is meant in a negative sense."
#4 "You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of
US aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company
paying his son millions of dollars."
#5 "Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has
admitted he actually did."
#6 "You have developed a full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump
Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it!"
#7 "You view democracy as your enemy!"
#8 "You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting
America's Democracy."
#9 "More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials."
#10 "Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment against every shred of
truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle, is showing how deeply they revile the voters and
how truly they detest America's Constitutional order."
If you would like to read the entire letter for yourself, you can find it
right here . It only takes a few minutes to read, and I think that most of you will find it
very enjoyable.
... ... ...
Following Trump's letter, Pelosi sent out one of her own to her Democratic colleagues asking
them to join her on the House floor
on Wednesday morning
... ... ...
Pelosi and her minions intended to destroy Donald Trump, but they may have just guaranteed
him four more years in the White House. And for Trump, that would be the sweetest revenge of all.
"Trump definitely understands that the primary reason why they are trying to impeach
him is because they deeply hate him..."
"Hate" may be a useful shorthand here, but it really has nothing to do with what's going
on. "Drain the swamp" is useful shorthand, too, that means Trump is shutting off the flow of
billions of dollars in corrupt money to corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, and threatening
to properly prosecute them for their crimes. The impeachment is really another crime waiting
to be prosecuted, where the legislative branch has been hijacked to commit obstruction of
justice on behalf of themselves.
When a Chief Justice Reminded Senators in an Impeachment Trial That They Were not Jurors
December 18, 2019
•
4
Comments
Save
With an eye on Trump's impeachment trial, Steven Lubet points out that senators at such
a trial are not the equivalent of a jury and are not held to a juror's standard of neutrality.
Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., fields questions from reporters about an impeachment trial in the Senate,
Dec. 10, 2019. (
AP/J.
Scott Applewhite
)
S
enate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell created a predictable
stir
when he told
Fox News host Sean Hannity that he would structure the impending impeachment trial of
President Donald Trump in "total coordination with the White House counsel's office." He added, "There will be no
difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this."
This outright rejection of
neutrality drew immediate protests from Democrats. Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.),
who may well be one of the House impeachment managers
in the Senate trial, called for McConnell's recusal,
saying
"No court in the country would allow a member of the jury to
also serve as the accused's defense attorney."
House Judiciary Committee
Chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) likewise
slammed
"the foreman of the jury" for saying he would "work hand and glove with the defense attorney."
Demings and Nadler made a
valid point, but they used the wrong analogy. Senators at an impeachment trial are not the equivalent of a jury and
they are not held to a juror's standard of neutrality.
Tasked with delivering an
opening statement for the House Managers – who present the House's case to the Senate –
Rep. Robert Barr (R-Ga.) reminded the senators
of Clinton's tendency to "nitpick" over details or "parse a
specific word or phrase of testimony." To Barr, the conclusion was obvious: "We urge you, the distinguished jurors in
this case, not to be fooled."
"
Mr.
Chief Justice
,"
he said, addressing William Rehnquist, who was presiding over the trial,
"
I
object to the use
and the continued use of the word 'jurors' when referring to the Senate."
Sen.
Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, raised a crucial point about senators' roles in the impeachment trial of President Clinton in
1999. (
AP/Joe
Marquette)
He explained that
"the framers of the Constitution meant us, the Senate, to be something other than a
jury."
Instead, Harkin continued,
"What we do here today does not just decide the fate of one man. Future generations will look back on this trial
not just to find out what happened, but to try to decide what principles governed our actions."
"The Senate is not simply a
jury," he ruled. "It is a court in this case."
Rehnquist thus admonished
the House Managers "to refrain from referring to the Senators as jurors." For the balance of the trial, they were
called "triers of law and fact."
Rehnquist and Harkin got it
right.
Article III of the
Constitution
provides that "Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury," and
for good reasons.
Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist, shown in this video image, presides in the impeachment trial of President Clinton on
the Senate floor, Feb. 8, 1999, in Washington.
(
AP
Photo/APTN)
Recognizing the Senate's
all-encompassing responsibility, and his own limited role, Chief Justice Rehnquist referred to himself throughout the
proceeding only as
"
the
Chair
."
As the U.S. Supreme Court
has
put
it
, impeachment presents a "political question," in which all of the "authority is reposed in the Senate
and nowhere else."
Oath or Affirmation
Required
McConnell, the Senate's
leader, has more leeway and far more power than any juror or even a jury foreperson.
The Constitution's only
procedural limitation is the requirement in
Article I
that
the senators be placed under "oath or affirmation."
Although the Constitution
does not specify any particular wording (unlike
the
presidential oath
, which is included word-for-word), the Senate
adopted
rules for impeachment trials in 1986
requiring each senator to affirm or swear to do "impartial justice
according to the Constitution and laws."
"Impartial justice" does
not demand the enforced naiveté of jury service, which would be impossible in an impeachment trial. For example, the
senators all have prior knowledge of at least some of the facts, and several of them are currently vying to run
against Trump in 2020, while others are backing his reelection campaign.
But the Senate's oath of
impartiality clearly calls for at least some commitment to objectivity. Thus, the problem with McConnell's
announcement was not that he failed to behave like a juror.
Rather, he has declared an
intention to disregard the Senate's prescribed oath, which was fixed long ago by the very body that elected him its
leader.
When Tom Harkin disclaimed
a juror's role at the Clinton trial, his purpose was not to affect the outcome of the case, but rather to underscore
the full scope of the Senate's decision-making responsibility. In contrast, Mitch McConnell appears to have boldly
renounced open-mindedness itself on the impeachment court, whether as juror, judge or "trier of law and fact."
When they got Clinton, it felt like a big deal. Now, it's just another episode in the Kabuki
threat of Washington, DC
"Anyway, when the hammer came down on Bill Clinton (21 years ago tomorrow, in fact), it felt
right. Justice had been served. Two months later, the GOP-run Senate would acquit Clinton of the
charges. He served out the rest of his term, and went on to become very rich, a globalist grifter
of great renown. One day, he will die peacefully in bed. His bed, one hopes. Life went on."
"I hate that we have such a lowlife as the American president. But do you know what else I
hate? That the Democratic Party went crazy over the last 20 years. That it's for open borders.
That the Democratic Party is for writing into federal civil rights law the destruction of one of
the most fundamental building blocks of human civilization: the gender binary. I hate that the
Democrats are so drunk on identity politics that a Democratic-run government would create a legal
and policy framework in which my own sons would be considered public enemies because of the color
of their skin, their sex, and depending on the context, their religion."
TRUMP WILL WIN THIS IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION AND IN THE SENATE, WHERE IT WILL BE
CODIFIED.
Trump and Mitch are actually doing the democrats a favor by throwing this crap out in the
Senate after a very short debate. Otherwise, if by the tiniest of margins some of the repubs
turn on Trump because they too are guilty of crimes against humanity which many will be found
to be, the resultant pitch-fork mobs would rip them apart...
Democrats just sent a strong message to people. Don't investigate crooks named Biden. Just
don't touch this. Biden must walk free and any person who dares to challenge crooks,
Democratic party crooks, or any other crooks is now to face Democrats.
Good guy named Trump dared to ask a foreign country to investigate corrupted crooks. Bad
idea.
It is no longer democratic thing to defend the law, preserve and promote honesty, not to
mention integrity and ethics. Nah. Vote for Democrats, because they support mafia, sell guns
to criminals, vigorously defend crooks in power and make no mistake - they laugh at Americans
every day.
Trump is no saint, but for gods sake impeach because of Bidens? My God.
Some House Democrats push Pelosi to withhold impeachment articles, delaying Senate
trial
"WASHINGTON -- A group of House Democrats is pushing Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other
leaders to withhold the articles of impeachment against President Trump that emerged from the
House on Wednesday, potentially delaying a Senate trial for months.
The notion of impeaching Trump but holding the articles in the House has gained traction
among some of the political left as a way to potentially force Senate majority leader Mitch
McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, to conduct a trial on more favorable terms for Democrats.
And if no agreement is reached, some have argued, the trial could be delayed indefinitely,
denying Trump an expected acquittal.
The gambit has gained some traction inside the left wing of the House Democratic Caucus
this week. Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, said Wednesday, as his
colleagues debated the impeachment articles on the House floor, that he has spoken to three
dozen Democratic lawmakers who expressed some level of enthusiasm for the idea of ''rounding
out the record and spending the time to do this right.''
''At a minimum, there ought to be an agreement about access to witnesses, rules of the
game, timing,'' Blumenauer said of a Senate trial.
Another Democrat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal
deliberations, said there is ''serious concern about whether there will be a fair trial on
the Senate side'' and acknowledged active talks about withholding the articles.
After the impeachment vote Wednesday, Pelosi would not rule out the idea of withholding
the articles.
The notion has been most prominently advocated by Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School
professor who has advised the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment process. In a
recent Washington Post op-ed, he wrote that ''the public has a right to observe a meaningful
trial rather than simply learn that the result is a verdict of not guilty.''..."
The Dems have given Trump's insane military budget more than he asked for, they got no
bargains in renewing the NDAA (both of which betray the lie they think Trump is compromised),
and finalized a huge new trade deal with him.
The impeachment farce and most of the battle
with Trump is kabuki for the rubes. Business as usual continues in DC, except the swamp
realizes more and more that their grip on power is slipping. They are far more frightened of
Bernie Sanders. These are dangerous times.
"The Democrats did the "right" thing - considering their options.
Option A: Counter Trump with real policy issues; policies that the majority of Americans
support: ending unending wars, healthcare, environmental protection, income equality, etc..
But that would cost them money from their BIG DONORS, and as such all privileges of the Dem
bosses. Not a good option
Option B: Follow the Russiagate/Ukrainegate/Impeachment path and thereby avoid having to
oppose Trump on policy. Their BIG DONORS are happy (because there is no policy change). Even
if the Dems lose 2020 election, the party bosses still retain their privileges.
Disclaimer: The Dims and the Repugs are the same party - just two different brands of it.
Anyone doubting this assertion should check out who finance them .... big oligarchy, even if
there may be slight differences in composition.
Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Dec 18 2019 23:07 utc | 31
This IMO is the best synopsis posted to date. Salient, and to the point. Thanks NM!!
"... But as we know it has become politically incorrect on the left to do anything but to put on your clown makeup and join the circus. ..."
"... But Tulsi Gabbard as usual doesn't play their game. And because of that, like Trump she is also a target of the deep state and not just the deep state of America--it is the deep state of the entire 5-Eyes security apparatus who together work overtime to overthrow Trump and any and all who resist their attempt to rule the world. ..."
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard did the smart thing and abstained in the vote from the circus. But as we know
it has become politically incorrect on the left to do anything but to put on your clown
makeup and join the circus.
But Tulsi Gabbard as usual doesn't play their game. And because of that, like Trump she is
also a target of the deep state and not just the deep state of America--it is the deep state
of the entire 5-Eyes security apparatus who together work overtime to overthrow Trump and any
and all who resist their attempt to rule the world.
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its
more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
But also may I compliment Kali@18 and Russ@19 for their terrific comments. I have just
finished reading the link provided by Kali, which is an outstanding essay by Pam Ho- a
paradigm shifter if ever there was one! I have been making a determined effort to liberate my
thinking from ideological partisanship and reading this essay was like pressing a refresh
button in my brain.
Despite the ra ra b. s.,Trump's letter will become an historical document, as it does
encapsulate all the manufactured tribulations that have been foisted on his presidency,
though I would have liked b to include all those words which were CAPITALIZED. He's quite a
personality, your president The best summation of the man is, curiosly enough, provided by
Syria's president Assad. There is an honesty about him even when he's uttering a bald-faced
lie!
Tulsi has been newsworthy for a number of years now and right from the getgo I said to
myself "she's my kind of gal"
Here is a woman of courage and presence. She's young and principled, even if she's a
member of a very corrupted party.
@ Posted by: Australian lady | Dec 19 2019 3:26 utc | 71 who ended her comment expressing
support for Tulsi Gabbard
When the impeachment vote was taken today, there were two Dems that voted against and
Tulsi voted Present
She will be ostracized for her non vote but I give her credit for distancing herself from
the impeachment circus. Given that she has stated that she won't run again for Congress, I
speculate that she may jump to the Green Party if given the chance to run ahead of or with
Jill Stein.....any barflies know how the Greens are shaping up for this coming election?
I read in a couple of places today that the strategy of the Dems is to not forward the
impeachment to the Senate for an indeterminate amount of time......let the stew, the Senate
and Trump simmer a bit.....more kabuki for the masses while the public continues to be
screwed economically.
That can increase Trump popularity further, as it portrays DemRats as unprincipled, dirty political Schemers, Washington pond scam,
so to speak. Two gangs fighting for dominance while nation became poorer and poorer.
They failed (or more correctly were too afraid as it implicates them too) to discuss real issues on which Trump could be impeached
and not Pelosi gambit backfired.
Notable quotes:
"... "How do Democrats impeach and withhold when they've been telling everybody Trump must be removed right now because he poses an immediate threat to our elections? Would Dems go straight from pre-emptive impeachment to deferred impeachment?" ..."
"We have legislation approved by the Rules Committee that will enable us to decide how we will send over the articles of impeachment,"
Pelosi told reporters Wednesday.
" We cannot name [impeachment] managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side."
She added that "so far, we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us" in the Senate.
Nancy Pelosi:
"We have legislation approved...that will enable to decide how we send over the articles of impeachment."
The
Conservative Treehouse blog describes this as a "cunning Lawfare ploy" that was a "pre-planned procedural process by design."
"Now the delay in sending the articles of impeachment allows the House lawyers to gather additional evidence while the impeachment
case sits in limbo."
"The House essentially blocks any/all impeachment activity in the Senate by denying the transfer of the articles from the House
to the Senate. Additionally, the House will now impede any other Senate legislative action because the House will hold the Senate
captive. Meanwhile the Democrat presidential candidates can run against an impeached President. "
This additional evidence could include Mueller grand jury material, a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn and
less Trump's financial and tax records.
Knowing that the Senate will never vote to impeach Trump, Democrats plan to use the House impeachment vote as yet another tool
with which to undo the results of the 2016 election, keeping Trump under a permanent cloud of suspicion right through 2020.
However, as Byron York noted rather pointedly, this is entirely disingenuous considering the Democrats pre-impeachment utterances:
"How do Democrats impeach and withhold when they've been telling everybody Trump must be removed right now because he poses
an immediate threat to our elections? Would Dems go straight from pre-emptive impeachment to deferred impeachment?"
And remember, the public is now against impeachment broadly...
Mitch doesn't need Nanzi to "send" anything over to the Senate. The U.S. Constitution states that " The Senate shall have
the sole Power to try all Impeachments. " Art. I, Sec. 3. That power is not dependent on the House "sending" anything to the
Senate. Moreover, the Articles of Impeachment have been published, and the House vote has been published, so the Senate can print
those off and start the trial today . Get on with it, Mitch, and dismiss this charade.
This is just more unconstitutional behavior and yet another attempt by house Dems to usurp power the constitution does not
grant to them:
"The Senate shall the time and place of the trial"
If turtle doesn't get the show on the road, Trump will have to force the issue. However the turtle acknowledged that the Senate
must act in a way which throughly rebukes the Dems for this attempt to lower the bar and prevent it from moving forward.
If she doesn't send the impeachment articles to the Senate then that is something the founding fathers didn't anticipate. If
not resolved the Supreme Court could get involved to define the gray into black and white. I could see Trump taking it to the
courts.
On another note it is pretty funny to see Pelosi griping about the unfairness of McConnell coordinating with the white house
while at the same time coordinating with Schumer.
"Now the delay in sending the articles of impeachment allows the House lawyers to gather additional evidence while the impeachment
case sits in limbo."
What the hell is going on? What new evidence are they gathering? The House voted and they impeached. There is no ongoing investigation
any longer. They cannot reconvene.
The Republican Senate, must do its duty and move forward to the conclusion on this, as quickly as possible.
Pelosi is clearly overreaching by trying to control the Senate. McConnell should remind her that she is not a Senator, and
should stick to controlling her own chamber.
McConnell should also have the Senate pass a resolution that any measures passed by the House must be turned over to the Senate
within 30 days, or the Senate will dismiss such measures as void and invalid.
The Democrats and Republicans are well aware of what is coming. They hope these acts of desperation will somehow delay the
inevitable. Most Americans aren't prepared for the level of corruption, deceit and debauchery that will be exposed. It's almost
time to pay the piper. It is going to shock the world.
Criminally manufactured treasonous conspiracy with fraud perpetrated by DNI/IG Atkins, Ciaramella and Brennan, Schiff, Pelosi,
Nadler, and Obama cohorts and holdovers.
This gets described and prosecuted in their conspiratorial sedition if it goes to Full senate.
They don't dare send it, because they will be arrested, and may be subject to grand jury even before then on FISA related findings.
All the Democrats have is Impeachment. Without it they have nothing to do until November. So, they plan to Impeach President
Trump again, and maybe another time after that to run out the clock.
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution,
an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President
@realdonaldTrump .
Going to have to have an amendment to the Constitution. No open ended impeachment motions. Time limitation on when the
House sends impeachment motion to the Senate, after Congress passes motion for impeachment.
I would hope this goes to the supreme court and they rule that this denies the right to a speedy trial. Because the senate
vote is actually considered a trial.
Pelosi risk to turn the case into personal vendetta and DemoRats will be burned as the
result. McConnell just need to wait a couple on months as time works for him.
This pressure from Pelosi actually helps Trump opening interesting lines of the attack:
"McConnell said on the Senate floor that Pelosi and House Democrats "may be too afraid to even
transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate." Trump tweeted as Pelosi spoke Thursday
morning, saying that "Pelosi feels her phony impeachment HOAX is so pathetic she is afraid to
present it to the Senate".
The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party
Notable quotes:
"... she would delay naming impeachment managers -- who would argue the House case in the Senate -- until the Senate lays out its procedures for the trial. ..."
41 Million people in the US suffer from hunger and lack of food security"--US Dept. of
Agriculture. That number of people constituted a crisis for FDR when he delivered his One-Third
of a Nation speech for his 2nd Inaugural. About four years later, FDR expanded on that issue in
his Four Freedoms speech: 1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship; 3.Freedom from want;
4.Freedom from fear.
Faced with a similar situation, Trump advances plans to cut more people from the food stamp
program thus increasing immiseration. One might say Trump's out of step with traditional
American values; but were Obama, Bush, or Clinton any better?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday extended her standoff with Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell over starting President Donald Trump 's impeachment trial,
insisting she's waiting to see whether Republicans will agree to a "fair" process.
Pelosi surprised many House Democrats Wednesday night after the House impeached Trump when
she said she would delay naming impeachment managers -- who would argue the House case in
the Senate -- until the Senate lays out its procedures for the trial.
"When we see what they have, we'll know who and how many we will send over," she said at a
news conference Thursday. Pelosi cast it as a procedural matter and cited the Senate's
ability to come up with a bipartisan trial plan after President Bill Clinton was
impeached.
... ... ...
McConnell and other GOP senators have been indicating they want a quick
trial, with arguments presented by the House managers and Trump's counsel without witnesses.
McConnell was giving no ground.
"It's beyond me how the speaker and Democratic leader in the Senate think withholding the
articles of impeachment and not sending them over gives them leverage," he told reporters at
the Capitol. "Frankly, I'm not anxious to have the trial."
... ... ...
McConnell called the House impeachment process rushed and shoddy.
"If the speaker ever gets her house in order, that mess will be dumped in the Senate's
lap," he said on the Senate floor. "If the nation accepts this, presidential impeachments may
cease being a once-in-a-generation event."
World News is reporting that
the US House of (Non) Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump on two
counts, "Abuse of Power" and "Impeding Congress".
(Never mind that the US Congress itself is the source of almost all the impeding Congress
faces!)
Please feel free to add any and all new details in the Essay's Comments.
regarding the failure of the house to move the articles of impeachment to the Senate I recommend reading:
theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/18 article entitled:
cunning-lawfare-maneuver-house-will-withhold-submission-of-articles-from-senate/
The article breaks down the legal strategy behind Pelosi's move, the strategy is quite clever, evil actually and the article
tracks how it was done, what it means and what it will allow the Dems to do; well worth a read.
I agree that this is the likely outcome. Surer than Hillary winning the 2016 election. It would mean that Pelosi, Schiff, et.
al. are really politically stupid.
Which makes me wonder. The obviousness of this losing hand, and the fact that the most politically-seasoned, can't-be-that-stupid
Democrats seem determined to play it out, has my paranoid political Spidey senses all atingle. What are the cards they're not
showing? What lies beneath the thin ice of these Articles of Impeachment? If the apparent agenda makes no sense, look for the
hidden. Something that better explains why Pelosi, et. al. find it so urgent to replace Trump before the election and why they
think they can succeed in doing that.
There is one thing that I can think of that drives such frantic urgency: War. That would also explain why Trump's "national
security" problem -- embedded in the focus on Ukraine arms shipments, Russian aggression, etc. -- is the real issue, the whistle
to Republican war dogs. But if so, the Ukro-Russian motif is itself a screen for another "national security"/war issue that cannot
be stated explicitly. There's no urgency about aggression towards Russia. There is for Iran.
So here's my entirely speculative tea-leaf reading: If there's a hidden agenda behind the urgency to remove Trump, one
that might actually garner the votes of Republican Senators, it is to replace him with a president who will be a more reliable
and effective leader for a military attack on Iran that Israel wants to initiate before next November. Spring is the cruelest
season for launching wars.
From my article: Impeachment:
What Lies Beneath?
Trump's chances of being convicted in the Senate are essentially zero (though we're sure
Mitch McConnell will enjoy the leverage that presiding over such a trial will inevitably
bring). And on Wednesday night, as the Dems voted to impeach, Trump told supporters in Battle
Creek exactly what they wanted to hear. That the Dems were the real lawbreakers, having abused
the Constitutional process to persecute a president against whom they harbor an almost
pathological antipathy.
"This lawless, partisan impeachment is a political suicide march for the Democratic
party," Trump told supporters in Battle Creek, Michigan, a Republican stronghold that helped
him win the traditionally Democratic state in 2016.
Across the battleground states of the midwest, polls and anecdotal evidence suggest Trump
will have the upper hand in 2020. Some 52% of registered Wisconsin voters oppose Trump's
impeachment and removal from office, according to a recent Marquette University Law School
poll. The amount who support impeachment is just 40%.
Independent voters across the state sing Trump's praises.
Trump also enjoys a receptive audience across swaths of Wisconsin. Dawn Anderson, 60, said
that she and her husband are independents who voted for Trump in 2016 and can't wait to do it
again next year.
"I'm mad," she said in an interview outside a Woodman's Markets grocery store in Kenosha.
"He shouldn't have to defend himself the way he is."
Trump won Wisconsin by some 22,000 votes in 2016, a margin of less than 1%. It was the first
time a Republican won the state since 1984.
When discussing the impact of impeachment on Trump's share of the vote in Wisconsin, one
Republican Party official in the state compared the impact of impeachment to the impact of the
recall vote on Gov. Scott Walker, which also galvanized the state's conservatives to take a
stand against Democrats who were believed to be unfairly persecuting another. People who never
voted before registered and supported Walker because they were so annoyed at the Democrats.
Trump's letter notes that talk about impeachment started as soon as he stepped into
office:
IMO the Deep State wanted to initiate a new McCarthyism.
Russiagate was the means to do so and that means that Impeachment was always a possibility
(though likely a red-herring, as I explain below).
IMO After the Mueller investigation progressives pressed for Impeachment but establishment
Democratics (led by Pelosi and Hillary) wouldn't allow it. People were (rightfully) asking
why establishment Democrats were protecting Trump.
With this in mind, Ukrainegate is a convenient diversion from Russiagate while providing
the Impeachment satisfaction that progressives had clamored for.
It's difficult NOT to notice that ...
... America First Trump actually furthered Russiagate when he hired Manafort
(who was known to have worked for pro-Russian Parties in Ukraine and had NO recent
experience in US elections) and called upon Russia to publish Hillary's emails (which were
KNOWN to contain top-secret information - making any publication a crime under US law);
... and America First Trump furthered Ukrainegate by the mentioning the
name of an announced political opponent when talking about investigating corruption on a
call with Zelensky.
One might excuse this in many ways: Trump's ego; his unfamiliarity with politics
and statecraft; or just bad luck. But one can also see these actions, in a larger context, as
disturbing part of the effort to initiate the new McCarthyism.
No this contradict Occam razor: the scheme is too complex to implement and which requires
perfect coordination of the actors. This is really two oligarchic gangs struggling for
power.
I'm starting to think the whole trump presidency is a con by making him look like a target
for the deep state and anti establishment, he continues the empire while people who want real
change get sunk
"I'm starting to think the whole trump presidency is a con by making him look like a
target for the deep state and anti establishment, he continues the empire while people who
want real change get sunk."
Pretty much his only domestic policy achievements have been to deliver what Wall Street,
real estate and the oil and gas sector wants. The benefits of the tax cuts and gutting of
enforcement activity by the regulatory agencies (including the IRS) are weighted towards
those industries.
Also, on the foreign policy front, keeping oil prices artificially high by
keeping Iranian and Venezuelan crude off the markets is a boon to the E&P sector.
"... Surely the only reason for doing this is to obscure and hide the Democratic Party's involvement with (and meddling in) Ukrainian politics and Ukrainian political issues through people like Alexandra Chalupa and her sisters Andrea and Irena, and Dmitri Alperovich and his company Crowdstrike that looked after the DNC's cyber-security. ..."
It would seem that the Democrats need this impeachment circus over and done with before the
end of 2019 so they can concentrate on cleaning up Joe Biden as their Presidential candidate
and pretend he had no history before April 2019 when Volodymyr Zelensky became President of
Ukraine. That must explain their strange and shaky choice of issue on which to try to impeach
Donald Trump: so that during the campaign season,
Biden's past and his son having been on the
Board of Directors of a shady energy company (with a licence to explore and drill for oil in
an area of eastern Ukraine not far from where a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet was shot down
in 2014) can be kept off-limits to the MSM and anyone who dares to challenge Biden on his
record. If the President of the United States can be punished for pursuing the Bidens on
their record of corruption, then that alone should (in theory) stop anyone else from pursuing
them.
There are so many other issues on which to impeach Trump but the issue of Joe Biden's
conflict of interest regarding his son's involvement in Burisma Holdings and eastern Ukraine
generally is the weakest and the oddest.
Surely the only reason for doing this is to obscure
and hide the Democratic Party's involvement with (and meddling in) Ukrainian politics and
Ukrainian political issues through people like Alexandra Chalupa and her sisters Andrea and
Irena, and Dmitri Alperovich and his company Crowdstrike that looked after the DNC's
cyber-security.
My apologies if this has been posted before, but here is a news conference broadcast by
Interfax a few days ago detailing a joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a
huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and
Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton
Foundation.
The link is short enough to not require re-formatting:
Forgive me for the somewhat redundant post, and again I hope this is not a waste of anyone's
time, but this is the source of the Interfax report I posted just above currently at #56. It
is relevant to the Ukrainegate impeachment fiasco.
The U.S. and lapdog EU/UK media will not touch this with a 10 foot pole.
KYIV. Dec 17 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Ukraine and the United States should investigate
the transfer of $29 million by businessman Victor Pinchuk from Ukraine to the Clinton
Foundation, Ukrainian Member of Parliament (independent) Andriy Derkach has said. According
to him, the investigation should check and establish how the Pinchuk Foundation's
activities were funded; it, among other projects, made a contribution of $29 million to the
Clinton Foundation. "Yesterday, Ukrainian law enforcement agencies registered criminal
proceeding number 12019000000001138. As part of this proceeding, I provided facts that
should be verified and established by the investigation. Establishing these facts will also
help the American side to conduct its own investigation and establish the origin of the
money received by [Hillary] Clinton," Derkach said at a press conferences at
Interfax-Ukraine in Kyiv on Tuesday, December 17.
According to him, it was the independent French online publication Mediapart that first
drew attention to the money withdrawal scheme from Ukraine and Pinchuk's financing of the
Clinton Foundation.
"The general scheme is as follows. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) lent money to
Ukraine in 2015. The same year, Victor Pinchuk's Credit Dnepr [Bank] received UAH 357
million in a National Bank stabilization loan from the IMF's disbursement. Delta Bank was
given a total of UAH 5.110 billion in loans. The banks siphoned the money through Austria's
Meinl Bank into offshore accounts, and further into [the accounts of] the Pinchuk
Foundation. The money siphoning scam was confirmed by a May 2016 ruling by [Kyiv's]
Pechersky court. The total damage from this scam involving other banks is estimated at $800
million. The Pinchuk Foundation transferred $29 million to the Foundation of Clinton, a
future U.S. presidential candidate from the Democratic Party," Derkach said.
"... The absurd race between the Repugnants and Democrazies to smash each other appears to have only one unfortunate outcome at this point and the Democrazies are not the winner. They are certainly going to lose Biden or lose because of Biden. That's how much they care for their electoral base. Meanwhile the Trump oligarch private finance capital team march up the hill. Tragic. ..."
Thanks b, it sure looks like distraction politics from the avoid doing anything for
people party. I am astounded at how pathetically weak their case is. But most astonishing
is the failure to have the LEAKER not whistleblower attend any public hearing to give
evidence.
We are now well aware of Ciaramella's role in this absurd theatre. But he gives no
evidence, fails to submit to a cross examination. He is a real Star Chamber performer.
The absurd race between the Repugnants and Democrazies to smash each other appears to have
only one unfortunate outcome at this point and the Democrazies are not the winner. They are
certainly going to lose Biden or lose because of Biden. That's how much they care for their
electoral base. Meanwhile the Trump oligarch private finance capital team march up the hill.
Tragic.
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
"... Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest of the world. ..."
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides
its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
hey b... i like your title - "How The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party" ... could change
it to" How the Deep State Sunk the USA" could work just as well...
Seven of the 11 security state representatives who had joined the Democrats in 2018 gave
the impulse for impeachment.
is this intentional?? it sort of looks like it...
good quote from @ 26 lk - "The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be
mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones."
@babyl-on 35
yes that is about right. The top power networks are all a tight mix of names from govt, MIC,
and private equity (incl. top 2-3 investment banks). With the latter group naturally paying
the salaries of the whole policy making ecosystem, and holding the positions that select
future generations who will eventually take their place.
They want the security of knowing noone in the world will mess with them. This
necessitates that noone in the world *can* mess with them. Pretty straightforward from
there.
"Trump was simply asking new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky -- in a July phone
call -- to investigate crimes at the "highest levels" of both Kiev and Washington," Rudy
Giuliani, a personal attorney for President Trump, told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham
Angle."
"So, he is being impeached for doing the right thing as president of the United States,"
he said.
Giuliani told Laura Ingraham on "The Ingraham Angle" that he helped forced out Yovanovitch
because she was corrupt and obstructing the investigation into Ukraine and the Bidens.
Dem's impeachment for innocent conduct is intended to obstruct the below investigations of
Obama-era corruption:
- Billions of laundered $
- Billions, mostly US $, widely misused
- Extortion
- Bribery
- DNC collusion w/ Ukraine to destroy candidate Trump
He told Ingraham that he needed her out of the way because she was corrupt. Giuliani said he
was not the first person to go to the president with concerns about the diplomat.
In more tweets Tuesday, Giuliani elaborated:
Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine. She was
OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at minimum enabled
Ukrainian collusion.
" Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine.
She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at
minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion."
Marie Yovanovitch was dismissed in March after Trump's allies said she was blocking the
probe of Joe Biden and bad-mouthing the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko said that she
gave him a "do not prosecute list", that included Ukraine MPs and the exact same Sorosfunded
NGO president.
Nov 19, 2019Several sources claim former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch,
instructed Ukraine officials to keep their hands off investigating the NGO in Ukraine founded
by George Soros. Why?"
Any questions? As Putin warned the US: "ask about the 5th floor of the State Department."
(where Soros held court!). No wonder the US Commies hate Putin.
What the Shiffhead Impeachment hearings demonstrated with the appearances of Ms.
Yankonitbitch, Bowtie George, and the other "Dindunuffin/Donnonuffin Clowns" is just how much
American Taxpayers' money is being wasted employing a bunch of sanctimonious drones who do
nothing but get in the way of progress. Successful Corporations remove dead wood like that
with downsizing and shakeups. But the Federal Government seems immune to efficiency because
our elected officials NEVER DO THEIR JOBS BY USING ZERO BASE BUDGETING TO JUSTIFY EVERY
******* DOLLAR. And so, we now hear of yet another Omnibus Budget being foisted onto American
Taxpayers and more wasteful spending that never, never, never, gets reduced. We need a
Taxpayer's Revolution in this Country to stop the corrupt theft.
And one more thing: What the Ukrainian Matter reveals is how Foreign Aid is dispensed,
handed out by the foreign recipient, and the funds are laundered and kicked back to the
corrupt politicians and Deep State Operatives like the Bidens. If $400 Million in palletized
untraceable cash can be delivered via a clandestine unmarked airplane at night to Iran
supposedly for ransom as the Socialist Media Complex would have us believe in a way that is
not consistent with long practiced methods for funds transfer, can we imagine all the
billions that have quietly been stolen from us to enrich scum like Barack Obola, Quid Pro
Joe, The Clintons, and so many others? IN THE MEANTIME, PRESIDENT TRUMP CAN'T GET A DIME TO
SPEND ON BUILDING A WALL TO STOP THE ILLEGAL ALIEN COCKROACH INVASION.
Yovanovitch pulled the "poor me federal" employee act. I worked for the Feds for 31 years
most as a manger and Yovanovitch victim act is what all federal employees pull when they get
in trouble. Blah Blah my 30 years of service, my awards, my appraisals blah blah. She said
that she had no concern about Hunter Biden while being hailed as a corruption fighter. Blah
blah.
It's a crime that State Department people and ambassadors can have the same ethnic origin
as the countries they serve in. It's a recipe for personal/family agendas, corruption and not
representing the best interests of the United States. Of course if you're a DemoRat, you're
always corrupt, as they have proven it is a given.
Rudy Giuliani: Yovanovitch Was Part Of The Cover-Up, She Had To Be Ousted.
"Ousted"? I thought the penalty for high treason was hanging. What are they waiting for?
Hang the lot and in a public square near Congress so that all the traitors who reside in
Congress and the highest levels of government and banking get a sense of what awaits
them.
"At the end of the month, almost all criminals arrested for state crimes in New York,
including sex crimes , will be released without posting bail. It is a suicidal policy,
but it is nonetheless the state’s prerogative to engage in such suicide. What is
not its prerogative is the New York law that took effect this week granting
driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and blocking ICE access to criminal enforcement
information. We have a national union with a federal government controlling immigration for a
reason, and it’s time for the Trump administration to show state officials who has the
final say over this issue.
Beginning this week, the NY state government
is inviting any and all illegal aliens , with or without criminal records, to apply for
driver’s licenses. As documentation
, they can offer consular ID cards, which are fraught with fraud, expired work permits, or
foreign birth certificates. They can even offer Border Crossing Cards, which are only valid
for 72 hours and for a stay in the country near the border area! The state law further
prohibits state and county officials from disclosing any information to ICE and bars ICE and
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from accessing N.Y. Department of Motor Vehicles (NYDMV)
records and information.
It’s truly hard to overstate the enormity of the public safety crisis this law,
dubbed “the green light law,” will spawn. There are
currently 3.3 million aliens in the ICE non-detained docket who remain at large in this
country. Just in one year, ICE put detainers on aliens criminally charged with 2,500
homicides. Given
that New York has the fourth largest illegal alien population in the country, it is
virtually certain that a large number of criminal aliens reside in the state and will now be
offered legal resident documents to shield them from removal.
Some might suggest that this is the problem of New York’s residents and that it is
their job and their responsibility alone to overturn these laws. But the difference between
this law and their general pro-criminal laws is that when it comes to immigration, they
simply lack the power to enact such a policy. Rather than the DHS and DOJ bemoaning these
laws, it’s time for the Trump administration to actually stop them in their tracks.
Otherwise the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is nothing but ink on parchment.
A violation of federal law and the Constitution
8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes a felon of anyone who “knowing or in reckless disregard
of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation
of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or
shield from detection, such alien in any place.” That statute also makes a criminal of
anyone who “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United
States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence
is or will be in violation of law” or anyone who “engages in any conspiracy to
commit any of the preceding acts, or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding
acts.” Some form of this law has been on the books since 1891.
NY’s new law not only harbors illegal aliens but actually calls on the DMV to notify
illegal aliens of any ICE interest in their files. There is only one purpose of this law: to
tip off criminal alien fugitives that ICE is looking for them, the most literal violation of
the law against shielding them from detection. Would we allow state officials to block
information to the FBI, ATF, or DEA?
Moreover, New York’s Green Light law violates the entire purpose of the infamous
1986 amnesty bill, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which was “to combat
the employment of illegal aliens.” The law specifically makes it “illegal for
employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized
workers.” Yet the rationale for the Green Light Law, according to supporters , was
“getting to work” and “ensure that our industries have the labor they need
to keep our economy moving.” That directly conflicts with federal law.
Finally, 8 U.S.C. 1373 prohibits state and local government from “in any way
restrict[ing]
, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status,
lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” The entire purpose of this bill is to restrict
all New York government entities from sending information on citizenship status to ICE.
Whether one disagrees with immigration laws or not, nobody can argue that the federal
government lacks the power to enforce them. Immigration law is one of the core jobs of the
federal government. People are free to go to any state once they are in the country, which is
why the Founders transferred
immigration policy from the states under the Articles of Confederation to the federal
government under the Constitution.
This is why James Madison in Federalist #42 bemoaned that, under
the Articles of Confederation, there was a “very serious embarrassment” whereby
“an alien therefore legally incapacitated for certain rights in the [one state], may by
previous residence only in [another state], elude his incapacity; and thus the law of one
State, be preposterously rendered paramount to the law of another, within the jurisdiction of
the other.” He feared that without the Constitution’s new idea of giving the
federal Congress power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,”
“certain descriptions of aliens, who had rendered themselves obnoxious” would
choose states with weak immigration laws as entry points into the union and then move to any
other state as legal residents or citizens.
As for immigration without naturalization, because of the issue of the slave trade, the
first clause of Article I, Section 9 bars Congress from prohibiting “the Migration or
Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit” until the year 1808. Well, Congress has long exercised that power to exclude
over the past 200 years. New York has lacked the ability to maintain its own separate
immigration scheme for quite some time.
When did the federal government become weak in the face of state rebellion?"
The diplomatic service made a big mistake when they abandoned the practice of preventing
people from serving in countries where they have an ethnic connection
jovanivic is part of a rabid Ukrainian diaspora, chased out of the country by the Red Army
for collaboration with the Nazis.
these people have a vicious, insatiable desire for revenge ...and the US does not need
these kind of biases mucking things up
"With impeachment imminent, Kushner has pushed out his enemies, installed allies, and
taken control of the campaign and large swaths of policy -- only Kellyanne Conway is still
pushing back.
Inside the West Wing, Kushner has both eliminated opponents and installed acquiescent
officials. "Jared was very frustrated with [Reince] Priebus and John Kelly," a Republican
close to the White House, said. Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney "was Jared's pick," the
source said, and has allowed Kushner to function as de facto chief of staff. "Mick has
decided not to be in control," a former West Wing official said. "Jared treats Mick like the
help. There's no pushback," a prominent Republican said. John Bolton, who recently mocked
Kushner in a private speech, has been replaced by Robert O'Brien, a Kushner ally. Sources say
that Vice President Mike Pence and his advisers don't challenge Kushner after a string of
leaks that Kushner wanted to replace Pence on the ticket with Nikki Haley. "Pence people look
at Jared apprehensively. Pence treats Jared as a peer," said former Trump aide Sam Nunberg.
(The White House did not respond to a request for comment.)"
Jared the Jew Prince is the number one reason not to reelect Trump.
"... After a Western-backed coup overthrew the legitimate Ukrainian president in February 2014, it brought to power a government largely picked by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. People in the Donbass region did not accept the new government and made two conditions for remaining a part of Ukraine: special autonomy status and two state languages. This is exactly what Canada provides for its large French-speaking minority. ..."
"... Those with even rudimentary knowledge of Ukrainian history and its huge ethnic Russian population would agree that these demands are not unreasonable, but the post-coup government called the separatist forces terrorists, sent aviation and tanks, and started a civil war that has been raging for five years. Washington, which was in total control of the Ukrainian political class, could have resolved this crisis easily by telling the new government to accept these modest conditions. Instead, the U.S. supported Kyiv with money, weapons, military training and political support. ..."
At a time of one of the greatest political upheavals in American history that could spill
over into foreign affairs, especially U.S.-Russian relations with unpredictable and devastating
results, I thought Christmas might offer a chance for all
of us to take a pause and search for an exit from the megacrisis.
Many people believe miracles do happen at Christmastime. However, it looks like we need
President Trump , Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to perform
at least three of them.
Those who wonder why Mr. Zelensky is on this list
should recall that the Trump impeachment process started
because of his phone call with this guy whose country the Democrats and their pathetic
witnesses deem no less than vital to America's national security.
Let us start with Mr. Putin because someone has to take the first difficult step and he is
the only one in a clear position to do it.
Dear Mr. Putin, please make a public statement that Russia pledges not to interfere in the
next and future American elections. It would be good if the two chambers of the Russian
parliament, the Duma and Federation Council, ratify this pledge as well. Please do it
unilaterally without asking Mr. Trump and the U.S. Congress to
respond in kind.
Dear Mr. Trump , please return to your
earlier thinking about NATO as an obsolete organization that lost its purpose in 1991 after the
collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw military bloc. Since then, it has been searching
desperately for new missions and enemies to justify its existence.
Recall that NATO's continuous expansion drive is the major factor that squandered the
exceptional opportunity for U.S.-Russian rapprochement that all Russian leaders, starting with
Mikhail Gorbachev, kept proposing. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat, and 18
other senators voted against President Clinton's first round of NATO expansion. "We'll be back
on a hair-trigger. We're talking about nuclear war," they said.
At the same time, NATO has failed to counter international terrorism -- the real threat to
European and American security. It is NATO that boosted the jihadi peril by overthrowing
Libya's government, allowing that prosperous country to morph into a terrorist playground and
staging point for millions of unvetted migrants crossing the Mediterranean to Europe.
Is NATO making America and our allies more secure? During the Cold War, when NATO allowed
the West to stand firm against Soviet communist designs on Europe, the answer was an easy yes,
but today, with NATO's reckless poking of the Russian bear, the answer is a resounding no.
A rebuilt NATO or a new organization, IATO -- International Anti-Terrorist Organization --
specifically targeting global jihad, would have a future with new partners including Russia,
for which terrorism represents a major security threat. Georgia and Ukraine could join IATO as
well, thus taking the first step toward reconciliation with Russia that NATO's insatiable
expansion drive helped destroy.
French President Emmanuel Macron is the first Western leader who agrees with this point of view
and is not afraid to say that "NATO's brain is dead." However, the U.S. president must take the
lead to move past legacy NATO.
Dear Mr. Zelensky , I believe that you
sincerely want to end the war in your country. It is not an easy job since you face a strong
and vocal radical nationalistic opposition with strong neo-Nazi overtones that declares that
any compromise on your side will be met with the violent resistance and another "Maidan
revolution" that may lead to your overthrow. The leader of this opposition is former President
Petro Poroshenko, whom Washington supported all these years and who was given a rare privilege
to speak at a joint session of Congress, where members greeted him with numerous standing
ovations. At the same time, Ukrainian people hated him so much that they decided to replace him
with a Jewish comic actor with no political experience.
Mr. Zelensky , I wonder if you
have read the book "Shooting Stars" by Austrian novelist Stefan Zweig, which describes some
important episodes in which fate gave an individual a chance at a historical turning point.
Zweig says fate usually chooses for this purpose a strong personality, but sometimes it falls
to mediocrities who fail miserably.
You are in a position to decide which you will be, and the pass to historical Olympus is
obvious.
After a Western-backed coup overthrew the legitimate Ukrainian president in February 2014,
it brought to power a government largely picked by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria
Nuland. People in the Donbass region did not accept the new government and made two conditions
for remaining a part of Ukraine: special autonomy status and two state languages. This is
exactly what Canada provides for its large French-speaking minority.
Those with even rudimentary knowledge of Ukrainian history and its huge ethnic Russian
population would agree that these demands are not unreasonable, but the post-coup government
called the separatist forces terrorists, sent aviation and tanks, and started a civil war that
has been raging for five years.
Washington, which was in total control of the Ukrainian political class, could have resolved
this crisis easily by telling the new government to accept these modest conditions. Instead,
the U.S. supported Kyiv with money, weapons, military training and political support.
Mr. Zelensky , nowadays you and
your country are used as pawns in the attempts to impeach Mr. Trump , but your prime
responsibility is before Ukrainian people who dismissed the party of war and placed the fate of
your country and its people in your hands. They expect you to make the right decision by
choosing the road to peace.
While waiting for these miracles to materialize, I wish all a merry Christmas , happy Hanukkah and peace on
earth in 2020.
Edward Lozansky is president of American University in Moscow.
Neocons lie should properly be called "threat inflation"
The underlying critical
point-at-issue is credibility as I noted in my comment on b's 2017 article. I've since
linked to tweets and other items by that trio; the one major change seems to have been the
epiphany by them that they needed to go to where the action is and report it from there to
regain their credibility.
The fact remains that used car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking
credibility sans a confession as to why they feel the need to lie to sell cars.
Their actions belie the guilt they feel for their choices, but a confession works much
better at assuaging the soul while helping convince the audience that the change in heart's
genuine. And that's the point as b notes--genuineness, whose first predicate is
credibility.
"... House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness, this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at least one of the articles of impeachment. ..."
"... The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first. ..."
The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed
toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment
that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week.
That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional
subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power
to decide the validity of its subpoenas, as well as the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized,
both powers that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The House of Representatives
will do likewise, if it votes to approve the articles, as is expected to occur on Wednesday.
President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas
requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has
argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches.
Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides
support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.
The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of
impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as
part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part
of any ongoing congressional investigations.
But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that
the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional
subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.
It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order
before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles
of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely
what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the "greatest danger" of an impeachment.
House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness,
this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include
obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end
up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at
least one of the articles of impeachment.
It would be a smart way out for those Democrats. More important, it would be the right thing for them to do. It would be smart
and right because, as matters now stand, the entire process smacks of partisanship, with little concern for the precedential impact
which these articles could have on future impeachments. If a few more Democrats voted in a way that would demonstrate greater nuanced
recognition that, at the least, the second article of impeachment represents an overreach based on current law, it would lend an
aura of some nonpartisan legitimacy to the proceedings.
The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second
article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative
and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats
to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first.
"... But I think that from a practical standpoint, it's difficult to prosecute a serious case based almost solely on the idea that you claim to know what the other guy was thinking. ..."
President Trump explicitly stated in a private conversation with one of the Democrats'
witnesses that he wanted "no quid pro quo." But the mind-reading Democrats know
Trump meant the opposite ; Trump did want a quid pro quo.
Though Ukrainian experts say a holdup of U.S. aid would not have impacted their ability to
fight the Russians, since they manufacture their own lethal weapons (and sell a lot to other
countries), the Democrats can read minds: They say people
died because of the delay.
Each of the Democrats' witnesses also drew conclusions about President Trump, his supposedly
corrupt motivations and thought processes, that would require them to read minds. (Most of them
said they'd neither met nor spoken to Trump.)
Lastly, Democrats can read Joe Biden's mind, too. They know that when Biden insisted on the
firing of the prosecutor investigating his son's company, that his son didn't factor into the
decision.
Democrats could be correct on all counts.
But I think that from a practical standpoint, it's difficult to prosecute a serious case
based almost solely on the idea that you claim to know what the other guy was
thinking.
this committee is responsible for overseeing the Intelligence Community and exposing
abuses. Yet when the IG identified gross abuses in our jurisdiction, you expressed full
faith in the agencies we're supposed to be vigilantly monitoring. and you rejected any
oversight whatsoever of their supposed clean-up efforts.
Nunes's frank letter might have a surprising effect. He has declared open season on
Schiff. It's like the child in the Emperor's New Clothes. Once the cat is out of the bag like
this and "what must not be spoken" gets spoken, it could send shock waves.
There are Democrats on the edge of flipping. When they see the letter, it could have the
effect of crystallizing their decision to leave the Democrat party. They certainly don't want
to be associated with Schiff, the pariah to their own reelection chances.
We are writing today to let you know that we are fed up with all the insanity and
stupidity coming from the democrat party. We have been loyal democrats all our lives, and we
are appalled at the lunacy of the impeachment trial. It's all an out right waste of time that
the democrat Adam Schiff is showing the nation. We did not even watch it because he is an in
your face liar.
What you better understand and know is, many like ourselves are sick and tired of the
unacceptable behavior of the democrat party. We are sick and tired of paying our tax dollars
to pay you and the democrat party that has not done a darn thing for us, the American
People.
We are here to tell you that if you vote for impeachment, you are saying to all us voters
that you are just as stupid and insane to back up with your vote, the highly unfair partisan
impeachment process based on nothing or any real evidence. We do not want anyone that is that
ignorant as our representative.
Do you understand that the leadership in the democrat party has made us all look like
stupid insane idiots and we have seen enough? You must know that if you vote for this fake
impeachment process, WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT! We will vote for any other democrat, or if we have
too, the republican candidate that is running against you.
Please do the right thing not for the democrat party, but for the American people who
voted for you. Get back to the business of America and the American People! This is the
bottom line, if you vote for impeachment, you are out of there. Do not discount our stead
fast position on this issue.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request.
"... Andrew O'Hehir personifies the sore loser. The EU is fascism. In their attempt to overthrow Ukraine, the EU armed and trained Nazis. The EU helped start both the Libya and Syria wars. Obama was only their errand boy, trying to give them back two colonies. ..."
"... The EU destroyed Greece for the banks. The EU is a far greater threat to Europe than the Third Reich was. Is Andrew stupid enough to think European powers should give up their power to print money to these corporate fascists? ..."
Andrew O'Hehir personifies the sore loser. The EU is fascism. In their attempt to
overthrow Ukraine, the EU armed and trained Nazis. The EU helped start both the Libya and
Syria wars. Obama was only their errand boy, trying to give them back two colonies.
The EU destroyed Greece for the banks. The EU is a far greater threat to Europe than the
Third Reich was. Is Andrew stupid enough to think European powers should give up their power
to print money to these corporate fascists?
Fascist EU enablers, like the author, have called the Brits racists for years, simply
because they want out of the Nazi-arming EU. Andrew doesn't want any lessons from his
crushing defeat -- they relate to the perils of being a fanboy for corporate war-mongering
fascists.
So all other presidents who claimed privilege were actually obstructing Congress and were
subject to impeachment as will be all future presidents who claim privilege. Burisma, a
Ukrainian company, can not be investigated because a Biden is on the board. Hunter has a very
lucrative future ahead of him as an insurance against investigation.
The Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau is a U.S. creation. It is therefore not astonishing to
find that it is corrupt.
@kooleksiy 16:29 UTC
· Dec 13, 2019
Director of Ukraine's National Anti-corruption Bureau Sytnyk will pay a ~$140 fine for
"violation of restrictions on accepting gifts" [valued at ~$1 thousand in his case] - his
lawyer stated today after Appellate Court ruling @dw_ukrainian reports
www.dw.com/uk/
"As part of your rehabilitation, it's crucial that you admit you have a problem - you are
hijacking the Intelligence Committee for political purposes while excusing and covering up
intelligence agency abuses ." -Devin Nunes to Adam Schiff
This b
recommends at his Twitter, saying "Some interesting and quite believable claims in this
thread "
Rudy Giuliani:
"Budapest | Kiev | Vienna
"After hundreds of hours & months of research, I have garnered witnesses &
documents which reveal the truth behind this impeachment, which includes NO wrongdoing by
@realDonaldTrump.
"These threads only touch the surface. Read & watch all. More to come."
The following tweet:
"Evidence revealed that corruption in 2016 was so extensive it was POTUS's DUTY to ask for
US-Ukraine investigation.
"Also, DNC collusion w/ Ukraine to destroy candidate Trump."
Need to separate the partisan chaff from the genuine evidence, but IMO b's correct that
there's more than a few things here that will stick. One political cartoon in the thread
comments is beyond apt.
by Rob Urie
Russiagate, Ukrainegate and impeachment aren't conspicuously economic issues. But they are, to
a large extent, class issues. They are inside-the-beltway dramas about foreign policy arcana
that are important to people who see their lots tied in one way or another to the established
order. This includes, by degree, those of us who would like to make room for
outside-the-beltway concerns like ending militarism, solving environmental crises, providing
meaningful employment for all who want it and creating functioning healthcare and educational
systems.
This isn't to suggest that these are equivalent concerns. And in fact, they aren't. Absent
something akin to a revolution, the worst possible outcome for the connected insiders engaged
in impeachment-tainment will be moving on to lucrative 'careers' working for private equity and
/ or investing their family fortunes in one world-ending enterprise or another. Four plus
decades into the neoliberal overthrow of 'managed' capitalism, circumstances aren't quite so
universally advantageous for the rest of us. Rising global political unrest seems destined to
bring this division to the fore.
The document argues that the American president "betrayed the Nation" by delaying "the
release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated for the
purpose of providing vital military security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian
aggression."
This is the first impeachment of a sitting president on the claim that he is a "threat to
national security." The types of extraconstitutional arguments used by the US intelligence
agencies to justify mass warrantless wiretapping, torture, "rendition," and the assassination
of an American citizen, within the framework of the "war on terror," are now being used in an
effort to remove a president.
The impeachment drive and the anti-Russia campaign that predated it have involved an
enormous intervention by the CIA and FBI in domestic politics. The impeachment inquiry was
itself triggered by a CIA agent working at the White House, while a recently-released report
shows that the FBI justified a wiretap of a former Trump aide by citing a Ukraine policy change
in the Republican Party's platform.
This process is the first time -- with the possible exception of the dark and murky
events surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy -- that the CIA and associated
intelligence agencies have sought to remove a sitting president. Anyone who supports the
Democrats' impeachment operation, in the hope that removing Trump on these grounds can have
some sort of progressive consequence, is simply ignoring everything the Democrats and their CIA
allies have done and said.
The most extraordinary element of the impeachment proceedings was its almost complete
domination of the issue of US policy in Ukraine. It is of the greatest political significance,
not to mention strangely ironic, that the United States' instigation of the 2014 fascist-led
coup in Kiev has had far reaching consequences for political life in the US. In order to carry
through the implementation of the confrontation with Russia, which was the rationale behind the
coup, the intelligence agencies that determine the policy of the Democratic Party have been
compelled to seek the impeachment of Trump.
In 1986, the Iran-Contra scandal was triggered by the revelation that the Reagan
administration had concocted a scheme to sell arms to Iran, in order to buy weapons to finance
an illegal war against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. That investigation revealed that the
Reagan administration flagrantly violated the Boland Amendment, passed by Congress to prohibit
US government assistance to the Contras.
But in this case, the main charge is that Trump held up the disbursing of money that was
allocated by Congress to promote a war that is being planned entirely behind the backs of the
American people.
The antidemocratic impulses behind the impeachment drive were summed up by the comments of
the arch-warmonger Thomas Friedman, who wrote in the New York Times yesterday,
"Generally speaking, I believe presidents should be elected and removed by the voters at the
polls. But when I hear Trump defenders scream, 'Impeachment subverts the will of the people,' I
say: "Really?"
To say that "generally speaking" the leadership of the country should be selected by voters,
is to say that this should only be the case when it suits the CIA, FBI, and the military.
Friedman's real complaint is not that Trump was subverting "the will of the people," but
that he was subverting what dominant factions of the intelligence agencies consider the
geostrategic imperatives of the American ruling class.
For all the Democrats' talk of "corruption," "obstruction of justice," "bribery," and an
"organized crime shakedown," the real reasons for the impeachment stand starkly revealed as
differences over how best to conduct the predatory policies of American imperialism.
Both the Trump presidency and the impeachment campaign of the Democrats are different
manifestations of the deep and intractable crisis of American democracy. Trump has threatened
to turn the impeachment struggle into a "civil war," implying that he could appeal to his
armed, far-right supporters to defend him against what he has called a "deep-state coup."
The Democrats' campaign against "foreign meddling" that framed the impeachment drive has
provided the framework for imposing domestic censorship measures, with the intelligence
agencies and representatives of both parties recruiting Google, Facebook and Twitter to demote
and delete left-wing, anti-war and socialist publications, pages, and groups.
But even as Trump and his Democratic opponents frantically denounce one another as traitors
and demand each other's prosecution, there has, at the same time, emerged a remarkable
bipartisan unity on fundamental issues facing US imperialism.
This was made perfectly clear this week with the rapid-fire announcement, by congressional
Democrats, of agreements on two landmark pieces of legislation: The USMCA anti-China trade deal
and the passage of the biggest military budget in US history.
The military budget, passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives yesterday,
establishes a new branch of the US armed forces, the Space Force, while levelling sanctions
against Russia, China, Turkey and North Korea.
"Wow! All of our priorities have made it into the final NDAA," Trump gloated, noting in
particular the removal of language preventing Pentagon funds being used for his immigration
crackdown. Amid soaring social inequality, all factions of the American ruling elite are
dedicated to war abroad and attacks on democratic rights at home.
The political crisis in Washington is framed by the global upsurge of the class struggle and
the deepening crisis of US imperialism.
The past six months have seen an unprecedented expansion of the class struggle all over the
world. Mass protests against inequality have broken out from Chile, to Puerto Rico, to Lebanon
and Iraq. Autoworkers have gone on strike in Mexico and the United States, while much of the
Paris Metro remains shut down, amid a strike wave throughout France. A recent issue of
Time magazine, entitled "How America's Elites Lost Their Grip," notes with concern the
growing audience for socialism throughout the country.
Just as important is the series of setbacks for US imperialism's efforts, in the wake of the
dissolution of the USSR, to preserve its global hegemony through military violence.
In 2003, when the US invaded Iraq, the World Socialist Web Site noted , "Whatever the outcome of
the initial stages of the conflict that has begun, American imperialism has a rendezvous with
disaster. It cannot conquer the world. It cannot reimpose colonial shackles upon the masses of
the Middle East. It will not find through the medium of war a viable solution to its internal
maladies. Rather, the unforeseen difficulties and mounting resistance engendered by war will
intensify all of the internal contradictions of American society."
We will see... I am skeptical about idea that Brennan will be indicted.
But this article supports the idea that impeachment was a counterattack of Brannan faction of CIA and Clinton mafia against
Barr and Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... Former CIA officer and counter-intelligence expert Kevin Shipp says that former Obama Administration Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder gave a big Deep State panic signal when he wrote in an Op-Ed last week in the Washington Post trashing current AG William Barr and his top prosecutor John Durham ..."
"... We have to understand it was Eric Holder that Barack Obama used to target the heads of corporations that spoke out publicly about Barack Obama. We know Holder was held in 'Contempt of Congress.' He spied on AP reporters, ran guns to drug cartels and blacked out the information. He spied on over a hundred journalists, and on and on we go... ..."
"... when Holder comes out and puts out this bombshell in the Washington Post, which is another indication that indictments are coming. John Brennan, former Obama Administration CIA Director, is going to be at the top of the list. " ..."
"... during the entire Trump Presidency, the mainstream media (MSM) has operated as a propaganda arm of the Deep State and the Democrats ..."
"... Shipp says the hoax of Russia collusion and the impeachment sham of President Trump is distracting us from other very big problems such as the extreme debt the country and the world is facing . Shipp says, ..."
Former CIA officer and counter-intelligence expert Kevin Shipp says that former Obama
Administration Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder gave a big Deep State panic signal when he
wrote in an Op-Ed last week in the Washington Post trashing current AG William Barr and his top
prosecutor John Durham. Shipp explains,
"This is very significant. We all remember that Holder was Obama's right hand man. Eric
Holder was Barack Obama's enforcer. The fact that Holder comes out this quickly after the
Inspector General (IG) Horowitz Report comes out... and makes this veiled threat against
Durham's reputation. The fact that Eric Holder came out and made this statement is a clear
indication to me they are running scared.
We have to understand it was Eric Holder that Barack Obama used to target the heads of
corporations that spoke out publicly about Barack Obama. We know Holder was held in 'Contempt
of Congress.' He spied on AP reporters, ran guns to drug cartels and blacked out the
information. He spied on over a hundred journalists, and on and on we go...
They (Deep State) are convinced there are going to be indictments. Secondly, there is AG
Barr's outrage over (IG) Horowitz's report and what it did not do. He made statements that
there was spying and actions by government officials that need to be criminally looked into.
Barr's outrage over this shows me that there are going to be indictments, and that he is
taking this seriously. Again, when Holder comes out and puts out this bombshell in the
Washington Post, which is another indication that indictments are coming. John Brennan,
former Obama Administration CIA Director, is going to be at the top of the list. "
Shipp says during the entire Trump Presidency, the mainstream media (MSM) has operated as a
propaganda arm of the Deep State and the Democrats . Shipp contends,
"They put these stories out intentionally because they are creating their own story, and
that is what the propaganda mainstream media does. It creates its own story...
They want to frame their latest story that there really wasn't any spying on Trump. That's
what FISA warrants and applications are all about. They are all about spying ."
Shipp thinks this will be a big nail in the coffin of the MSM. Shipp says, "The mainstream
media will never come back from this..."
"...because finally, through shows like this and others, the real information is coming
out as to what the mainstream media has done . At the top of that list is the New York Times,
the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC...
What they did is they created the Russia collusion story as if it was reality, as if it
was real. That is part of the procedure in doing this. Then, they invented the evidence, and
that was the Steele Dossier. They portrayed this as evidence to create this false narrative.
Then they sent this story out to each outlet, and all repeat the same story over and over and
over again knowing the more they repeat it, the more people were going to believe it. Then,
the FBI leaked information to the mainstream media. The FBI took that information leaked to
the media and used their stories as evidence. Brennan leaked the dossier to the mainstream
media as part of this whole machine."
Shipp says the hoax of Russia collusion and the impeachment sham of President Trump is
distracting us from other very big problems such as the extreme debt the country and the world
is facing . Shipp says,
"Trump inherited a financial monster that was not his doing. When he was sworn into
office, it already existed. It is very serious, and I think now or very soon the U.S.
government will not be able to afford the interest on the national debt, much less paying off
the debt itself."
It is reported that central banks are buying record amounts of gold, and even Goldman Sachs
is telling its clients to buy the yellow metal. Shipp says,
" This is a solid indicator that we are headed for the financial rapids with Goldman Sachs
especially. Goldman Sachs is a global bank, and it's one of the main banks in the United
States. The fact that Sachs and others are building up gold reserves is a clear indication
that they expect a financial downturn, to put it mildly, that is coming. "
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with former CIA Officer and whistleblower Kevin Shipp.
I kinda think that everyone is holding off to see if Trump gets re-elected.
If he does then there will be indictments, jail time, and a real cleaning of the
house.
The guys in the middle of this investigation depose the "liberal" old guard and offer
sacrifices to their own "conservative" god of filth. Same Mammon, just a different order of
worship.
If he doesn't get re-elected then the guys that are investigating this can just slink back
into the current slime and survive in some basic way.
I have seen this dynamic when companies merge as equals. Everybody is afraid to act
because the stakes are so high. It's a chess game played by ruthless cowards.
This article is so much weaker then his testimony that it is a great disappointment. May be threats has had a shilling effects.
This is a Kabuki theater. Both sides are afraid to talk about the real issues such as CIA/FBI intrusion in 2016 elections and the
coup d'état to depose Trump after it. As well as Trump support of Yemen war, Douma false flag operation, the role of Obama
administration in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Skripals poisoning false flag operation, etc
Notable quotes:
"... Yet, they would prefer guaranteed failure rather than build a credible case for removal. Why? The reasons put forward by House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and others are not credible and, given the paucity of examination given these claims, it is worth closer scrutiny. ..."
"... he flopped on his face when he said " It certainly was not akin to the Russian hacking operation in 2016." ..."
"... WHAT Russian hacking operation, fella? Technology has already proven the "hacking" was a download to a thumb-drive done MANUALLY. ..."
"... Here is another article that says "the Russians hacked". If they use this lie enough than it will become fact. ..."
"... Turley asks, but doesn't answer. The obvious answer, is they don't have any good reason or case to impeach Trump, and they just disagree with him politically. As Turley says, the case will be "summarily rejected". There are many elections in the coming months, though mostly at the state level: https://election-calendar.com/ ..."
"... Turley thinks there is a case if the Dems just spend more time developing it? I think this guy is just trying to get out from under all the hate mail for himself he generated telling the truth at the impeachment tribunal. ..."
"... Turley dishonors himself trying to look now more in the impeachment camp when he told the truth in the first place...at the Hearing....It is obvious now he is trying to save his job at a left wing school....maybe he needs to find some independent or moderate school to teach at for he is now showing a yellow streak down his back. ..."
"... If Washington DC were NOT a den of crooks, it shouldn't need a newspaper like The Washington Post to paint everything pearly white. ..."
"... The crookedness is proportional to the count of starched collars ..."
The House Judiciary Committee is about to approve two articles of impeachment as member after member last night declared that
time is of the essence. The House is now set to fulfill its pledge to impeach President Donald Trump by Christmas. For some us, the
mad rush toward impeachment by the Democrats has been utterly incomprehensible. It is difficult enough to go to the Senate in a presidential
impeachment without an accepted crime and on the narrowest basis in history. However, the Democrats know that they have combined
those liabilities with the thinnest record of any modern impeachment – a record filled with gaps and conflicts. The Democrats know
that this record is guaranteed to fail and could easily justify the Senate holding a trial as cursory as its hearings.
Yet, they would prefer guaranteed failure rather than build a credible case for removal. Why? The reasons put forward by House
Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and others are not credible and, given the paucity of examination given these
claims, it is worth closer scrutiny.
So why? The answer to that question will likely occupy historians for decades after this slipshod impeachment is summarily rejected.
In the impeachment hearing, I testified that President Donald Trump could be impeached for abuse of power but that the record was
facially inadequate and incomplete. I encouraged the Committee to just take a few more months to subpoena roughly ten witnesses with
direct evidence and secure judicial orders that I believe would support the Committee on its obstruction article. While I was relieved
to see the Committee drop the allegations of bribery, extortion, and other crimes that I testified against, it refused to simply
take a little more time to develop a more complete case.
None of the excuses for the pledge to impeach by Christmas are even remotely plausible. They can be divided into two basic groupings:
court challenges would take too much time and there is a crime in progress that must be stopped.
No Time To Wait
First, there is the argument by Chairman Schiff in response to the criticism over the short investigation (which even the New
York Times has challenged). Schiff insisted that waiting will mean a guarantee of that there will be no impeachment while also guaranteeing
that there will be foreign meddling in the 2020 election: "People should understand what that argument really means. It has taken
us eight months to get a lower court ruling that Don McGahn has no absolute right to defy Congress. Eight months for one court decision."
As has consistently been the case, no major media outfit seemed interested to fact check that statement. It happens to be untrue.
The House waited until August 7th to go to court to compel McGahn's appearance. That was roughly four months ago, not eight. It
was also filed before the House voted to start the impeachment inquiry on October 31st. Back in January, I testified in the House
Judiciary Committee and pushed the Committee to hold such a vote to allow for expedited cases over testimony like McGahn's. At the
time, I warned that the House was running out of runway to get an impeachment off the ground. With such a vote, these cases could
have moved at the accelerated pace of an impeachment.
The question is why would the House not only refuse to try to secure these witnesses but actually withdraw a subpoena before
a ruling in the Kupperman.
Turley asks, but doesn't answer. The obvious answer, is they don't have any good reason or case to impeach Trump, and they
just disagree with him politically. As Turley says, the case will be "summarily rejected". There are many elections in the coming
months, though mostly at the state level: https://election-calendar.com/
Half the Dems want impeachment to get the TDS vote from their gerrymandered heavily Democrat districts. They've gerrymandered
their districts into ones that do not represent the majority of the country, and it's going to bite them as the few socialists
that get elected, will get nothing done, and swing districts will swing to the GOP giving them a House majority, and GOP control
of all branches. They got rid of more competitive districts, so they don't have to serve conservatives, and they won't regardless
if they win or lose. They've manufactured their own demise.
At least Trump reaches out to liberals, while liberals denigrate and show their hate for conservatives, as their reps like
Mad Maxine call for more hate.
Turley thinks there is a case if the Dems just spend more time developing it? I think this guy is just trying to get out
from under all the hate mail for himself he generated telling the truth at the impeachment tribunal.
Funny you are saying that, I thought the same thing. Screw him, you either have honor all the time or not at all. Some of the
clowns think it is like being funny, sometimes you are not at all.
Turley dishonors himself trying to look now more in the impeachment camp when he told the truth in the first place...at
the Hearing....It is obvious now he is trying to save his job at a left wing school....maybe he needs to find some independent
or moderate school to teach at for he is now showing a yellow streak down his back.
NYT fails to state that the most plausible scenario was that CIA send Page to join Trump
campaign, then to establish contacts with Russians and after that obtain FICA warrants in a
typical false flag operation manner. Essentially Trump campaign was entrapped.
First, when agents initially sought permission for the wiretap, F.B.I. officials scoured
information from confidential informants and selectively presented portions that supported
their suspicions that Mr. Page might be a conduit between Russia and the Trump campaign's
onetime chairman, Paul Manafort.
But officials did not disclose information that undercut that allegation -- such as the fact
that Mr. Page had told an informant in August 2016 that he "never met" or "said one word" to
Mr. Manafort, who had never returned Mr. Page's emails. Even if the investigators did not
necessarily believe Mr. Page, the court should have been told what he had said.
Second, as the initial court order was nearing its expiration and law-enforcement officials
prepared to ask the surveillance court to renew it, the F.B.I. had uncovered information that
cast doubt on some of its original assertions. But law enforcement officials never reported
that new information to the court.
Specifically, the application included allegations about Mr. Page contained in a dossier
compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent whose research was funded
by Democrats. In January 2017, the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Steele's own primary source, and he
contradicted what Mr. Steele had written in the dossier.
The source for Mr. Steele may, of course, have been lying. But either way, officials should
have flagged the disconnect for the court. Instead, the F.B.I. reported that its agents had met
with the source to "further corroborate" the dossier and found him to be "truthful and
cooperative," leaving a misleading impression in renewal applications.
Finally, the report stressed Mr. Page's long history of meeting with Russian intelligence
officials. But he had also said that he had a relationship with the C.I.A., and it turns out
that he had for years told the agency about those meetings -- including one that was cited in
the wiretap application as a reason to be suspicious of him.
That relationship could have mitigated some suspicions about his history. But the F.B.I.
never got to the bottom of it, and the court filings said nothing about Mr. Page's dealings
with the C.I.A.
The inspector general's report contains many more examples of errors and omissions. Mr.
Horowitz largely blamed lower-level F.B.I. agents charged with preparing the evidence, but he
also faulted high-level supervisors for permitting a culture in which the inaccuracies took
place.
The recent shootings of three U.S. soldiers in Florida at the hands of a Saudi citizen raises a standard question in the U.S.
government's perpetual "war on terrorism": "Why do they hate us?"
Soon after the 9/11 attacks, the official mantra began being issued: The terrorists just hate us for our "freedom and values."
No other explanation for motive was to be considered. If anyone suggested an alternative motive -- such as "They are retaliating
for U.S. governmental killings over there" -- U.S. officials and interventionists would immediately go on the attack, heaping a mountain
of calumny on that person, accusing him of treason, hating America, loving the terrorists, and justifying their attacks.
It happened to me and other libertarians who dared to challenge the official motive behind the 9/11 attacks. Shortly after the
attacks, I spoke at a freedom conference in Arizona consisting of both libertarians and conservatives. When I pointed out that the
attacks were the predictable consequence of a foreign policy that kills people over there, another of the speakers was filled with
anger and rage over such an "unpatriotic" suggestion. Then, a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, FFF published an article by me entitled,
" Is This the Wrong Time
to Question Foreign Policy? " in which I pointed out the role that U.S. interventionism had played in the attacks. FFF was hit
with the most nasty and angry attacks I have ever seen.
Eighteen years later, the evidence is virtually conclusive that the reason that the United States has been suffering a constant,
never-ending threat of terrorism is because U.S. military and CIA forces have been killing people in the Middle East and Afghanistan
since at least the end of the Cold War, and even before.
After all, if the terrorists hate us for our "freedom and values," why haven't they been attacking the Swiss? They have pretty
much the same freedom and values that Americans have. And they are much closer geographically to Middle East terrorists than the
United States is. Why haven't the terrorists been attacking them?
The answer is simple: the Swiss government, unlike the U.S. government, hasn't been killing, maiming, and injuring people and
hasn't been bombing and destroying countries in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
A long history of U.S. interventionism
U.S. interventions in the Middle East began, of course, long before the 9/11 attacks. There was the 1953 CIA coup that destroyed
Iran's experiment with democracy with a coup that replaced the democratically elected prime minister of the country with a tyrannical
pro-U.S. dictator. Not surprisingly, that produced the violent Iranian revolution almost 25 years later. The Iranian revolutionaries
didn't hate America for its "freedom and values." They hated America for the U.S. government's installation, training, and support
of the tyrannical regime against which they revolted.
In the 1980s, there was the sending of U.S. troops into Lebanon as interventionist "peacekeepers." The terrorists ended up blowing
up a Marine barracks, killing 241 U.S. soldiers. The terrorists didn't hate America for its "freedom and values." They hated America
for the federal government's interventionism into Lebanon. As soon as all U.S. troops were withdrawn from Lebanon, which was the
right thing to do, there were obviously no more deaths of U.S. soldiers in that country.
It was after the Pentagon and the CIA lost their official Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia), that they proceeded
headlong into the Middle East and began killing multitudes of people. There was the Persian Gulf War, waged without the constitutionally
required congressional declaration of war, where thousands of Iraqis were killed or injured. That was followed by a decade of brutal
sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.
Thus, when Ramzi Yousef, one of the terrorists who tried to bring down the World Trade Center with a bomb in 1993, appeared before
a federal judge for sentencing, he angrily told the judge that it was U.S. officials who were the butchers, for killing multitudes
of innocent children in Iraq.
As those Iraqi children were dying, there were retaliatory terrorist strikes on the USS Cole and the U.S. embassies in East Africa.
Once again, however, U.S. officials continued to steadfastly maintain that was all about hatred for America's "freedom and values"
and had nothing to do with the deadly and destructive U.S. interventionism in the Middle East.
Then came Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States, in which he expressly cited U.S. interventionism in
the Middle East as his motivating factor. That was followed by the 9/11 attacks, along with other terrorist attacks both here and
abroad. Through it all, U.S. officials and interventionists have blindly maintained that the terrorists hate us for our "freedom
and values," not because the U.S. government kills, maims, injures, and destroys people over there.
The recent Florida killings
And now we have the latest killing spree, this one at the hands of a Saudi citizen in Florida. According to
a story in yesterday's Washington Post about the killing of three U.S. soldiers, the killer, Ahmed Mohammed al-Shamrani
was described as "strange" and "angry." "He looked like he was angry at the world," said one person who knew him. Another said that
he looked at people in an "angry, challenging" way.
The article says that "the FBI has not yet determined a motive for the mass shooting."
Well, of course it hasn't. That's undoubtedly because the FBI hasn't yet found any statements in which the killer states that
he hates America for its "freedom and values."
But the Post article does point out something quite interesting. The article states: "The gunman, who was shot dead by
a sheriff's deputy responding to the shooting, is thought to have written a 'will' that was posted to the account a few hours before
the rampage. In it, he blasts U.S. policies in Muslim countries."
Well, isn't that interesting! Unfortunately, the Post didn't provide a verbatim transcript of the killer's "will" in which
he "blasts U.S. policies in the Muslim countries." The Post does point out though that "the writer says he does not dislike
Americans per se -- 'I don't hate you because of your freedoms,' he begins -- but that he hates U.S. policies that he views as anti-Muslim
and 'evil.'"
I n an article at antiwar.com entitled, " Pensacola: Blowback Terrorism ," Scott Horton provides a verbatim transcript of the
killer's "will," in which the killer states in part:
I'm not against you for just being American, I don't hate you for your freedom, I hate you because every day you supporting,
funding, and committing crimes not only against Muslims but also humanity. I am against evil, and America as a whole has turned
into a nation of evil. What I see from America is the supporting of Israel which is invasion of Muslim countrie, I see invasion
of many countries by it's troops, I see Guantanamo Bay. I see cruise missiles, cluster bombs and UAV.
Now, if one goes back to Ramzi Yousef's sentencing hearing in 1995 -- some 24 years ago -- one will see that Yousef angrily said
much the same thing to the federal judge who was getting ready to sentence him to jail for his 1993 terrorist attack on the World
Trade Center.
Americans have a choice:
One, continue the U.S. government's decades-long killing spree in the Middle East, in which case America will continue to experience
never-ending terrorist retaliation, the perpetual "war on terrorism, and the ongoing destruction of our liberty and privacy at the
hands of our government, which is purportedly protecting us from the terrorist threats that it produces with its foreign interventionism.
Or, two, stop U.S. forces from killing any more people, bring them all home and discharge them, which would help get America back
on the right track, one toward liberty, peace, prosperity, morality, normality, and harmony with the world.
This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received
his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for
twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987,
Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced
freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren
shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch . View these interviews at
LewRockwell.com and from
Full Context
. Send him email .
The Hill reports that a man in Illinois has been charged after allegedly threatening to
shoot Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) and accusing the congressman of "backing the Russians."
Rodney Lee Davis
64-year-old Randall Tar of Rochester, Ill. was charged with communicating threats to injure
a person and threatening to assault, kidnap or murder a federal official, according to court
documents released this week (full release below).
Contacted at his home Thursday, Tarr said he saw a television ad in which Davis, a
Republican from Taylorville, claimed that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for meddling in
the 2016 U.S. elections , and it angered him enough to call.
Prosecutors say Tarr called Davis's district office last month and left a profanity-filled
voicemail, saying:
"I just saw you ... on the TV. You backing the Russians, boy?"
"Stupid son of a bitch, you're gonna go against our military and back the Russians?" he
allegedly added.
"I'm a sharpshooter. ... I'd like to shoot your f---ing head off you stupid
motherf---er."
The bigger story is the number of mentally unstable Americans. When you go driving next,
remember that about 20% of them are gorked on prescribed medications. The behavior you will
observe makes complete sense in that context.
It's surprisingly easy to get bogged down in the nonsense of the moment when this is what's
actually happening: the impeachment of the president, and a struggle over the power of the
presidency and of the Congress, over the integrity of elections in the United States, and over
the Constitution and the republic.
We're almost certainly heading for a party-line vote in the House with only a handful of
defections, and there's every reason to believe the Senate trial will yield similar results.
But there are some unanswered questions that could prove quite important in the long
term.
Will Trump, and will future presidents, be more restrained because even impeachment and
acquittal is still a sufficient punishment? Or will it backfire? Will Trump believe, if he is
not removed, that pressuring a foreign nation to help his re-election bid and then stiff-arming
Congress when they investigate it now has a seal of approval? We don't know. Nor do we really
know how the specifics of the Senate trial -- whether witnesses are called, what the final vote
is -- will matter.
Judge Marcus Alfonso Paralapalos of the conservative 51st District Court of Warrants, has
ordered the medical treatment files for Nancy Pelosi's alcoholism unsealed and available to the
general public. While technically a violation of about 11 laws, Judge Paralopolos stands by his
ruling, fully expecting it to be overturned:
"The public has a right to know if the Speaker of the House is undergoing treatment for
alcoholism and bloogie addiction. The 9th Circuit Court will certainly overrule this, but I
cannot in good conscience deny the motion to the plaintiff."
The plaintiff, Rudy Giuliani on behalf of the people of the United States, will now have to
find a way to convince a panel of liberals that it's in the country's best interests to see the
private treatment notes of one of our most powerful elected officials.
Let's face it. Even Trump had his doctor weigh in on his mental and physical well-being,
calling him the healthiest 78-year-old of all time. It's not like they're asking for her tax
returns. Nancy Pelosi should have to be seen and certified by a mental health professional. She
sits way too close to power not to.
This whole Schiff-Show is just bizarre. Why are the Dems doing this? In an election
year to boot? There is just zero chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office, and
the case against him is a total laughing stock anyway. All that's going to happen is that the
senators are going to start discussing L'affaire Biden openly and loudly, thereby
killing the Dem's current front-runner. Is that what Pelosi wants? Meanwhile, none of their
other three dozen or so candidates are going to get any media at all, once this impeachment
sucks all the oxygen right out of the room. Is that intentional?
Notable quotes:
"... Stating that he had not voted for Trump in 2016, GWU Law P rofessor Jonathan Turley who is a registered Democrat (as is yours truly) opened with a brilliant statement as he set the tone for an extraordinarily compelling testimony throughout the day, carefully explaining to the Democrats why they had not met a credible legal threshold for impeachment. ..."
"... Factually concise with rational, impartial explanations, Turley effectively disputed Democratic claims that an abuse of power stemming from a presumed effort to help one's own re-election is " inferred " and does not constitute proof of intent or direct knowledge of what was in the President's mind. ..."
"... What the Democrats fail to grasp is the double-standard that every politician makes decisions based on what is best for their reelection just as the Dems are hoping to benefit electorally in 2020 with the farcical impeachment. ..."
"... After his testimony, Mr. Turley tweeted. " Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with (death) threatening messages and demands that I be fired from GW. " ..."
"... For instance, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala) asked the defining question regarding the purpose of the hearing with "no fact witnesses " via a process that has been " insufficient, unprecedented and grossly inadequate ." Roby pointed out that the Dems had apparently not considered: that a constitutional law panel should come " only after specific charges have been made known and underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. How does anyone expect a panel of law professors to weigh in on legal grounds for impeachment prior to knowing what the grounds brought by this Committee are going to be ? ..."
"... Did any of those 31 notice when the Constitutional law experts were asked by Rep. Matt Gaetz " Can you identify one single material fact in the Schiff Report? – all four remained silent. ..."
"... As the Democratic party appears to have lost whatever is left of its sanity and integrity, the question remains why are the Democrats willing to sacrifice losing some of those 31 House seats in 2020? ..."
"... You recall Bill Maher's comment before a previous election. "The Republicans have shifted to the right and the Dems have shifted right into the insane asylum." ..."
"... It is always good to hear of committed political activsts demanding that their own party stick to fundamental principles of justice, adherence to the Constitution etc etc. There does come a point when you have to ask whether this is temporary insanity or metastatic terminal cancer. If it is the latter, America needs new political parties ..."
Despite an inadequate performance last week by Constitutional law experts before the House
Judiciary Committee, Chair Jerrold Nadler released a unilateral committee report on Saturday
entitled " Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment ." The Report came the day after
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press conference
in which she directed the formation of Articles of Impeachment.
As has become apparent to any objective observer; that is one who prefers facts over
fiction, the Democrats remain locked in an imaginary world struggling to maintain relevance, a
stature of standing that no longer exists.
Presumably with no Quid Pro Quo, no allegation of criminal conduct, no legally substantial
evidence or factual basis and no bipartisan support, in defiance of previous impeachment norms,
the Democrats are hell bent on making public jackasses out of themselves.
In a hearing with
Constitutional legal experts expected to score big legal points in support of impeachment,
the witnesses instead turned out to be smug, hyper partisan activists as they were consistently
unpersuasive and unimpressive .
All three displayed not a wit of objectivity or neutrality while touting their own personal
political agenda with a foreign policy ax to grind, leaving the unmistakable impression that
their testimonies were nothing short of conflated.
Condescending as if pontificating to a class of mediocre law students,
Professor Noah Feldman had suggested in 2017 that Presidential tweets could be grounds for
impeachment, indicative of the depth of his thinking as he repeatedly impressed himself with
his own rhetoric.
Professor Pamela Karlan opened with a shrillness that grew into a hyperbole spewing
divisiveness among the American people and went on to revisit the Russiagate and foreign
electoral influence myth ad nauseam. Those dim witted Democrats on the committee repeated the
mantra as if held in a spellbound trance whenever "Russiagate" was mentioned. There was no
mention of Israel interference in US elections. Testimony of
Professor Michael Gerhardt .
Stating that he had not voted for Trump in 2016, GWU Law P
rofessor Jonathan Turley who is a registered Democrat (as is yours truly) opened with a
brilliant statement as he set the tone for an extraordinarily compelling testimony
throughout the day, carefully explaining to the Democrats why they had not met a credible legal
threshold for impeachment.
Factually concise with rational, impartial explanations, Turley effectively disputed
Democratic claims that an abuse of power stemming from a presumed effort to help one's own
re-election is " inferred " and does not constitute proof of intent or direct knowledge of what
was in the President's mind.
However, it did not appear that any of the Democrats had the acute sensibility to understand
Turley's point as there is an edge of lunacy to the collective Democratic mind these days.
What the Democrats fail to grasp is the double-standard that every politician makes
decisions based on what is best for their reelection just as the Dems are hoping to benefit
electorally in 2020 with the farcical impeachment.
After his testimony, Mr. Turley tweeted. " Before I
finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with (death) threatening messages and
demands that I be fired from GW. "
While it was surprising that there was no Democratic Star on either the Intel or Judiciary
Committees who stepped forward to make a credible, cogent case for impeachment, it was somewhat
surprising that the Republicans had an energetic array of participating Members not limited to
Intel ranking member Devin Nunes (Calif), Judiciary ranking minority Rep. Doug Collins (NC),
Rep. Jim Jordan (Oh), Rep. John Ratcliffe (Texas) and Rep. Mark Gaetz (R-Fla) all of whom can
be expected to continue their Bulldog approach as the Committee begins preparing Articles of
Impeachment.
For instance, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala) asked the defining question regarding the purpose of
the hearing with "no fact witnesses " via a process that has been " insufficient,
unprecedented and grossly inadequate ." Roby pointed out that the Dems had apparently not
considered: that a constitutional law panel should come " only after specific charges have been
made known and underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. How does
anyone expect a panel of law professors to weigh in on legal grounds for impeachment prior to
knowing what the grounds brought by this Committee are going to be ?
At her news conference the day after the Judiciary committee hearing, Pelosi was asked by a
reporter " Do you
hate President Trump ?" Pelosi responded with a shaky false piety as if she knows the votes
are not there:
We don't hate anybody. Not anybody in the World. And as a Catholic, I resent your using
the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me. I don't hate anyone. I was raised in a way
that is full – a heart full of love and always pray for the president, And I still pray
for the president. I pray for the president all the time, So don't mess with me when it comes
to words like that.
It is a curiosity that with the 2020 election a scant twelve months away, the Democrats have
not made the case for the urgency of why impeachment needs to occur right now, immediately,
before the Christmas holidays when the Spirit of Good Cheer, Universal Love and Peace for all
Americans should take precedence over the Democrat's divisive animosity, pitting one American
against another.
In 2018, thirty-one new Democrats were elected to the House; predominately from districts
that voted for Trump in 2016 assuring a tough 2020 re-election campaign.
Let's assume that every one of those 31 newbies have been paying very close attention to the
Intel and Judiciary committee hearings with two questions in mind:
Is there sufficient legal evidence to convince my constituents to support Articles of
Impeachment and is this flawed impeachment campaign worth losing my seat in Congress?
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-0SC) has already indicated that he does
not intend to 'whip" the Dems in preparation for an Impeachment vote on the House floor and
that the Dems "expect to lose some votes."
Let's do the math: With 233 Dems and 197 Republicans, if 18 of the 31 House newbies do not
vote to impeach, the Democratic Motion to approve Articles of Impeachment will fail with a tie
of 215 votes. Whether the Dems lose 18 votes or less, the damage will be irreversible.
As the Democratic party appears to have lost whatever is left of its sanity and integrity,
the question remains why are the Democrats willing to sacrifice losing some of those 31 House
seats in 2020?
Seamus Padraig ,
This whole Schiff-Show is just bizarre. Why are the Dems doing this? In an election
year to boot? There is just zero chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office, and
the case against him is a total laughing stock anyway. All that's going to happen is that the
senators are going to start discussing L'affaire Biden openly and loudly, thereby
killing the Dem's current front-runner. Is that what Pelosi wants? Meanwhile, none of their
other three dozen or so candidates are going to get any media at all, once this impeachment
sucks all the oxygen right out of the room. Is that intentional?
All I can say is, you have to really dig all the way to the bottom of the tinfoil-cooler
to find an explanation for this one. Others it makes no sense whatsoever.
wardropper ,
This person has made herself ridiculous by refusing to impeach GWB in 2003, when she knew he
was lying about Iraq's weapons.
What has Trump done which is comparable to that death toll?
Proof enough that Washington has nothing more to say to human beings.
The place belongs in The Book of Revelation – and not in the optimistic part
George Cornell ,
So your argument consists essentially of name-calling to exercise your own demons. You make
Trump look good, like the other stark raving lunatics opining on this , many in the
Democratic Party. You have zero chance of unseating Trump by impeachment and by the looks of
things that might not be such a bad thing, he said, making the sign of the cross and mouthing
pagan incantations, begging forgiveness from the ether.
You recall Bill Maher's comment before a previous election. "The Republicans have shifted
to the right and the Dems have shifted right into the insane asylum."
Rhys Jaggar ,
Would Ms Parsons like to write an OpEd on the US Senate pushing forward false narratives that
Russia is 'a promoter of terrorism'?
The biggest promoter of terrorism workdwide since 1945 is the USA, be it through OSS, CIA,
or other outsourced channels of coup-promoting violence .
Is it not time a motion were voted upon in the UN on precisely that postulate?
wardropper ,
Unfortunately, as you know, the UN, like NATO, to all intents and purposes actually IS the
USA, and vetoes all criticism of itself. And if vetoing doesn't work, it just ignores the
criticism. Other recent farces at the UN show the US and Israel sitting alone while the rest
of the world condems them, and the condemnation is simply shrugged off.
Astonishing that educated adults put up with it, but there it is.
Rhys Jaggar ,
It is always good to hear of committed political activsts demanding that their own party
stick to fundamental principles of justice, adherence to the Constitution etc etc. There does come a point when you have to ask whether this is temporary insanity or
metastatic terminal cancer. If it is the latter, America needs new political parties
wardropper ,
This person has made herself ridiculous by refusing to impeach GWB in 2003, when she knew he
was lying about Iraq's weapons.
What has Trump done which is comparable to that death toll?
Proof enough that Washington has nothing more to say to human beings.
The place belongs in The Book of Revelation – and not in the optimistic part
The impeachment . The two articles of impeachment are so anemic as to invite ridicule.
1. "Abuse of power" by expressing concern over thievery by Ukrainians and Americans? This is
a charge? The Washington Post has been running a series of articles based on "leaked" US Afghan IG reports and interviews with people involved in that wretched place. These articles reveal
the massive scale of the thievery that lost America enormous amounts of money taken through
graft and bribery. Was it unreasonable for this president to solicit the Ukrainian president's
cooperation in trying to deal with a similar situation in that country. He mentioned Uncle Joe
Biden and his drug addled son? Well, why not? The younger of the two has IMO been used as the
family bag man for collecting protection money. Joe Biden himself looks to me to be a political
version of Jimmy Hoffa the mobbed up Teamsters boss of long ago, but, with less charm, "a
little for you, a lot for me," etc. He was potentially a rival for the 2020 election? He was
not then a candidate. Is every human or semi-human to be exempt from investigation and
prosecution because he MIGHT become a political rival? The Democrats know full well this would
be absurd.
2. "Obstructing congress" What we are seeing in the behavior of the Democratic majority in
the House and minority in the senate is an attempt to seize control of the federal government
using the constitutional powers to "advise and consent" on appointments and the ability to
impeach in the House.. They have not yet tried to impeach federal judges appointed by the other
party but IMO they will try that soon. In this article of impeachment they claim that the
president has obstructed their function by relying on the doctrine of Executive Privilege to
deny them access to his present and past staff. Trump did not invent this doctrine. It is a
well established feature of American law. Without it no president could conduct internal policy
discussions or confidential discussions with foreign leaders. The Democrats know full well that
the principal of Executive Privilege is often contested in the courts. That is what they should
have done this time, but instead they have chosen to charge the president for impeachment for
claiming Executive Privilege. They do not claim this is a violation of law. They merely stamp
their feet and scream that they are unhappy and want him gone.
This farce will end in a trial in the US Senate with the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presiding.
The Republicans control the senate and will not allow Trump to be deposed. The senate can
dismiss the charges by a simple majority vote and that is what Senator Lindsey Graham wants to
see happen. Trump does not want that. He wants to be tried for the purpose of turning the
tables on the Democrats.
I think he is correct in wanting that. If that occurs, witnesses must be subpoenaed and
examined in open court. The Bidens must be so called to demonstrate the reasonable nature of
Trump's concern over their behavior in Ukraine . pl
Just wondering. Suppose the Senate dismisses the Impeachment. Won't the Chief Justice have to
rule on the question of whether or not there is at least probable cause for the democrats'
determination that this is probable cause to Impeach?
Chief Justice could rule on a demurrer which would dismiss the case without a trial - failure
to present prima facie elements of the underlying charge. Therefore nothing of fact is
triable - case dismissed.
Which is probably why Democrats ditched the more specific treason, bribery and extortion
charges, leaving only the garbage can of "abuse of power" and "obstruction" behind. By what
standards of evidence are both those remaining elements - abuse of power and obstruction --
even tried, let alone judged?
Biden on camera bragging about a quid pro quo to fire a prosecutor examining corruption at
a company where Biden's son is on the board taking a fat paycheck with no experience or
expertise to have that position.
I agree that Trump should get his wish. He has endured a lot of false "reporting." And those
untruths need to be shown for what they are. I wonder if Mitch McConnell would be able to
arrange that despite Graham.
I know that Trump's personality attracts that sort of shocked response from some people.
Heck, I'm a Republican and was first also opposed to Trump because of his personality. But
I'm of the opinion that the Democrats and their fawning media characters have earned a lot of
the same sort negative responses and disgust on the part of the people because their
personalities are pretty off-putting also.
I'm still suffering from cognitive dissonance because Adam Schiff has somehow actually
remained in his elected position. I can't imagine a high school principal allowing someone
who does "parody" to continue as a student council candidate.
I do believe that Nancy Pelosi may be really sinking into dementia or alcoholism--just
on the basis of her inability to control her dentures. To have those two criticize the
character of Trump really seems strange. I feel that I'm watching a Dickens novel performed
on national news each day. I can't laugh, though, because this is happening in
reality.
Given the corruption on both sides of the Senate it is probable that no-one wants an in depth
trial during which unwanted facts might accidentally appear. Much better to whisk it through
without it touching the sides so to speak.
OK so Trump doesn't get the exoneration he wants but then nothing will explode in his
face. Its not a win win but then its not a lose either and it is unlikely to seriously affect
his chances next November. Plus as a quid pro quo he might have got his defence spending
increase and the trade bill through.
I'm trying to remember the site I read it on, maybe south front, where the point was made the
graft flows through these governments we give billions to, back through the various
institutes and global initiatives the US politicians set up. McCain and Clinton being the two
mentioned. So neither side wants it looked into too deeply.
A conversation between two heads of state is not and should not be conducted as though the
subject matter of the conversation is subject to the rules and assumptions of a court of
justice.
Graham has a vested interest in not having an extensive trial with many witnesses as it
may uncover his own culpability in the Ukraine corruption. And of course may drag in Saint
McCain too!
His and Mitch's argument to Trump likely would be, that with no trial they can guarantee
acquittal but with a trial they can't.
An article in the Duran indicates that and why Senate Republicans may buck Trump's wishes, as
they are as deep in Ukraine corruption as any of the Dems are. Lindsay, the late John M and
Sleep Joe are perhaps the most deeply planted ...
You mean that with the same investigative power the Obama administration had he has none
of the alleged evidence on senators you allude to? What a wonderful implication from a Cyprus
based media outlet founded in 2016 and run by the host of an RT political show. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-duran/
As of today Trump's approval rating is 43.9% and Congress's approval rating is 24%. I gather
that the House Democrats don't realize how unpopular they are and how many Americans support
"obstruction of Congress". Are they trying to turn Trump into a national hero?
In the legitimate focus on the impeachment, a stunning revelation in the Horowitz report has
been largely overlooked. In January 2017, the FBI conducted three interviews with the key
source to Christopher Steele for his dossier. He told interviewed on all three occasions that
the material he passed on to Steele was gossip and second and third-hand rumors with no
proof. He even said that the sexual allegations were actually a joke and he never meant for
them to be taken serious. The FBI in seeking the follow-on FISA warrant merely reported they
interviewed Steele's source and he was "cooperative and candid." No content reported.
In addition, Horowitz found email exchanges between FBI and CIA, in which the FBI inquired
if Carter Page was a CIA source. Three times the CIA responded "yes." But the FBI agent
preparing the affidavit for the FISA renewal lied and wrote "no" to the question of Page's
CIA work. That was the false statement Horowitz referred to.
These are serious crimes by FBI officials and they should not go unnoted in the MSM or
left to be ignored. I hope that Durham is carefully reading every word of the Horowitz report
for points of criminal misconduct to present to his Federal grand jury.
You can't fully discuss impeachment of Trump without going back to the first cause, and in
this case it was clearly criminal misconduct by Federal law enforcement.
that a bipartisan agreement exists that the Democrats can introduce the impeachment but
the majority Republicans will vote it out without trial.
An approach which seems plausible. But after nigh on four full years of a campaign against
initially a candidate and for the majority of the time the holder of the presidential office
involving lurid allegations might not a trial be helpful in restoring some public confidence
in the body politic? And in reducing the levels of vitriol.
Earlier today a person asked me what was going to happen in the impeachment trial, and I said
that the senate will decide that after the case gets to them. The rules of procedure and
rules of evidence (if any!) will be determined by the senate.
The U.S. Constitution says in Article 1, section 3 that--
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that
Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is
tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: and no Person shall be convicted without the
Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit, under the
United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law".
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Repub. Kentucky) appeared on the Sean
Hannity television show on FoxNews and said in essence that how a trial will proceed is up in
the air, as he explains at the 1 minute mark until 2 minutes and 17 seconds into the
video--
McConnell, as usual, carefully maintains his position, and says that everything he does
about an impeachment trial, "I am coordinating with White House counsel". And, "There will be
no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this to
the extent that we can".
What McConnell is obviously doing is protecting himself no matter what the political
effect of the content of the trial may be.
He says: "We all know how it's going to end. There is no chance the president is going to
be removed from office".
It is worse than that. Groups of current or former high level employees band together to
bid on large scale development contracts. They have local partners and the loot is
tremendous.
"... While the typical BubisAmericanus will have forgotten all the details by then, me thinks the hard core democrats, I mean nomal'ish people that usually vote blue, simply stay home. ..."
"... Was this whole impeachment thing completely designed for the dems to fall on their sword and put the Donald back in for another 4? Dunno. ..."
They want to do it by Christmas in the vain hope that this circus will all blow over by
November. I think not.
While the typical BubisAmericanus will have forgotten all the details by then, me thinks
the hard core democrats, I mean nomal'ish people that usually vote blue, simply stay
home.
Part of me, however, thinks back to something that Harry Truman said, "in politics there
are no accidents" .
Was this whole impeachment thing completely designed for the dems to fall on their sword
and put the Donald back in for another 4? Dunno.
The Republicans will have both houses when in 2024 the the tax take will barley cover
interest.
designed for the dems to fall on their sword and put the Donald back in for another 4?
Dunno.
Been thinking along the same lines. May be the last thing they want is to be "on line" in
2021. I even wonder if CNN and BSNBC, etc, are there to DRIVE the decent Democrat to the
Republicians.
No reputable legal authority would fear ensuring due process for an accused, unless it had no evidence of an actual crime
to justify prosecution...but DID have ulterior motives and nefarious purposes for doing so.
Let's be clear.
To date, not a single shred of actual evidence has ever been produced to prove Russian involvement or interference in the
2016 presidential election.
***.
Nada.
We have the opinion of domestic intelligence agencies, but we have no physical or direct evidence.
On the contrary, we have as much reason to believe some or all of them interfered in the Trump campaign, to orchestrate
and execute a foreign interference hoax against Trump, before and after his election.
Daily, and throughout this sick prog left congressional abuse of power, we have repeatedly heard claims of an "ongoing
war with Russia" in Ukraine.
Which war is this? Is this a continuation of the non-invasion of the Donbas in 2014? The specious and false claims of Russian troop concentrations, and tanks rolling, that even spy satellites didn't see? Are we still lying about this? If so, where are the media reports of Russian airstrikes, burning Ukrainian villages, or body bags?
In any "on-going" war with Russia, we would've been treated to near-constant news video of Russian armor all over eastern Ukraine. Have we? Perhaps this war they keep telling us about is like the Russian "invasion" of Crimea that didn't happen either.
We clearly remember the two Crimean-initiated referenda which put them back in their ancestral Russian
homelands, but none of that had anything to do with invading Russians, who already had a substantial military
presence in Crimea for decades.
No sir, Professor Turley.
There is no basis whatsoever for Trump's impeachment.
There is mounting evidence of a continued coup against this president, and the substantial number of Americans
who actually elected him.
We too are closely monitoring the actual situation...
As Tony Kevin reported (watch-v=dJiS3nFzsWg) at one small fundraiser
Bill Clinton made an interesting remark. He said that the USA should always have enemies. That's absolutely true, this this
is a way to unite such a society as we have in the USA. probably the only way. And Russia simply fits the
bill. Very convenient bogeyman.
Notable quotes:
"... The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium. ..."
One aspect of this report in the NYT is very troubling but not a great surprise to those who
pay attention to Asian affairs.
The reports that US military leaders had no idea of what to
do in Afghanistan and constantly lied to the public should rouse citizens in America to take
a different view of military leaders. That view must be to trust nothing coming from the
Pentagon or from spokespersons for the military. Included must be any and all secretaries of defence, and all branches of the military.
It is totally unacceptable that 1-2 trillion dollars and several thousand lives were spent
by America for some nebulous cause. This does not include many thousands of civilians.
During the Vietnam disaster, it became obvious that American military was lying to the
public and taking many causalities in an unwinnable war. Nothing was learned about Asia or
Asian culture because America entered Afghanistan without a real plan and no understanding of
the country or it's history.
The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up
all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and
America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in
Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which
has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium.
The USA "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine requires weakening and, if possible, partitioning Russia.
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin tells the audience that Skripals poisoning was a false flag operation. 7:00
He also point several weak points in Western politicians narrative about MH17
Notable quotes:
"... Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America ..."
"... Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it. ..."
"... The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans). ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause". ..."
"... Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic. ..."
"... "Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily
determined to undermine Russia.
A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign
to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff
when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on Russia," Kevin says in his conversation
with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating
a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy
Vogan.
Putin & the Russian citizenry play chess on this 3-dimensional world.! The Americas and their inane elites attempt checkers
on their flat Earth . Pity, some such as Noam Chomsky are admirable world citizens..! Pity again.! WE will miss men of this honest
calibre and down- to-earth intelligence. Bob Carr is of this cohort.
Eugenie Basile , December 10, 2019 at 03:36
The 'Russia did it' mantra is a gift for the powers in the Kremlin. It rallies most Russians behind their leaders because they
are proud of their country and don't accept the West's moral hypocrite grandstanding.
Just recently the WADA proclaimed sporting ban against Russia is a perfect example. It excludes all Russian athletes because
they happen to represent their country while U.S. athletes who have been caught cheating in the past are allowed to participate
.
It is very encouraging to know there are good people like Mr. Tony Kevin and Mr. Bob Carr alive and sharing their powerful
wisdom at this dangerous historical point on planet Earth. Mr. Kevin and Mr. Carr's immensely important and courageously honest
discussion should become – immediately, and for many years to come – required study in university classrooms and government halls
around this world.
Peace.
ElderD , December 9, 2019 at 15:03
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive state of affairs deserve the widest
possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed. Cold War patterns of thinking
about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer
we come to its revival. Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now
so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then,
it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of
nuclear deterrence doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is.
Lois Gagnon , December 9, 2019 at 17:30
I agree. Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are
unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed
oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events
including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations – of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase
Russophobia) sort – about Russian hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour Party's
source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally destroy the NHS and replace it with (of
course) US "health" insurance company profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity among many Tory party supporters among
the working and lower middle classes prevented them from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the
undermining, via installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds that would otherwise
have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money – a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally
conceived and constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how
either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the
neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters
are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile
the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military,
thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what I've read the man is the most diplomatic
and intelligent politician (not just political leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world
stage. None of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries. Unlike their western "world"
political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely
assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said
any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked well. We're trying to
do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that
doesn't.
SIPIRI tags US military spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the energy department or our veteran's
expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better
than we can sustain our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there was NEVER a surrender, intended in
any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships. For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live
and work in peace. (By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear as never before, a mad man throwing
a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence universally consulted), allowing the
light in for the mass of the viewing and listening public, it could change the world – both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus.
Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more.
(The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a nation which has been started by
killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive
campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country on earth capable of obliterating
the United States. Not even China has yet reached that capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian
citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election
interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a
very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all
of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international
conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
It would be amusing to watch. However, the end result is a lose-lose for The United States
no matter who wins.
Crook(D) v Crook(R) is the perception – much as it is with impeachment with Pelosi
playing the part of Biden – with Trump standing a good chance to win. As of right now,
the 2020 election is Democrats to lose. They are doing a great job of that so far and it is
not even 2020.
Centrist Democrats will be trying to court the same voters – suburban center-right
Republicans – that Trump will be angling to get. Should it be Biden that wins the
nomination.
If Sanders somehow is nominated and Trump refuses to engage in debats? Run a "Trump Tucks
Tail and Runs" campaign with a massive highlight of his policy failures. Trump excels in the
arena of personal attacks. Biden would lose. Sanders could keep it clean and focused on
policy, dropping nuke after nuke on Trump. With Biden? Given how Centrist Democrats and
Republicans are both guilty of cooperating on issues such as Syria, Libya, Wall Street,
torture, Iraq, etc?
Centrist Democrats have no powder or if they do? Their powder is all wet. It was amazing
the number of policy attacks and opportunities that Centrist Democrats had to use against
Trump in 2016 yet were too afraid to. Opting for personal attacks. I still remember that
ambush by Andersen Cooper and Hillary Clinton against Trump at the 2nd(?) debate discussing
the allegations against Trump regarding rape, etc.
Never mind that Hillary Clinton had Bill with his prior allegations of sexual abuse. That
was the lamest ambush I've ever seen. You could practically see Hillary Clinton's vein pop
out on her forehead when Trump responded. I thought she was going to have a stroke. That
ambush wasted approximately 25 minutes of debate time and achieved less than nothing.
As we've seen with the latest funding bill? Centrist Democrats gave Trump what he wanted.
So, what do Centrist Democrats have to run on?
In a rare interview on Fox News' "Hannity" Thursday night, Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) expressed certainty that President Donald Trump would stay in office
despite the fact that there has yet to be a vote on
impeachment .
"There's no chance the President's going to be removed from office," McConnell told
Hannity.
Further, McConnell said he expects all Republicans and even some Democrats to vote against
impeachment.
"This is a thoroughly political exercise. It's not like a courtroom experience, It's a
political exercise. They've been trying to do this for three years. They've finally screwed up
their courage to do it," McConnell said.
He continued,
" It looks to me like it may be backfiring on them particularly in swing districts that
the Speaker's party managed to win in order to get the majority. Most of the nervousness I
see on this issue with politicians since it's a political process is on the Democratic
side."
When the Impeachment gets finally voted on in the Senate, what will Sanders do? He will do
best by being true to his own self, regardless of what votes he loses whichever way he
votes.
But I hope that being true to himself involves voting NOT to remove. Because depending on
how bitter the Democratic Convention is, a Nominee Sanders may get few or zero Clintonite
Democratic votes by definition, regardless of what he does. Whereas if he votes TO remove, he
will lose any votes, or even respectful hearing, that he might have had otherwise among the
deplorables.
"... no doubt that entire RussiaGate extravaganza was spawned by Fusion GPS's utterly false Steele dossier and the so-called "Intel Community's" zeal for weaponizing it to overthrow the president. ..."
"... The utter falsity of the Steele dossier seems not to have yet penetrated the minds of Dean Baquet and Martin Baron, editors of The New York Times and The Washington Post , the head cheerleaders for the seditious coup by the security state. ..."
"... All the week long, the Horowitz Report and its aftershocks were attended by the impeachment show in Jerrold Nadler's House Judiciary Committee -- an exercise so devoid of sense and prudence that it would embarrass all the kangaroos ever assembled in the courts of legend. As I write early Friday morning, Mr. Nadler's majority is preparing to report out two dubious articles of impeachment: "abuse of power" and "contempt of congress." As is always the case with the Resistance, Mr. Nadler's posse is projecting on its enemy the very offenses it commits. One senses that the voters are seeing through this feeble hocus-pocus, and that even members of the greater Democratic caucus in the house may be getting the heebie-jeebies about staking their political futures on a vote for this idiocy. ..."
"... Eric Ciaramella does not qualify as a “whistleblower” but is rather a rogue CIA agent ..."
"... his enabler Michael Atkinson, the “Intel Community” Inspector General who flouted and altered the rules in the whistleblower ploy — and who, by the way, was formerly at the center of the RussiaGate mess when he worked as chief counsel to then assistant attorney general John P. Carlin, one of the instigators of the “Crossfire Hurricane” overture to RussiaGate ..."
"... It could benefit the nation to hear testimony from shrinking violet Gina Haspel, the current CIA Director nobody has ever heard of. What does she know about Mr. Ciaramella’s role in this melodrama, who detailed him to the National Security Council, who supervised him, and who exactly were his associates? ..."
"... And, of course, not a few fair-minded people would be interested to hear from Rep. Adam Schiff, who engineered the “whistleblower’s” entry into his concocted UkraineGate sequel to the now discredited RussiaGate ruse. Get Mr. Schiff under oath. He is almost certain to lie about his activities, and that will certainly get him expelled from congress in disgrace, along with losing his license to practice law. ..."
"... Bring in Hunter Biden and ask him to explain whether he was busted for crack cocaine in a rent-a-car before-or-after he was hired to serve on the board of directors of a Ukrainian gas company. Bring in Lt. Col. Vindman, bring in Daniel Goldman ..."
Hillary Clinton sure got her money's worth with the Fusion GPS deal : it induced a
three-year psychotic break in the body politic, destroyed the legitimacy of federal law
enforcement, turned a once-proud, free, and rational press into an infernal engine of bad
faith, and is finally leading her Democratic Party to an ignominious suicide . And the damage
is far from complete. It's even possible that Mrs. Clinton will return to personally escort the
party over the cliff when, as is rumored lately, she jumps into the primary contest and
snatches the gonfalon of leadership from the ailing old man of the sclerotic status quo, Uncle
Joe Biden.
The citizens of this foundering polity have been subjected to a stunning doubleheader of
political spectacle clear through the week.
On Monday, the Horowitz Report was briefly celebrated by the Left for claiming "no bias" and
a "reasonable predicate" for the RussiaGate mess - until auditors actually got to read the
400-plus-page document and discovered that it was absolutely stuffed with incriminating details
that Mr. Horowitz was too polite, too coy, or too faint-hearted to identify as acts worthy of
referral for prosecution.
Mr. Barr, the attorney general, and US attorney John Durham immediately stepped up to set
the record straight, namely, that this was hardly the end of the matter and that they were
privy to fact-trains of evidence that would lead, by-and-by, to a quite different conclusion.
This reality-test was greeted, of course, with shrieking for their dismissal from the Jacobin
Left. But then at mid-week, Mr. Horowitz put in a personal appearance before the Senate
Judiciary Committee and left no doubt that entire RussiaGate extravaganza was spawned by Fusion
GPS's utterly false Steele dossier and the so-called "Intel Community's" zeal for weaponizing
it to overthrow the president.
The shock-waves from all that still pulsate through the disordered collective consciousness
of this sore-beset republic, and will disturb the sleep of many former and current officials
for months to come as the specter of Barr & Durham transmutes into a nightmare of Hammer
& Tongs, perp-walks, and actual prosecutions. The utter falsity of the Steele dossier seems
not to have yet penetrated the minds of Dean Baquet and Martin Baron, editors of The New York
Times and The Washington Post , the head cheerleaders for the seditious coup by the security
state. Their obdurate mendacity can no longer be attributed to a simple quest for clicks and
eyeballs. It speaks to a sickness of mind that has infected the whole thinking class of America
as it succumbed to the ultimate smashing of boundaries: the one between what is real and what
is not real (or what is true and what is not true.)
All the week long, the Horowitz Report and its aftershocks were attended by the impeachment
show in Jerrold Nadler's House Judiciary Committee -- an exercise so devoid of sense and
prudence that it would embarrass all the kangaroos ever assembled in the courts of legend. As I
write early Friday morning, Mr. Nadler's majority is preparing to report out two dubious
articles of impeachment: "abuse of power" and "contempt of congress." As is always the case
with the Resistance, Mr. Nadler's posse is projecting on its enemy the very offenses it
commits. One senses that the voters are seeing through this feeble hocus-pocus, and that even
members of the greater Democratic caucus in the house may be getting the heebie-jeebies about
staking their political futures on a vote for this idiocy.
For one thing the procedure would ascertain finally that Mr. Eric Ciaramella does not qualify as a “whistleblower” but is
rather a rogue CIA agent (from a rogue agency) helping to carry out a seditious conspiracy.
The defense should call him to the
stand, along with his enabler Michael Atkinson, the “Intel Community” Inspector General who flouted and altered the rules in the
whistleblower ploy — and who, by the way, was formerly at the center of the RussiaGate mess when he worked as chief counsel to
then assistant attorney general John P. Carlin, one of the instigators of the “Crossfire Hurricane” overture to RussiaGate.
It
could benefit the nation to hear testimony from shrinking violet Gina Haspel, the current CIA Director nobody has ever heard of.
What does she know about Mr. Ciaramella’s role in this melodrama, who detailed him to the National Security Council, who
supervised him, and who exactly were his associates?
And, of course, not a few fair-minded people would be interested to hear from Rep. Adam Schiff, who engineered the
“whistleblower’s” entry into his concocted UkraineGate sequel to the now discredited RussiaGate ruse. Get Mr. Schiff under oath.
He is almost certain to lie about his activities, and that will certainly get him expelled from congress in disgrace, along with
losing his license to practice law.
Bring in Hunter Biden and ask him to explain whether he was busted for crack cocaine in a rent-a-car before-or-after he
was hired to serve on the board of directors of a Ukrainian gas company. Bring in Lt. Col. Vindman, bring in Daniel Goldman,
bring them all in and compel their testimony under penalty of perjury. This will eventually get America right in its weakened
mind.
"... the Deep State is "deep" because it is supposed to be hidden far below ( "deep" below) surface appearances. The fact that people are now openly discussing it in and of itself constrains the actions of the Deep State. If this attention on the Deep State continues it could lead the public to demanding legal remedies, and you can safely bet the Deep State doesn't want that to happen. ..."
"... the Congress Critters are principally servants of the business elites (and Big Finance elites most of all) and that the Deep State is a tool used by those business elites to get their way, so why would those elites deliberately hamper their own servants and damage their own tools? ..."
"... damage control on these two points is precisely the reasoning behind the impeachment deal that our host discusses. ..."
"... First, the empire is ruled by an oligarchy, but the oligarchs all have differing bases of power and wealth. The most powerful of the oligarchs are, of course, the Big Finance power brokers... the bankers, basically. They make money with money. They need almost no fixed capital to maintain and feed their wealth. The finance oligarchs are not tied to any location and can easily move their wealth from place to place as their profit needs dictate. At the other extreme are oligarchs whose wealth is based upon real estate. These oligarchs cannot shift their wealth around to avoid local problems. In between are oligarchs whose wealth is based upon tangible fixed capital (factories, for example) who can move their wealth around somewhat, but such moves impact their profits. ..."
Hopefully readers can now clearly see that the bunny persona is disingenuous and is here primarily for spin management.
psychohistorian @36 , on the other hand, is quite legit and raises points that are worth discussing.
So we have to ask, cui bono?
Lets start answering that question by identifying who is not benefitting:
The American public economically...except the top X%
The Congress Critters that are being made to look corrupt
The Deep State of various branches of government
Many, but not all national and multi-national corporations
Point #1 is no big surprise. The elites (including Trump) firmly believe that what is good for them personally is good for
everyone. What is good for the lord of the land is good for his serfs, right? There is, however, a caveat to this that I want
to touch on later.
Points #2 and #3 are problematic. ...the credibility
of the Congress Critters is undeniably taking a severe hit. As well the Deep State is "deep" because it is supposed
to be hidden far below ( "deep" below) surface appearances. The fact that people are now openly discussing it in and
of itself constrains the actions of the Deep State. If this attention on the Deep State continues it could lead the public
to demanding legal remedies, and you can safely bet the Deep State doesn't want that to happen.
So points #2 and #3 are absolutely true, but they are problematic because they conflict with the narrative that the circus
we've been watching play out in D.C. since the 2016 elections is all intentional and choreographed by the elites. I don't think
anyone here would dispute that the Congress Critters are principally servants of the business elites (and Big Finance elites
most of all) and that the Deep State is a tool used by those business elites to get their way, so why would those elites deliberately
hamper their own servants and damage their own tools?
No, these two points by themselves expose the falsity of the notion that
what we are witnessing playing out in the imperial capital was the intended outcome of the 2016 elections. Furthermore, damage control on these two points is precisely the reasoning behind the impeachment deal that our host discusses.
Point #4 about who is not benefiting, "Many, but not all national and multi-national corporations" , is related to
the caveat that I mentioned above.
First, the empire is ruled by an oligarchy, but the oligarchs all have differing bases of power and wealth. The most powerful
of the oligarchs are, of course, the Big Finance power brokers... the bankers, basically. They make money with money. They
need almost no fixed capital to maintain and feed their wealth. The finance oligarchs are not tied to any location and can
easily move their wealth from place to place as their profit needs dictate. At the other extreme are oligarchs whose wealth
is based upon real estate. These oligarchs cannot shift their wealth around to avoid local problems. In between are oligarchs
whose wealth is based upon tangible fixed capital (factories, for example) who can move their wealth around somewhat, but such
moves impact their profits.
The reader should be able to see that not all oligarchs are created equal. While all of the oligarchs share the imperative
of maintaining the oligarchy itself and expanding the empire that it operates within, their interests begin to diverge outside
of those issues. In particular, finance oligarchs and real estate oligarchs have a natural antagonism. This antagonism also
exists between the finance oligarchs and the fixed-capital oligarchs. Current imperial policy strongly favors the finance oligarchs.
The other oligarchs are willing to accept that so long as the economy continues to grow in real terms, but that hasn't been
happening for years now within the empire. Because of this we are now seeing infighting among the oligarchs, with Trump being
on the side of the non-finance underdogs.
Does this mean that the reader should become a fan of Trump? Not if one is prone to latching onto powerful individuals as
saviors. If, on the other hand, personal emotional attachment can be kept at the level of rooting for one stranger in a drunken
bum fight over the other stranger then it should be perfectly acceptable. It doesn't hurt to cheer the oligarchs on when they
fight among themselves.
@ Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Dec 13 2019 13:14 utc | 56
The problem is that you don't got to change the rules when they don't fit you anymore. The USA has deprived the rest of
the world of "dignity" for 70 years. Now that China is being better than the USA at its own game, it's going to change the
game?
Unfortunately to the likes of Rubio, that's not how the real world works, because the real world is not a game.
The aggregate household debt balances in the U.S. increased to a record high of $13.95 trillion, or 73 percent of the country's
GDP, in the third quarter of 2019, said a recent report released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Mortgage balances accounted for 2/3 of the total household debt balances, followed by student loans that took 11 percent
of the share. Besides, auto loans and credit card balances also stood at a high level.
Each household in the U.S. carrying at least one form of debt owed an average of $144,100, said a report issued by America's
Debt Help Organization.
For comparison, the American manufacturing sector makes only 12% of its GDP. Manufacturing is so tiny in the USA that we
had recession in the sector this year and that didn't moved its GDP growth rate at all.
That's why the USA -- which has been failing in this trade war against China -- will ultimately fail in its Trumpian attempt
to revert to isolationism: the empire is now essentially a financial superpower. To maintain your status as a financial superpower,
you have to keep yourself economically open, otherwise the financial architecture that sustains the Dollar Standard will crumble
(since the USD is fiat money).
If your country wants to be the world's sole superpower in a capitalist world, it has to have two titles/belts: financial
and industrial superpower.
In 1946, the USA was both, hence it was the sole capitalist superpower. When Germany and mainly Japan threatened its title
as the sole industrial superpower in the 1970s, the USA maneuvered to curb their developments in the Plaza Accord of 1985,
which forced both nations to value their respective currencies in relation to the Dollar.
The maneuver was providential, but it worked. Germany and Japan would enter into recession in the early 1990s, to never
recover again. However, it came with a cost to the USA: it had to outsource its manufacturing sector to China and content itself
in being just to retain the financial champion belt, scattering the industrial champion belt around Asia, thus letting this
"title" vacant. It stayed "vacant" for 20 years, until China, thanks to its socialist doctrine, was able to free itself from
the commodity cycle and middle income traps to launch itself in the direction of gaining the industrial superpower status.
div> Some people seem to think that for an entity to be classified as an "empire" there needs to be a guy at the top
who likes to wear shiny metal hats. If such individuals cannot update their archaic definitions then perhaps it would be better
for the discussion if new terminology were introduced that does not contain baggage for those individuals. Maybe something like
"supranational wealth extraction gang" would help?
Posted by: William Gruff , Dec 13 2019 13:46 utc |
60
Some people seem to think that for an entity to be classified as an "empire" there needs to be a guy at the top who
likes to wear shiny metal hats. If such individuals cannot update their archaic definitions then perhaps it would be better
for the discussion if new terminology were introduced that does not contain baggage for those individuals. Maybe something
like "supranational wealth extraction gang" would help?
Posted by: William Gruff | Dec 13 2019 13:46 utc |
60
Excellent posting thus far. Just one thing to add to your analysis: the non-finance oligarchs are more dependent on the
finance oligarchs than the other way around.
b's posting says:
"The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is because a deal was made between
Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi.."
I can't see those two trusting each other on anything. And the Senate Majority Leader, McConnell, appeared on Fixed News
last night and insisted that he will defer to Trump's lawyers in all strategic matters, including whether or not to call witnesses.
Given that the House Democrats have threatened that if this impeachment doesn't work, they will impeach him again on some other
matter; plus Trump's insane craving for vindication; or for the need to produce juicy sound bites for the re-election campaign;
or simply to stretch out the process past the Iowa caucuses, it is likely that this impeachment will have a more or less full
process, saving the summary treatment for the predictable follow-on impeachments.
Who was it that said "Repeating the same mistake, over and over, and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity"?
This strikes me as a George Zimmerman style impeachment.
Zimmerman's prosecutor purposefully charged him with murder, a case doomed to fail, rather than manslaughter, where it was
likely to fail but would have been more damning in the failure -- i.e. more facts would have been brought in and a big mess
would have been created.
Pelosi purposefully charges Trump with a very narrow impeachment, which is doomed to fail in the Senate, rather than conducting
a months-long investigation that would dig up what Biden was really doing in Ukraine and who he got permission from to operate
there. The investigation wouldn't have made impeachment more likely to succeed, it would have just made a bigger mess.
interesting that trump's numbers have risen so spectacularly in the last couple of weeks with this impeachment thing in my
view because it puts him (falsely or not) squarely back into the "maverick" role that the Public is ravenous to see, with all
its anger and desire to strike back at "the government" which is not doing well by the way (60% country moving in the wrong
direction; 17% approval of congress)--so, to me, the question is: Can Donald resist playing his cowboy savior maverick role
and pretending to straighten things out or not. Will he "do a deal" because McConnell is so convincing to him and he can pass
up a wonderful opportunity to put the Dems on trial for their obvious bullshit in the past three years, including what impetus
will be (coming right up) from Durham? I tend to believe the Donald Ego will welcome a Big Fight in The Impeachment Corral
much as he once delighted in phony wrestling.
--Patriot Act renewed
--New NAFTA passed this week
--New massive Defense bill passes
--New Paid Parental Leave for Fed employees(Clinton and Obama ignored this)
--Maybe a budget or at least easy continuing resolutions.
--Jews now nationality??? not too sure, more like the usual Trump stuff like moving embassy.
This stuff all happened in the last week or so after nothing happened for years.
To me this proves that there really is no difference between Ds and Rs, both side made (are still making) money on the plundering
of Ukraine after the coup.
I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment trial will just be more free campaign
time on the TV for Trump.
Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty option for the establishment.
Posted by: Ed | Dec 12 2019 19:12 utc | 5
=====================
The imperialist foreign policy entails "bipartisan consensus", "interagency consensus" etc. Sometimes I think that establishment
Democrats are patriots [in their self-image] who prefer a political calamity over the betrayal of that consensus. Trump is
an incoherent idiot and he may be attacked in many ways. Should he be attacked for disastrous breach of international agreements,
starting with the crown jewel of Obama's tenure, multilateral agreement with Iran? Or for a mockery he made from negotiations
with North Korea? Or inflicting misery across the globe with "maximal sanctions" policies, pretty much against everybody*?
No, no and no.
As some of the incoherent statements of Trump were "friendly toward Russia" (while he continued Nuland-Boland policies),
THAT was selected as the main target. So we are going back to 2016. In 2018 Democrats switched gears for the duration of election
campaign focusing on health care, something that Trump monumentally botched, but the imperialist circus is back. Lamentably,
the "deplorables" are not impressed and the electorally wobbly Rustbelt may be lost again in 2020 because of this inanities,
but the consensus (bipartisan, inter-agency etc.) will be preserved. History will remember the selfless sacrifice of these
idiots.
=====
* I read an article in Russia, full of gleeful satisfaction, about Lithuanian dairy producers being hit by a round of Trumpian
sanctions, in spite of indefatigable efforts of Lithuanian government to be the most obedient (if often neglected) poodle of
USA.
[Rubio's] Defending against the global mercantilist aspirations of China is a very responsible course of action for a policymaker.
Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Dec 13 2019 13:14 utc | 56
I wonder if Rubio will stay on this topic for full 15 minutes. It is actually very much against GOP ideology, industrial
policy coordinated by the federal government -- is a 5-year plan (as Stalin practiced) next? Or will he revert to plan B, assuring
that American families live better than those in the Marxist hell that is Venezuela through sanctions, sabotage etc.? Plan
A, actually doing something about USAians having decent jobs, would make the likes of Rubio vomiting and defecating uncontrollably
as they couldn't digest it. So my bet is that he will stay with plan B.
Maybe I am dim, but I have read the transcript of the infamous phone call between Trump and Zelensky several times and I do
not understand how it is being interpreted as Trump trying to pressure the Ukrainian president to smear Biden. As I read the
transcript, the favour Trump asked was for Ukraine to look into Crowdstrike. It seems to me that asking about the Bidens was
almost an afterthought, not the main thrust of the conversation.
I'm not American, maybe I am missing something that is culturally obvious to Americans? Do Americans read the transcript
and see something I don't? Would it not be in the USA's interest to know if Crowdstrike was involved in the activities that
are said to have been an interference in the last election?
Not trying to derail the discussion here, but genuinely puzzled.
Posted by: Lorna MacKay | Dec 13 2019 19:50 utc | 69
"Do Americans read the transcript and see something I don't?"
Only the ones that are Trump-Deranged. Everyone else sees what you saw, standard operating procedure among all US elites
including of course all presidents and high officials. Both Obama and Sec. of State Hillary made dozens of calls exactly like
that.
I'll give it a 2-finger shot. The Credentialed 20%ers, along with their center-left-turned-right House masters are furiously
clutching their rosery bead (heres hatin on you and your pitiful brethren, Nancy!) .. while the Red Senators are all taking
turns hold Satan's pitchfork, hoping they don't get pricked .. or worse!, as the republican mope's support starts to melt away
like an iceberg at the equator !!
As an aside .. all one has to do is read the comments over at the Hedge, to see that many (but not all, by far ..) have, over
these past 3+ years, have gone through a phase-change, seeing the blatant bs .. from both legasy parties, without eyes wide
shut !
Both Trump and Zelensky were elected on platforms of peace with Russia. What was in that phone call that got Pelosi onboard
with impeachment, after years of taking it off the table?
I doubt very much that it was the claimed statement of Trump asking for help with a corruption investigation. (Which is perfectly
legal under a 1998 Treaty signed by Clinton).
Something got that CIA spy running to Adam Schiff, and something got Pelosi to move forward. Did Trump and Zelensky speak of
the Forbidden thing, making peace?
Biden was not the front runner until they needed him to be. You would be hard pressed to find an actual Biden supporter. They
are telling us this, because otherwise the ridiculous impeachment charge would not make sense. (Not that it makes a whole lot
of sense anyway).
In the Foreign Relations speech in which Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired, he also said that he was still in
touch with Ukrainian oligarchs, and he then would pass the word to Pence. Pence?
Don't be too surprised if the Senate votes to replace Trump with Pence.
Lorna MacKay at 69, when the media tells you something, it doesn't mean it is true. Of course, the transcript doesn't show
anything wrong. The only Americans who are culturally programmed to see anything there are the ones whose brains have been
turned to mush by TDS. (Trump Derangement Syndrome).
It's not you, it's us.
If I had money to put on the impeachment trial in the Senate, it would be on Donald NOT doing a deal to save various butts
and FOR going for the Dems' jugualar(s) and let the chips fall where they may on the Repug side.
I just cannot see him acting "statesmanlike" and forgoing seeking vindication after the provocations of the past three years.
Would you? I mean, even normal-size egos have a "Make my day" threshold. I reckon that Trump's threshold was the beginning
of the actual impeachment "hearing."
It seems to me that asking about the Bidens was almost an afterthought
This is what I have contended. Trump didn't need to mention Biden at all.
Did he do it innocently? Was it an ego-driven mistake?
Maybe.
But Trump has done other things that suggest that he did so as kayfabe . He engaged in a heated campaign with
Hillary and promised to have a special prosecutor investigate her if he was elected. But within days of being elected announced
that he would not do so (his first broken promise). Was the Hillary-Trump battle really as contentious as it appeared?
Trump invited Nancy Pelosi to a White House meeting days before the vote for Speaker of the House. This gave Pelosi a boost
at a time when Democrats were grumbling that she didn't deserve to be Speaker (she had worked closely with GW Bush Administration).
Result: Pelosi was elected Speaker.
Lastly, it's strange that Hilllary and Pelosi were adamantly against impeachment wrt Russiagate (the Mueller Report
cited possible obstruction of justice), saying that voters should decide in 2020 but approved impeachment for Ukrainegate where
the grounds for impeachment are arguably worse. Their refusal to allow impeachment after the Mueller Report was widely seen
(by progressives) as the establishment protecting Trump. Impeachment over Ukrainegate conveniently ended such speculation
.
Impeachment over Russiagate could have brought unwanted public scrutiny of CIA-MI6 and the Deep State. Instead, AG Wm Barr
will make sure things are 'sorted' in a way that safeguards the Deep State. Not surprisingly, he just announced that the FBI
acted in "bad faith" - a mild rebuke that almost guarantees that no one will be held accountable.
Some believe that the political disaster that Democrats reap from impeachment will be hung around the neck of the progressives
that clamored for impeachment in Spring 2019 (after the Mueller Report). IMO that 'hunch' is likely to prove accurate.
Whereas it is very likely that not just Hunter but Joe Biden can be brought down, it would come at the expense of a massive
draining of a bipartisan Congressional / Senatorial money laundering swamp, with millions, perhaps billions in US tax dollars
being recycled back into campaign contributions, etc. Many heads might roll, including several on the Republican side of
the Senate chamber.
Thank you and exactly that.
There has been brief mention of Biden shenanigans in China too but now studiously avoided. Perhaps the same boondoggle there
as well or maybe that is the country behind the threat from Biden to Lindsay Graham re going down big time.
Would it not be in the USA's interest to know if Crowdstrike was involved in the activities that are said to have been an
interference in the last election?
I fully agree with you. The Crowdstrike bust would give Trump the material needed to truly unravel the CIA (Brennan) and
FBI (Comey/Mueller)saboteurs. These pigs set out to smash Trump and his family, and Presidency. He will no doubt find a way
to extract revenge as he is known for that.
Pressing Zelensky on the Crowdstrike element is mighty good politics as it would likely disable the Democrat machinery for
many election cycles if the dogs of war are loosed on the DNC internal malevolence.
The Agreement to have limited charges (nothing related to Russiagate!) and no calling of witnesses (Bidens are safe) was
likely agreed in late Spring 2019 when the kayfabe was arranged.
Also, although there's been much hand-wringing about Joe Biden's electoral prospects, the kayfabe has helped Biden
as he now says that Trump focused on him because Trump fears him as a political opponent. This plays into the establishment's
main electoral ploy: electability!
In the Foreign Relations speech in which Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired, he also said that he was still
in touch with Ukrainian oligarchs, and he then would pass the word to Pence. Pence?
Don't be too surprised if the Senate votes to replace Trump with Pence.
Fascinating proposition. The Senate calls no witnesses and votes for impeachment? Unlikely, but I wont dismiss either that
or a drawn out trial and votes for impeachment - or not. Strange theatre this stuff.
One thing for sure - if the Senate votes to impeach all hell will break out in the Repugnant party. The USA political serenity
has been totally disturbed by Trump's election (or should I say Hillary Clinton's capitulation and not campaign in three key
states).
If Trump gets re-elected, if Big Tech continues to evade accountability, if imperial
adventures continue abroad, if migrant farmworkers cannot feed their families, you can trace
it back to this Tuesday, and the actions a House Speaker took while nobody was paying
attention .
-- David Dayen, The American Prospect (emphasis added)
As the Impeachment Drama lumbers to a 2020 conclusion, morphing into its variant selves and
sucking life from every other story the media most folks attend to are inclined to tell,
unwatched things are happening in its shadow.
Nancy Pelosi has used end-of-year urgency and the impeachment distraction to pass four
pieces of major legislation, three of which will become law, all on the same day.
NAFTA 2.0 is one of them. Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, agreed under pressure to
approve Pelosi's House version of NAFTA 2.0, rebranded "USMCA," or United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement, for obvious reasons. This is a deal he should never have made, yet he made it.
Consider who Trumka is -- a bridge between the neoliberal mainstream of the Democratic Party
and the (presumably further left) labor movement that supports and sustains it. In other words,
he's the person who blesses neoliberal policies as "progressive" (thus retaining mainstream
Democratic Party approval) while modifying those policies in the margins to be less terrible
(thus retaining the approval of progressives, who want to think of him as opposed to
neoliberalist policies).
He's the person, in other words, who makes the labor movement look less like a puppy of the
Democratic Party establishment to progressives, while keeping the labor movement (and himself)
firmly in the Party establishment tent. The drama of "Will Trumka approve USMCA?" we recently
witnessed exemplified this role.
To anyone with two cells in their brain, it was obvious as soon as the question was asked
that he would approve USMCA. The stage was set; his arrival on it announced; the spotlight was
ready and bright. Would he really walk onto this stage at this late date and say no to Party
leaders? Of course not.
Would he have been able to stay in his lofty perch if he had? His job was to bless the cake
after it had been baked, not to unbake it.
What pressure was Trumka under? First, obviously, from the Democratic Party and its
billionaire donors, to give them what they and the Republicans -- and Donald
Trump -- all wanted, a neoliberal-lite trade deal that could become in Nancy Pelosi's words "a
template for future trade agreements a good template."
Second, Trumka was under pressure from his union base itself (so say some, including David
Dayen in the piece linked below), many of whom are Trump supporters, to give President Trump a
signature first-term victory, just in time for the start of his second-term campaign.
Do I believe this latter explanation? No, but I believe Trumka believes it. And if indeed it
is true that Trumka has to serve Trump, at least in part, in order to serve his own base, it's
further evidence of the careerism of his actions, in contrast to behavior from actual
labor-movement principles.
Here's Dayen on this sordid tale (emphasis added):
Pelosi got
AFL-CIO president Rich Trumka to sign off on the U.S.–Mexico-Canada Agreement
(USMCA), handing Trump a political victory on one of his signature issues. Predictably, White
House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham immediately gushed, calling USMCA "the biggest and
best trade agreement in the history of the world."
It's, um, not that. Economically, USMCA is a nothingburger; even
the most rose-colored analysis with doubtful assumptions built in shows GDP growth of
only 0.06 percent per year. There's one good provision: the elimination of the investor-state
dispute settlement (ISDS) provision that allowed corporations to sue governments in secret
tribunals over trade violations. There's one bad provision: the
extension of legal immunity for tech platforms over user-generated content, put into a
trade deal for the first time. This will make the immunity shield, codified in Section 230 of
the Communications Decency Act, much harder to alter in the future. Pelosi has called this
deal a "template" for future agreements, though trade reformers have called it a bare minimum
floor.
Pelosi
tried to remove the immunity shield , but abandoned the request. She did succeed in
removing a provision for Big Pharma that extended exclusivity periods for biologics. The
Sierra Club has termed the deal an "
environmental failure " that will not have binding standards on clean air and water or
climate goals. But the threshold question on the USMCA was always going to be labor
enforcement: would the labor laws imposed on Mexico hold, improving their lot while giving
U.S. manufacturing workers a chance to compete? There was also the open question of why the
U.S. would reward Mexico with a trade deal update when trade unionists in the country
continue to be kidnapped and killed.
In his statement, Trumka lauds the labor enforcement, noting provisions that make it
easier to prove violations (including violence against workers), rules of evidence for
disputes, and inspections of Mexican facilities, a key win. But I've been told that the
AFL-CIO did not see the details of the text before signing off, which is unforgivable ,
especially on trade where details matter. There was
no vote by union leaders , just a briefing from the AFL-CIO.
At least one union, the Machinists, remains opposed , and
others were noncommittal until they see text. The Economic Policy Institute, which is
strongly tied to labor, called the agreement " weak tea at
best ," a tiny advance on the status quo that will not reverse decades of outsourcing of
U.S. jobs.
Meanwhile, back at the Trump re-election ranch:
While the economics are negligible (and potentially harmful on tech policy), on the
politics
activists are losing their mind at the prospect of a Trump signing ceremony, with labor
by his side, on a deal that he will construe as keeping promises to Midwest voters . "Any
corporate Democrat who pushed to get this agreement passed that thinks Donald Trump is going
to share the credit for those improvements is dangerously gullible," said Yvette Simpson, CEO
of Democracy for America, in a statement. Only a small handful of Democratic centrists were
pushing for a USMCA vote, based mostly on the idea that they had to "do something" to show
that they could get things done in Congress. Now they've got it, and they'll have to live
with the consequences.
I guess helping re-elect the "
most dangerous president ever " pales in comparison to passing bipartisan-approved
neoliberal trade deals.
One of Richard Trumka's jobs, if he wants to stay employed, is to make sure neoliberal Party
leaders like Nancy Pelosi are happy and well served while simultaneously keeping progressives
thinking that Big Labor is still in their corner even on issues the donor class most cares
about.
"... Ciaramella notably contacted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's (D-CA) office before filing his complaint , on a form which was altered to allow for second-hand information, after going to a Democratic operative attorney who will neither confirm nor deny his status as the whistleblower. ..."
NY Post Editorial Board Names Eric Ciaramella As Whistleblower by Tyler Durden Fri, 12/13/2019 - 10:30 0
SHARES
The
New York Post Editorial Board has named CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella as the whistleblower at
the heart of the Trump impeachment saga, confirming an October 30 report by
RealClearInvestigation 's Paul Sperry which has been widely cited in subsequent
reports.
Whistleblower lawyers refuse to confirm or deny Ciaramella is their man. His identity is
apparently the worst-kept secret of the Washington press corps . In a sign of how farcical
this has become, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said his name as part of a series of names
during a live hearing Wednesday night aired on television. He never called him the
whistleblower, just said he was someone Republicans thought should testify, yet Democrats
angrily denounced the "outing." If you don't know the man's name, how do you know the man's
name? -
New York Post
Ciaramella, a registered Democrat, is a CIA analyst who specializes in Russia and Ukraine,
and ran the Ukraine desk at the National Security Council (NSC) in 2016. He previously worked
for then-NSC adviser Susan Rice, as well as Joe Biden when the former VP was the Obama
administration's point-man for Ukraine. He also worked for former CIA Director John Brennan,
and was reportedly a highly valued employee according to
RedState ' s Elizabeth Vaughn. He also became former National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster's personal aide in June 2017, was
called out as a leaker by journalist Mike Cernovich that same month.
He also worked with Alexandra Chalupa , a Ukrainian-American lawyer and Democratic operative
involved in allegations that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 US election by releasing the so-called
'Black Ledger' that contained Paul Manafort's name.
In 2017, former White House chief strategist
Steve Bannon wanted Ciaramella kicked off the National Security Council over concerns about
leaks.
Earlier this year, Ciaramella ignited the Democratic impeachment efforts against President
Trump when, using second-hand information, he anonymously complained that Trump abused his
office when he asked Ukraine to investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his
son Hunter, as well as claims related to pro-Clinton election interference and DNC hacking in
2016.
Ciaramella notably contacted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's (D-CA)
office before filing his complaint , on a form which was altered to allow for second-hand
information, after going to a Democratic operative attorney who will neither confirm nor deny
his status as the whistleblower.
Steve Bannon was only on the National Security Council for two months, and was removed in
early April 2017 at the direction of the President. So the story about Bannon valiantly
trying to save the day is probably more of his resume padding.
Why did so many people -- from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to
state department and National Security Council officials -- feel the need to lie about how
the war in Afghanistan was going?
This is because it's easy cash cow for the old boys club by sending working class kids
to be killed in a far off land.
The pentagon with the full cooperation of MSM will sell it as we are defending our ways of
life by fighting a country 10,000 kms away. This show the poor literacy, poor analytical
thinking of US population constantly brain washed by MSM, holy men, clergy, other neo con
organisations like National rifle club etc.
I never knew USA dropped 2.7 millions tons of bombs and now so many left unexploded and
its same in Vietnam, Cambodia as neutral,
but i met so many injured kids etc from the bombs,.
the total MADNESS OF USA IS NAZI SM AT ITS BEST,.NO SHAME OR COMPASSION FOR THE
VICTIMS.
I cannot comprehend the money it cost USA,. AN ALSO PROFITS FOR SOME,.
With the exceptions of two attacks on American soil-Pearl Harbor and 911- the American people
and for the most part their legislative representatives in Congress- will always remain
cluless what the United States Government does overseas.
This country runs on its own drum beats. The ordinary man on the street needs to take care
of his economic needs. The Big Boys always take care of themselves. That includes the
military establishment, that is always entitled to an absurd amounts of monies, fueled by an
empire building machinery, pushed by the elites that control the fate of economic might, and
political orchestra that feeds its ego and prestige.
Time and again, our American sociopaths in power have a strangle hold on us, regardless of
the destruction and animosity they heap on distant peoples and lands the world over in the
name of national security and the democratic spiel, as they like to tell us ....
Richard Nixon, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson- Vietnam and the South East Asian countries of
Laos , Cambodia, are an example .
Years later, the establishment manufactures blatant cover-ups with lies upon lies to accuse
on record, as general Powell eloquently presented at the United Nations: That Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction and needs to be held accountable.And now, this report on
Afghanistan with all this pathological violence.
Is it reasonable to conclude that our democracy and its pathological actors in government
and big business will always purchase it by demagoguery and self vested interest, because the
ordinary man whose vote should count will never have the ultimate say when it comes to war
and destruction!
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- In testimony before Congress this week, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander
Vindman, an Army officer with more than 20 years of service, told lawmakers that he had heard
the president try to pressure Ukraine's president to unearth dirt on a political rival. In
response, the president's allies have decided to make an issue of Vindman's birthplace. They
say his infanthood in Kiev -- he left at age 3 -- reveals something about his character and his
allegiances. They are right, but in exactly the wrong way.
Here, you should pardon the expression, are some facts and a little bit of history. When
Vindman was born on June 6, 1975, Ukraine was enveloped in the Soviet Union. At birth, Vindman
would have been added temporarily to his parents' internal passports, a document that all
Soviet citizens were required to carry starting at 16, mostly to make sure they were not
residing somewhere without official permission.
That passport contained the infamous "fifth line" or "pyati punkt," in Russian, which had
been created under Josef Stalin and listed the holder's "nationality." Vindman was born in
Ukraine, but that line would not have said "Ukrainian" unless his parents had chosen to defy
the law. It would have said "Jew."
In the Soviet Union, Jews were considered separate and apart from other nationalities,
especially in two of the republics, Russia and Ukraine, where the local party enforcers were
particularly happy to do the Kremlin's dirty work. You could be born in Minsk or Pinsk, or Omsk
or Tomsk, or even Alexandrovsk or Petropavlovsk, and if you were born to Jewish parents, your
passport was likely stamped "Jew."
When I first learned this, upon arriving in Moscow in May 1983 as a reporter for the
Associated Press, I was outraged. I saw it like the Nazi's yellow star. I couldn't imagine how
Jewish people could stand it.
Until one day, I put that question to Naum Meiman, a Jewish mathematician who was part of
Andrei Sakharov's circle of dissidents. The answer was simple and humbling.
He didn't want "Russian," or any other so-called Soviet nationality, in his passport.
Russians didn't consider him Russian, officially or otherwise, and he didn't want the label.
"I'm a Jew who is forced to live in Russia, not a Russian," he said more than once.
I am certainly not speaking for Vindman, whom I do not know, but I have never met a Jew who
fled the Soviet Union and felt any kind of loyalty to the country -- one where Jews were
spurned from birth and then imprisoned within the state's borders until it decided to allow
them to leave. In those days, the Soviet Union revoked émigré's citizenships, in
what was supposed to be a final act of deep humiliation, but was invariably a badge of
pride.
"Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside
the White House, apparently against the president's interest," Fox News host Laura Ingraham
told viewers Monday.
The circumstances of Vindman's birth argue for a different interpretation. They show him to
be part of a tradition of 20th century Eastern European Jews who suffered under tyrannies of
the left and the right. These people fled the first chance they had to a country that would
accept them as fellow citizens, one where they would not be constantly questioned about their
loyalties. For many decades, that country was the United States.
To contact the author of this story: Andrew Rosenthal at [email protected]
Retired Brigadier General Peter Zwack spoke to "Nightline" ahead of Vindman's testifying
before the House Intelligence Committee during a public impeachment hearing of President
Trump.
Former democrat
21 days ago Mr Vindman looks more like a doorman, than a Army Officer in that uniform !
Larry
21 days ago
What's that "thing" on his ring finger (appears wooden)? Is that from his partner "Husband"?
In my US Army years, soldiers were dishonorable discharged from this "Criminal Offense" !
A retired Army officer who worked with
Democrat "star witness" Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Grafenwoher, Germany, claims
Vindman "really talked up" President Barack Obama and ridiculed America and Americans in
front of Russian military officers.
In an eye-opening thread on Twitter last week, retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman
said that he "verbally reprimanded" Vindman after he heard some of his derisive remarks for
himself. " Do not let the uniform fool you," Hickman wrote. "He is a political activist in
uniform."
Hickman's former boss at the Joint Multinational Simulation Center in Grafenwoehr has
since gone on the record to corroborate his story.
Hickman, 52, says he's a disabled wounded warrior who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and
who received numerous medals, including the Purple Heart.
The retired officer said that Vindman, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Ukraine, made
fun of the United States to the point that it made other soldiers "uncomfortable." For
example, Hickman told American Greatness that he heard Vindman call Americans
"rednecks" -- a word that needed to be translated for the Russians. He said they all had a
big laugh at America's expense.
Vindman, who serves on the National Security Council (NSC), appeared last week before the
House Intelligence Committee and testified
that he'd had "concerns" about the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman's testimony rested on his negative opinions of the
call, rather than any new facts about the call.
Vindman's former boss, NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison, threw cold
water on Vindman's claims
in his own testimony later in the week, saying he didn't have concerns that "anything
illegal was discussed" in the phone call. Morrison also testified that Ukrainian officials
were not even aware that military funding had been delayed by the Trump Administration until
late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call.
"Completely Beyond Reproach"
Hickman said he decided to come forward because Vindman "disobeyed a direct order from
the commander-in-chief, his boss," made his testimony "about his foreign policy opinions
versus facts," and "wore his Army service uniform to make a political statement" against the
president.
"Then right on cue, the mainstream media began calling him a war hero with a purple
heart, and completely beyond reproach," Hickman wrote in a statement to American Greatness
and another journalist. "Knowing his political bias, backed by his somewhat radical
left-leaning ideology, it was my obligation, indeed my duty, to come forward with this
information. I couldn't go to the same mainstream media to put it out, nor could I go to the
Army, as they're backing Vindman, so I took to Twitter, a source for getting the truth out,"
he added.
According to Hickman, Vindman was the Defense Department attaché at the Russian
embassy in Germany when he met him in 2013. He told American Greatness that he also met
Vindman's twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman while he was stationed in Germany.
"I know LTC Alex Vindman from a Combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision [13] in
Grafenwoher," Hickman wrote on Twitter. "He worked with the Russian Embassy and I was
assigned to the JMTC (Joint Multinational Training Command), within USAREUR (US Army Europe).
He worked coordination w/the Russian 15th Peacekeeping Brigade, and I was in charge of all
Simulations planning, as well as assisting the USAREUR Lead Planner as the Senior Military
Planner."
Like his twin, Eugene Vindman has forged a career in White House civil service. In fact,
The Wall Street Journal reported
that it's possible Eugene Vindman might also be called to testify. Alexander Vindman
has stated that Eugene Vindman, also called Yevgeny Vindman, "witnessed (the) decision to move Trump-Zelensky call's
transcript to a top secret server," The Journal reported of the president's call to the president of Ukraine.
Vindman's twin brother lists his title as attorney at the White House on his Facebook page. Born Yevgeny Vindman, he
goes by Eugene Vindman on social media.
The twin's Facebook page explains that he is an attorney at The White House and a former Attorney at Judge Advocate
General's Corps, United States Army. He also says that he is a former Senior Trial Counsel at U.S. Army and former Major at
United States Army.
According to JTA
, Eugene Vindman is a lawyer on the national security council.
CNN called
Eugene Vindman "the chief ethics counsel at NSC."
His Facebook page also provides the following biographical details about Eugene:
Studied Law School at University of Georgia
Studied General Administration at Central Michigan University
Studied at UGA School of Law
Studied History at SUNY Binghamton
Went to Franklin D.Roosevelt High School
Lives in Washington, District of Columbia
From Brooklyn, New York
2. Eugene Vindman Was a Campaign Strategist for a Democratic Congressional Candidate
The Vindman brothers.
Eugene Vindman's Facebook page also describes him as a "former Campaign Strategist at Bobby Saxon for Congress (GA
District 10)."
Saxon ran as a Democrat. According to an article in
The Red & Black
, Saxon was running for public office for the first time and called himself a "regular guy."
The 2008 article describes him as saying, "I'm 46-years-old, and I've never run for an office. Most of all, I'm a
frustrated American who's mad that politicians have no clue what it's like to be one of us. We need regular people with
common sense in Washington D.C."
Like Eugene Vindman, Saxon had an Army background. "I'm a major in the Georgia Army National Guard," he explained.
3. Eugene Vindman Was Involved in Efforts to Find Roadside Bombers in Iraq
A 2010 NPR article
on the U.S. connecting dots to find roadside bombers quoted Eugene Vindman. "Maj. Eugene Vindman, a
JAG officer, or judge advocate general" said that a "network analysis course put him and other military lawyers in a better
position to carry out oversight responsibilities in Iraq," the article stated.
"[You could] maybe do a little bit of analysis on your own or ask some intelligent questions of the targeteers," Eugene
Vindman said to NPR, "to make sure that the target they've identified is not a guy that might have made a wrong phone call
to a bad guy but actually has enough links to that bad guy through other activities to actually be a bad guy and therefore
be a legal military target."
Alexander Vindman is also similarly invested in American government work. "Since 2008, I have been a Foreign Area
Officer specializing in Eurasia," he wrote. "In this role, I have served in the United States' embassies in Kiev, Ukraine
and Moscow, Russia. In Washington D.C., I was a politico-military affairs officer for Russia for the Chairman of Joint
Chiefs where I authored the principle strategy for managing competition with Russia. In July 2018, I was asked to serve at
the National Security Council."
... ... ...
There is another Vindman brother. He's older than the twins and his name is Leonid Simon Vindman.
Leonid Simon Vindman is the "Founder and Managing Partner, Tungsten Capital Advisors" and "has approximately thirty
years of experience in the financial markets,"
his company
website states.
"During the past twenty five years, he has been focusing predominantly on Central Eastern Europe, Russia and Central
Asia where he completed some of the biggest investment and advisory transactions in the region," according to the website.
"He also completed transactions in the Middle East, and traveled extensively in Asia and Africa."
The page continues: "Prior to founding Tungsten he was a Managing Director responsible for investment banking
origination and client coverage activities for Russia and CIS region at UniCredit Group – the largest international bank in
Central and Eastern Europe at that time. Previously he worked as a Vice President Investment Banking at JPMorgan Chase,
Principal Banker at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the EBRD), Senior Associate at Bankers Trust and
Manager at Central Europe Trust."
Leonid Vindman "received his Bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College and an MBA from the University of Chicago Booth
Graduate School of Business," his company website says.
The company's founding and managing partner Maria Starkova-Vindman is described as "an art historian and art advisor"
who previously "worked at the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow as an assistant keeper and curator, and taught on the
Courtauld MA course on global contemporary art."
Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman admitted that he had been offered to serve as minister of defense for
Ukraine.
Vindman, 44, explained
during his impeachment testimony that he had been offered the position three times but
declined the position because of his loyalty to the United States. The lieutenant colonel was
born in Ukraine, but his family immigrated to the U.S. when he was a toddler.
Vindman claimed he did not know why he was offered the high ranking position of defense
minister.
"Every single time, I dismissed it. Upon returning, I notified my chain of command and the
appropriate counterintelligence folks about the offer," said Vindman, later adding, "I think it
would be a great honor, and frankly, I'm aware of service members that have left service to
help nurture the developing democracies in that part of the world."
He declined the offer and told Congress, "I'm an American. I came here when I was a toddler,
and I immediately dismissed these offers. I did not entertain them."
Vindman added that he found the offer "rather comical," saying, "I was being asked to
consider whether I would want to be the minister of defense, I did not leave the door open at
all. But it is pretty funny for a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, which really is
not that senior, to be offered that illustrious of a position."
He explained that he had no follow-up questions about the position with his chain of
command. Vindman said he was not concerned about a "perception of a conflict of interest"
following his offer because he only valued the opinion of his American colleagues.
"Frankly, if they were concerned with me being able to continue my duties, they would have
brought that to my attention," said Vindman.
Vindman is the top Ukraine specialist on the National Security Council. He testified that he
raised concerns about President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky,
calling it "improper."
'Pushing a coup': Fellow soldiers slam Vindman for
testifying in uniform by Russ Read | November 08, 2019 03:49
PM
Print
this article S ome of
Alexander Vindman's fellow soldiers have blasted him for testifying in uniform during the
House impeachment hearings, accusing him of politicizing the military by stating personal
opinions that were highly critical of President Trump.
Vindman, 44, the National Security Council's
Ukraine director , was thrust into the political spotlight when he testified before
Congress on Oct. 29 as one of the few people who listened in on a
July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
His
appearance in uniform has been a point of contention. Military members detailed to the NSC
typically wear suits but Vindman gave his testimony in uniform, and was lauded for having been
awarded a Purple Heart for being wounded in Iraq, and a Combat Infantryman's Badge.
"This is a bad look for him to be in uniform," an active duty military officer stationed at
the Pentagon told the Washington Examiner. "He makes it look like the Army is behind
this. Like the Army is pushing a coup."
Another officer was concerned that Vindman's testimony veered too much into personal
assessment. "I don't care what he thinks, he's entitled to his opinion," the officer said. "But
it's an opinion and he should give it without the uniform."
A third officer said that Vindman's weight indicated he would be unlikely to pass the Combat
Fitness Test even though he had achieved a Ranger tab earlier in his career.
Matt Zeller, an Afghanistan veteran and fellow at the American Security Project, defended
Vindman. "I think he's a patriot, and how he's been treated is an abomination," Zeller told the
Washington Examiner . "All he is is a public servant doing his duty."
Vindman might have been required to wear his uniform, Zeller said, although where Army
regulations come down on the issue is unclear. The Army's Training and Doctrine Command did not
respond to questions from the Washington Examiner .
H.R. McMaster, who was an active duty lieutenant general in the Army during his tenure as
national security adviser, did not normally wear his uniform at the White House.
Military personnel such as Vindman detailed to the NSC operate within a unique system.
Unlike other troops who report to military commanders, military NSC staffers fall under
directors within the NSC itself. As a Ukraine expert, Vindman reports to civilian Andrew Peek,
who replaced Tim Morrison as the NSC's senior director for European and Russian affairs after
Morrison announced his departure last Wednesday, one day before he testified before the House
impeachment proceeding.
Military detailees generally are assigned to a unit within the Department of Defense for
administrative issues such as leave and pay. Performance reports, however, are handled by the
individual's boss on the NSC.
Most NSC staffers are drawn from the military and various other government agencies. They
generally are recruited via word-of-mouth, another change from typical government agencies that
are notorious for their long application processes.
The Reagan administration's NSC included Lt. Gen. Colin Powell and Lt. Col. Oliver North, .
Powell was national security adviser from 1987 to 1989 and went on to become chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State . North was on the NSC from 1981 to 1986 and
testified in uniform during the Iran-Contra hearings.
Vindman returned to work after his testimony and is expected to stay on at the NSC until his appointment ends next summer.
Rudy Giuliani Can Barely Contain Himself Over His Ukraine Findings by Tyler Durden Fri, 12/13/2019 -
17:05 0 SHARES
Rudy Giuliani is grinning like the Cheshire cat. His standard smile.
For the past several weeks, the personal attorney to President Trump has been in Ukraine,
interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence to shed light on what the Bidens were up to
during the Obama years, and get to the bottom of claims that Kiev interfered in the 2016 US
election in favor of Hillary Clinton. He has enlisted the help of former Ukrainian diplomat,
Andriy Telizhenko, to gather information from politicians and ask them to participate in a
documentary series in partnership with One America News Network (OANN) - which will make the
case for investigating the Bidens as well as Burisma Holdings - the natural gas firm which
employed the son of a sitting US Vice President in a case which reeks of textbook
corruption.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/zi2UWTO2DyY
According to the
Journal , Giuliani will present findings from his self-described "secret assignment" in a
20-page report .
Trump and Giuliani say then-Vice President Biden engaged in corruption when he called for
the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had investigated a Ukrainian gas company where
Hunter Biden served on the board. The Bidens deny wrongdoing, and ousting the prosecutor was
a goal at the time of the U.S. and several European countries . -
Wall Street Journal
( Note the Wall Street Journal's use of a straw man when they write: "The allegations of
Ukrainian election interference are at odds with findings by the U.S. intelligence community
that Russia was behind the election interference ."
Apparently the three journalists who collaborated on the article didn't get the memo that
two countries can meddle at the same time, nor did any of them read the January, 2017 Politico
article: Ukrainian
efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - which outlines how Ukrainian government officials
conspired with a DNC operative to hurt the Trump campaign during the 2016 election - a move
which led to the disruptive ouster of campaign chairman Paul Manafort).
Telizhenko, the former diplomat, tells the Journal that the plan for the series was
conceived during the impeachment hearings as a way for Giuliani to tell his side of the story.
The former Ukrainian diplomat flew to Washington on November 20 to film with Giuliani, while in
early December he accompanied America's Mayor on the Kiev trip - stopping in Budapest, Vienna
and Rome.
Rudy comes home
Upon his return to New York on Saturday, Giuliani says he took a call from President Trump
while his plane was still taxiing down the runway, according to the
Wall Street Journal .
" What did you get? " Trump asked. " More than you can imagine ," answered the former New
York mayor who gained notoriety in the 1980s for taking down the mob as a
then-federal prosecutor.
According to the 77-year-old Giuliani, Trump instructed him to brief Attorney General
William Barr and GOP lawmakers on his findings. Soon after, the president then told reporters
at the White House, " I hear he has found plenty ."
Rudy has been working on this project for a while. In late January, he conducted phone
interviews with former Ukrainian prosecutors Viktor Shokin and Yiury Lutsenko. On the call
was George Boyle -
Giuliani's Chief Operating Officer and Director of Investigations. Boyle started as a NYPD beat
cop in 1987, and was promoted to detective - eventually joining the Special Victims Squad. In
short, the ever-grinning Giuliani has some serious professionals working on this.
" When he believes he's right, he loves taking on fights ," said longtime Giuliani friend,
Tony Carbonetti.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
That said, Giuliani's efforts have not gone off without a hitch. In October, two associates
- Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, both of whom assisted with his Ukraine investigation, were
related in October on campaign-finance charges. Both men have pleaded not guilty, while
Giuliani denies wrongdoing and says they did not lobby him. Parnas, notably, was also on the
January call with Shokin and Lutsenko as a translator.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/tc4nQD6eiW4
In pressing ahead on Ukraine, Mr. Giuliani has replaced the translation skills of Messrs.
Parnas and Fruman with an app he downloaded that allows him to read Russian documents by
holding his phone over them . But on his recent trip, he said, "despite whatever else you can
say, I missed them." -
Wall Street Journal
Trump opponents insist Giuliani is conducting shadow foreign policy and orchestrated the
ouster of former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch - who Ukraine's new president
Volodomyr Zelensky complained on a now-famous July 25 phone call accused of not recognizing his
authority.
In the impeachment hearings, witnesses accused Mr. Giuliani of conducting a shadow foreign
policy and orchestrating the ouster of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. He was described as
"problematic" and "disruptive" and, in testimony that cited former national security adviser
John Bolton, likened to a "hand grenade that's going to blow everybody up." Mr. Giuliani has
said he kept the State Department apprised of his efforts and that he was working at the
president's behest. -
Wall Street Journal
" Just having fun while Dems and friends try to destroy my brilliant career ," Giuliani
wrote in a text message while conducting his investigation overseas.
Never forget... Giuliani was up to his neck in the treasonous happenings on 9/11. For
that, he can NEVER be forgiven... no matter how much dirt he digs up in this inane Ukranian
circus.
Three j ournalists also wrote a WSJ piece October 22, '19; one author same as
December 13 piece. ( Identify a narrative?)
Excerpts:
" Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani have repeatedly promoted an unsubstantiated theory that Ukraine
was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee before the 2016 election, and
that a related computer server is now located there. That theory is sharply at odds with the
findings of a special counsel investigation and a 2017 U.S. intelligence community report
that found Russia was responsible for the hack and leak of Democratic emails as part of a
broader operation intended to aid Mr. Trump."... ...
... ... " Mr. Giuliani, who didn't respond to a request for comment, had for months
pressed for Ukraine to investigate issues related to the 2016 election as well as Mr. Biden,
a potential 2020 rival of Mr. Trump. As vice president under President Obama, Mr. Biden led
an anti-corruption drive in Ukraine at the same time as his son received $50,000 a month for
sitting on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, an arrangement Mr. Trump has called corrupt.
Mr. Biden and his son have denied any wrongdoing, and no evidence of wrongdoing has been
presented. "
John Glaser and Christopher Preble have written a valuable
study of the history and causes of threat inflation. Here is their conclusion:
If war is the health of the state, so is its close cousin, fear. America's foreign policy
in the 21st century serves as compelling evidence of that. Arguably the most important task,
for those who oppose America's apparently constant state of war, is to correct the threat
inflation that pervades national security discourse. When Americans and their policymakers
understand that the United States is fundamentally secure, U.S. military activism can be
reined in, and U.S. foreign policy can be reset accordingly.
Threat inflation is how American politicians and policymakers manipulate public opinion and
stifle foreign policy dissent. When hawks engage in threat inflation, they never pay a
political price for sounding false alarms, no matter how ridiculous or over-the-top their
warnings may be. They have created their own ecosystem of think tanks and magazines over the
decades to ensure that there are ready-made platforms and audiences for promoting their
fictions. This necessarily warps every policy debate as one side is permitted to indulge in the
most baseless speculation and fear-mongering, and in order to be taken "seriously" the skeptics
often feel compelled to pay lip service to the "threat" that has been wildly blown out of
proportion. In many cases, the threat is not just inflated but invented out of nothing. For
example, Iran does not pose a threat to the United States, but it is routinely cited as one of
the most significant threats that the U.S. faces. That has nothing to do with an objective
assessment of Iranian capabilities or intentions, and it is driven pretty much entirely by a
propaganda script that most politicians and policymakers recite on a regular basis. Take Iran's
missile program, for example. As John Allen Gay explains in a recent
article , Iran's missile program is primarily defensive in nature:
The reality is they're not very useful for going on offense. Quite the opposite: they're a
primarily defensive tool -- and an important one that Iran fears giving up. As the new
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report entitled "Iran Military Power" points out, "Iran's
ballistic missiles constitute a primary component of its strategic deterrent. Lacking a
modern air force, Iran has embraced ballistic missiles as a long-range strike capability to
dissuade its adversaries in the region -- particularly the United States, Israel, and Saudi
Arabia -- from attacking Iran."
Iran's missile force is in fact a product of Iranian weakness, not Iranian strength.
Iran hawks need to portray Iran's missile program inaccurately as part of their larger
campaign to exaggerate Iranian power and justify their own aggressive policies. If Iran hawks
acknowledged that Iran's missiles are their deterrent against attacks from other states,
including our government, it would undercut the rest of their fear-mongering.
Glaser and Preble identify five main sources of threat inflation in the U.S.: 1) expansive
overseas U.S. commitments require an exaggerated justification to make those commitments seem
necessary for our security; 2) decades of pursuing expansive foreign policy goals have created
a class dedicated to providing those justifications and creating the myths that sustain support
for the current strategy; 3) there are vested interests that benefit from expansive foreign
policy and seek to perpetuate it; 4) a bias in our political system in favor of hawks gives
another advantage to fear-mongers; 5) media sensationalism exaggerates dangers from foreign
threats and stokes public fear. To those I would add at least one more: threat inflation
thrives on the public's ignorance of other countries. When Americans know little or nothing
about another country beyond what they hear from the fear-mongers, it is much easier to
convince them that a foreign government is irrational and undeterrable or that weak
authoritarian regimes on the far side of the world are an intolerable danger.
Threat inflation advances with the inflation of U.S. interests. The two feed off of each
other. When far-flung crises and conflicts are treated as if they are of vital importance to
U.S. security, every minor threat to some other country is transformed into an intolerable
menace to America. The U.S. is extremely secure from foreign threats, but we are told that the
U.S. faces myriad threats because our leaders try to make other countries' internal problems
seem essential to our national security. Ukraine is at most a peripheral interest of the U.S.,
but to justify the policy of arming Ukraine we are told by the more
unhinged supporters that this is necessary to make sure that we don't have to fight Russia
"over here." Because the U.S. has so few real interests in most of the world's conflicts,
interventionists have to exaggerate what the U.S. has at stake in order to sell otherwise very
questionable and reckless policies. That is usually when we get appeals to showing "leadership"
and preserving "credibility," because even the interventionists struggle to identify why the
U.S. needs to be involved in some of these conflicts. The continued pursuit of global
"leadership" is itself an invitation to endless threat inflation, because almost anything
anywhere in the world can be construed as a threat to that "leadership" if one is so inclined.
To understand just how secure the U.S. really is, we need to give up on the costly ambition of
"leading" the world.
Threat inflation is one of the biggest and most enduring threats to U.S. security, because
it repeatedly drives the U.S. to take costly and dangerous actions and to spend exorbitant
amounts on unnecessary wars and weapons. We imagine bogeymen that we need to fight, and we
waste decades and trillions of dollars in futile and avoidable conflicts, and in the end we are
left poorer, weaker, and less secure than we were before.
Daniel
Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New
York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
This deal confirms the hypothesis that the DNC is fighting a "war on two fronts":
one against Trump and another against the socialist faction of its own party.
Notable quotes:
"... Professor Turley correctly points out that there are several other serious issues over which Trump could (and should) probably be impeached. So why did House Speaker Pelosi allow only such a narrow and weak impeachment resolution? The text of the impeachment resolution is currently in the Judiciary Committee where it will be discussed today. The language may still get sharpened a bit but there will be no additions to its core. ..."
"... The Senate could interrupt the campaigning of several sitting Senators who run in the primaries to stand as the Democratic presidential candidate. It could call Joe and Hunter Biden and the 'whistleblower' as witnesses. It could dig deeper into Russia-gate. The risk for the Democrats during this process would be enormous. ..."
"... The piece goes on to say that the Republicans allegedly fear that they may not have the votes to call witnesses. That is of course nonsense. The Republicans have 53 Senate seats and the Democrats have 47. And digging into the sleaze of Joe Biden would surely bring additional voter support and not risk any Senate seats. ..."
"... The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is because a deal was made between Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi. The deal prevented an extensive impeachment inquiry and trial that could have hurt both sides with uncertain outcome. ..."
"... That a deal was made explains why Pelosi has chosen impeachment and not censure even as polls were showing opposition to impeachment. It explains why she allowed only a narrow resolution based on weak evidence. It explains why the House agreed to Trump's ginormous defense budget in the same week that it produced an impeachment resolution against him. It also guarantees that there would be no deeper digging by Democrats against Trump. It guarantees the he will under no circumstances be found guilty and impeached. ..."
"... Both sides can live with the results of this narrow process. The Democrats demonstrate to their core constituency that they are willing to take on Trump. The Republicans show that they stand with their president and against the lame accusations. ..."
"... my hunch is that he is in on the deal. The narrowness of the impeachment resolution prevents that some other dirty deals by him might come to light. It makes another real impeachment process more unlikely. It guarantees his political survival. ..."
"... So, after indulging her caucus, Pelosi has thus cut a deal to make sure it ends quickly. I think the double-dealing is harming her health, both physical and mental. ..."
"... I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment trial will just be more free campaign time on the TV for Trump. Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty option for the establishment. ..."
"... The "political circus" is ongoing like some crazed Broadway production for 3+ years already and destined for more. That genuine articles of impeachment that ought to gain a conviction weren't employed is glaringly obvious to those few patriots that are watching. But the Congressional insanity continues as noted in my other comments made today. ..."
"... The average Republican in the Senate still does not like DJT. The average Republican in the Senate does not like where the DJT-phenomenon is leading the country (into the light) and therefore prefers a course of action to not only minimize the gain that POTUS could incur as a result of a full-blown impeachment, but also minimizes the damage to Democrats and their constituents that are still littered with true-believers suffering from massive TDS. ..."
"... he Repub decision for an expedited impeachment benefits everyone, including Biden, except Trump! ..."
"... Biden is still the front-runner (to my great surprise). A show in the senate could sink him, and then someone else would be nominated. Someone stronger, perhaps. Thus, tactically it might make sense to let Biden get the nomination, and then attack him with full force... ..."
"... If Biden was disposable, the impeachment would go on in its full or there would be simply a censure. The reason the DNC is going so far to save Joe Biden is because centrism is in survival mode. ..."
"... Yep, and not just centrism, but the whole neo-liberal philosophy. Not to worry though, big organised $ will win the day. ..."
"... ...another reason might be that a lot of politicians from both parties are so corrupt that going after Biden could open a flood of scandals. ..."
"... I'm sure when Biden said "Lindsey [Graham] is about to go down in a way that I think he's going to regret his whole life" he meant something. They're all in the same boat. ..."
The Impeachment Deal Between The House And The Senate
Two weeks ago we analyzed the consequences of an impeachment process of President Donal
Trump. We found that the Democrats would lose by impeaching him and would therefore
likely censure him instead . We were wrong. A week later Pelosi announced
to proceed with impeachment.
Only today did I understand where I was wrong and what had since happened. Let me walk you
through it.
The earlier conclusion was based on this table of possible outcomes of an impeachment
resolution:
If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp, which
seems likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she proceed?
If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
If the House votes for censure, Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue will
be over.
If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
Should the House vote for impeachment the Senate is likely to go the second path.
Looking at the choices it is quite curious why Pelosi took that decision and there has been
so far no in-depth explanation for it.
The rather short
House Resolution (also
here ) Pelosi let pass has only two articles of impeachment of Trump. The issues over which
he is supposed to be impeached for are
very limited :
Democratic leaders say Trump put his political interests above those of the nation when he
asked Ukraine to investigate his rivals, including Democrat Joe Biden, and then withheld $400
million in military aid as the U.S. ally faced an aggressive Russia.
They say he then obstructed Congress by stonewalling the House investigation.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky himself said that he did not know that Trump withheld
the $400 million for Ukraine when he had the phone call with the president in which Trump asked
him to dig into the Burisma/Biden affair. The request itself is legitimate as Biden has lots of
dirt in Ukraine. But there was no quid-quo-pro and no bribery, at least not in the phone call
the CIA 'whistleblower' and some of the witnesses complained about. Where then is the evidence
that Trump abused his power?
The obstruction of Congress accusation is equally weak. Trump had rejected the House
subpoenas to his staff because he wanted a judicial review of their legality. They might indeed
infringe on certain presidential privileges. The court process would take several months but
the Democrats simply do not want to wait that long. So who is really obstructing the legal
process in this?
Law professor Jonathan Turley, who is not a Trump fan and had testified in front of the
House Judiciary Committee, finds both points the Democrats make extremely week :
For three years, the same Democratic leadership told the public that a variety of criminal
and impeachable acts were proven in the Mueller investigation. None of those crimes are now
part of this impeachment.
Why? Because it would have been too easy an impeachment? Hardly.
Instead, the House will go forward on the only two plausible grounds that I outlined in my
testimony - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Unlike the other claims, the problem
is not with the legal basis for such impeachable offences but the evidentiary record.
This record remains both incomplete and conflicted. The Democrats have insisted on
impeaching by Christmas rather than build a record to support such charges.
...
This is now the fastest investigation with the thinnest record supporting the narrowest
impeachment in modern history.
...
The Democrats just gave Trump the best Christmas gift he could hope for under these two
circumstances ...
Professor Turley correctly points out that there are several other serious issues over which
Trump could (and should) probably be impeached. So why did House Speaker Pelosi allow only such a narrow and weak impeachment
resolution? The text of the impeachment resolution is currently in the Judiciary Committee where it will
be discussed today. The language may still get sharpened a bit
but there will be no additions to its core.
The House will then vote on it within the next week. The Senate will launch the impeachment
trial in January.
Which brings me back to the possible outcomes table:
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
The Senate could interrupt the campaigning of several sitting Senators who run in the
primaries to stand as the Democratic presidential candidate. It could call Joe and Hunter Biden
and the 'whistleblower' as witnesses. It could dig deeper into Russia-gate. The risk for the
Democrats during this process would be enormous.
But Pelosi still took that way and allowed for only a very weak impeachment resolutions. That led me to assume that a deal was made that allowed Pelosi to go that way. But there was
no sign that such a deal was made. Only today do we get the confirmation, as open as we will ever get it, that a deal has
indeed been made.
Senate Republicans are coalescing around a strategy of holding a short impeachment trial
early next year that would include no witnesses , a plan that could clash with President
Trump's desire to stage a public defense of his actions toward Ukraine that would include
testimony the White House believes would damage its political rivals.
Several GOP senators on Wednesday said it would be better to limit the trial and quickly
vote to acquit Trump, rather than engage in what could become a political circus.
"I would say I don't think the appetite is real high for turning this into a prolonged
spectacle," Senate Majority Whip John Thune (S.D.), the chamber's second-ranking
Republican, told The Washington Post on Wednesday when asked whether Trump will get the
witnesses he wants in an impeachment trial.
...
Most notably, a quick, clean trial is broadly perceived to be the preference of Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) , who wants to minimize political distractions in an
election year during which Republicans will be working to protect their slim majority in the
chamber.
The piece goes on to say that the Republicans allegedly fear that they may not have the
votes to call witnesses. That is of course nonsense. The Republicans have 53 Senate seats and
the Democrats have 47. And digging into the sleaze of Joe Biden would surely bring additional
voter support and not risk any Senate seats.
The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is
because a deal was made between Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi. The deal prevented an extensive impeachment inquiry and trial that could have hurt both
sides with uncertain outcome.
The narrowness and weakness of the impeachment resolution that can not hurt the president
was in exchange for a no-fuzz process in the Senate that will not dig into Biden and will not
hurt the Democrats during next year's election.
That a deal was made explains why Pelosi has chosen impeachment and not censure even as
polls were showing opposition to impeachment. It explains why she allowed only a narrow
resolution based on weak evidence. It explains why the House agreed to Trump's ginormous
defense budget in the same week that it produced an impeachment resolution against him. It also
guarantees that there would be no deeper digging by Democrats against Trump. It guarantees the
he will under no circumstances be found guilty and impeached.
Both sides can live with the results of this narrow process. The Democrats demonstrate to
their core constituency that they are willing to take on Trump. The Republicans show that they
stand with their president and against the lame accusations.
Trump will loudly claim that he does not like that the Senate will shut down the issue as
soon as possible. He will twitter that the Senate must tear into Biden and other Democrats. He
will play deeply disappointed when it does not do that.
But my hunch is that he is in on the deal. The narrowness of the impeachment resolution
prevents that some other dirty deals by him might come to light. It makes another real
impeachment process more unlikely. It guarantees his political survival.
The question left is if there were additional elements in this deal. What could those be
about?
(This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our
work .)
Posted by b on December 12, 2019 at 18:44 UTC |
Permalink
Don't forget Sanders.
Pelosi pulling back from any impeachment attempt would only serve to underscore the
pusillanimity of the Democratic leadership.
If the Democrats *must* do an impeachment but would be hurt by a Republican Senate hit back,
this deal makes perfect sense.
Clearly Trump doesn't care about doling out money to corrupt countries. If he did, he would
be stopping aid to Israel where Netanyahu has actually been indicted on multiple counts of
corruption.
So, after indulging her caucus, Pelosi has thus cut a deal to make sure it ends quickly. I
think the double-dealing is harming her health, both physical and mental.
Dems will be able to paint swing state republicans that have been trying to distance
themselves from Trump as Trump lackeys for their 2020 reelection bids. Saying these GOP
senators are perfectly fine with inviting foreign interference into elections.
To me this proves that there really is no difference between Ds and Rs, both side made (are
still making) money on the plundering of Ukraine after the coup.
I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment
trial will just be more free campaign time on the TV for Trump. Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty
option for the establishment.
Not sure. McConnell may actually prefer working against a Dem prez than working for a Pub.
Especially a Pub loose cannon like Trump. To date, McConnell has a better record in
obstructing Dem execut8ve plans than passing GOP proposals.
Bernard makes a lot of sense today. The swamp is on the verge of eating its own and
neither Pelosi or McConnell desire that.
Pelosi remains alive only through the deal she made with the Devil decades ago which she
continues to honor daily.
This quote from the cited WaPost article is too funny:
"Several GOP senators on Wednesday said it would be better to limit the trial and quickly
vote to acquit Trump, rather than engage in what could become a political circus ."
[my emphasis]
The "political circus" is ongoing like some crazed Broadway production for 3+ years
already and destined for more. That genuine articles of impeachment that ought to gain a
conviction weren't employed is glaringly obvious to those few patriots that are watching. But
the Congressional insanity continues as noted in my other comments made today.
Someone wrote that this is the season of pantomime, and to that I must agree. Fantasies
and falsehoods peddled as realities all for the purpose of further enriching the few while
the many rejoice in their collective gullibility. Please, add another shot of brandy to my
eggnog!
B, you are right that deals have been made, but you are wrong to think Trump is in on it.
He may go along with it, but that does not mean he is arguing from a point of
weakness.
Here is the fact:
The average Republican in the Senate still does not like DJT. The average Republican in
the Senate does not like where the DJT-phenomenon is leading the country (into the light) and
therefore prefers a course of action to not only minimize the gain that POTUS could incur as
a result of a full-blown impeachment, but also minimizes the damage to Democrats and their
constituents that are still littered with true-believers suffering from massive TDS.
If they look weak towards POTUS, the Dems will have signaled their acknowledgment that
this whole affair is in fact a distraction.
Therefore, you can see that the Repub decision for an expedited impeachment benefits
everyone, including Biden, except Trump!
It can be inferred that the Repubs are still dreaming of DJT's eventual dethronement and a
return to the standard operating procedure of the pre-DJT era.
Biden is still the front-runner (to my great surprise). A show in the senate could sink him,
and then someone else would be nominated. Someone stronger, perhaps. Thus, tactically it
might make sense to let Biden get the nomination, and then attack him with full force...
Who knows. They have consultants to tell them how to play the game.
This deal confirms my long-held hypothesis that the DNC is fighting a "war on two fronts":
one against Trump and another against the socialist faction of its own party.
If Biden was disposable, the impeachment would go on in its full or there would be simply
a censure. The reason the DNC is going so far to save Joe Biden is because centrism is in
survival mode.
...another reason might be that a lot of politicians from both parties are so corrupt that
going after Biden could open a flood of scandals.
I'm sure when Biden said "Lindsey [Graham] is about to go down in a way that I think he's
going to regret his whole life" he meant something. They're all in the same boat.
And behind Brennan we can can see the Nobel Peace Price winner.
Notable quotes:
"... A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the current director of the CIA. ..."
"... One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign. ..."
"... The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with. ..."
"... The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors. ..."
"... That the dossier was mere dreck was quite obvious to any sober person who read it when it was first published ..."
"... That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level", face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. ..."
"... (This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our work .) ..."
"... Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan, Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new McCarthyism. ..."
"... "Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted." ..."
"... ... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate ... ..."
"... It's Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice (to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an inevitability as the US elite had assumed. ..."
"... Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone? Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public (meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story). ..."
"... Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier. Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others. ..."
"... physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns. ..."
"... So Horowitz was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice. ..."
When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the relevant powers
launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump.
The ultimate aim of the cabal is to kick him out of office and have a reliable
replacement, like the Vice-President elect Pence, take over. Should that not be possible
it is hoped that the delegitimization will make it impossible for Trump to change major
policy trajectories especially in foreign policy. A main issue here is the reorientation of
the U.S. military complex and its NATO proxies from the war of terror towards a direct
confrontation with main powers like Russia and China.
...
A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the
current director of the CIA.
One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged
Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign.
Horowitz finds that the FBI was within the law when it opened the investigation but that the
FBI's applications to the FISA court, which decides if the FBI can spy on someone's
communications, were based on lies and utterly flawed.
Your host unfortunately lacked the time so far to read more than the executive summary. But
others have pointed out some essential findings.
If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz
constitutes a "clearing" of the FBI, never clear me of anything. ...
Much of the press is concentrating on Horowitz's conclusion that there was no evidence of
"political bias or improper motivation" in the FBI's probe of Donald Trump's Russia contacts,
an investigation Horowitz says the bureau had "authorized purpose" to conduct.
...
However, Horowitz describes at great length an FBI whose "serious" procedural problems and
omissions of "significant information" in pursuit of surveillance authority all fell in the
direction of expanding the unprecedented investigation of a presidential candidate (later, a
president).
...
There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless
headlines were wrong. Some key points:
The so-called "Steele dossier" was, actually, crucial to the FBI's decision to seek secret
surveillance of Page. ...
...
The "Steele dossier" was "Internet rumor," and corroboration for the pee tape story was
"zero." ...
Appendix 1 identifies the total violations by the FBI of the so-called Woods Procedures, the
process by which the bureau verifies information and assures the FISA court its evidence is
true.
The Appendix identifies a total of 51 Woods procedure violations from the FISA application
the FBI submitted to the court authorizing surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter
Page starting in October 2016.
A whopping nine of those violations fell into the category called: "Supporting document
shows that the factual assertion is inaccurate."
For those who don't speak IG parlance, it means the FBI made nine false assertions to the
FISA court. In short, what the bureau said was contradicted by the evidence in its official
file.
The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not
mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and
on everyone they communicated with.
The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had
talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later
'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were
no more than unconfirmed rumors.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous compatriot that two anonymous
sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claimed to have heard somewhere
that something happened in the Kremlin.
They assert that Trump was supported and directed by Putin himself five years ago while
even a year ago no one would have bet a penny on Trump gaining any political significant
position or even the presidency.
It is now claimed that the FBI is exculpated because the Horowitz report did not find
"political bias or improper motivation". But that omits the fact that at least four high
ranking people in the FBI and Justice Department who were involved in the case were found to be
politically
biased and were removed from their positions.
It also omits that the scope of Horowitz's investigation was limited to the Justice
Department. He was not able to investigate the CIA and its former director John Brennan who was
alleging Russia-Trump connections months before the FBI investigation started:
Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe,
Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into
domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately
false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.
The current CIA director Gina Haspel was CIA station chief in London during that time and
while several of the entrapment attempts of Trump campaign staff by the FBI investigation
happened. Horowitz spoke with neither of them.
The current Horowitz Report, read alongside his previous report on how the FBI played inside
the 2016 election vis-a-vis Clinton, should leave no doubt that the Bureau tried to influence
the election of a president and then delegitimize him when he won. It wasn't the Russians; it
was us.
That is correct, but the whole conspiracy was even deeper. It was not the FBI which
initiated the case.
My hunch is still that the FBI investigation was a case of parallel construction which is often
used to build a legitimate case after a suspicion was found by illegitimate means. In this case
it was John Brennan who in early 2016 contacted the head of the British GCHQ electronic
interception service and asked him to spy on the Trump campaign. GHCQ then claimed that
something was found that was deemed
suspicious :
That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief
John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level",
face-to-face between the two agency chiefs.
The FBI was tipped off on the issue and on July 31 2016 started an investigation to
construct a parallel legal case. It send out British and U.S. agents to entrap Trump campaign
members. It used the obviously fake Steele dossier to gain FISA court judgments that allowed it
to spy on the campaign. Downing Street
was informed throughout the whole affair. A day after Trump's inauguration the UK's then
Prime Minister Theresa May
fired GHCQ chief Robert Hannigan.
One still open question is to what extend then President Barack Obama was involved in the
affair.
There is another ongoing investigation by U.S. Prosecutor John Durham. That investigation is
not limited to the Justice Department but will involve all agencies and domestic as well as
foreign sources. Durham has the legal rights to declassify whatever is needed and he can indict
persons should he find that they committed a crime. His report will hopefully go much deeper
than the already horrendous stuff Horowitz delivered.
(This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our
work .)
Posted by b on December 11, 2019 at 16:16 UTC |
Permalink
Anyone taking bets on Durham/Barr making indictments in this mess? My guess is a whole lot of
horse trading is going on behind the scenes now, as in, "I'll trade you a censure for all
potential indictments going down the memory hole."
Typical dog and pony show which will change nothing relating to interventionist foreign
policy and the new cold war with Russia. Too many saw benefits from the corruption in Ukraine
to dig deep there; the Bidens were just the most blatant, Lindsey Graham and others from both
parties were involved so don't expect much from the Senate hearings. The bipartisan major
goals are a fait accompli; universal acceptance that Russia worked to undermine our elections
(and to destroy our "Democracy") and are thus an enemy we must fight, and it's universally
accepted by all that we MUST provide Ukraine with Javelin missiles and other lethal aid to
fight "Russian Aggression" (with little mention that even Obama balked at that reckless
option). All of these proceedings are great distractions, but the weapons of war will not be
diminished.
Unfortuneately, few will question the findings of these investigations or consider the
possibility that the investigations themselves are misdirection/cover-up.
IMO the Lavrov-Pompeo
presser is notable mostly for Lavrov's discussion of Russiagate (about 6 minutes in).
Lavrov tells us that the Russian's repeatedly sought to clarify their noninterference by
publishing correspondence - which the Trump Administration didn't respond to. And he actual
mentions McCarthyism!
Wait, wot?
Yeah, during the worst of the Russiagate accusations, Trump wouldn't do things that
would've helped to prove that Russiagate was a farce!!
So, during the election, Trump called on Putin to publish Hillary's emails (the very act
of making such a request is likely illegal because at the time it was known that her emails
contained highly classified info) but he wouldn't accept Russia's publication of
exculpatory info about Russiagate?!?!
This would cause cognitive dissonance galore in an Americans that hear it - so one can
be sure that it will not be reported.
Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan,
Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new
McCarthyism.
Meanwhile in bizarroland (aka USA), Barr says Russiagate is a fantasy based on FBI "bad
faith" - yet Pompeo still presses on with the "Russia meddled" bullshit.
thanks b... i like your example in the comment - ''those who thought otherwise should
question their judgment''.. good example!
i am a bit concerned like @ 2 casey, that most of this is going to go down the memory hole
and there will be that made in america stamp on it - ''no accountability''... i wish i was
wrong, but getting worked up at the idea anyone is going to be held accountable for any
actions of the usa, or the insiders playing the usa, is clearly a fools game at this point..
all i mostly see is the needed collapse and waiting for that to happen..
Thanks for that, there are definitely cracks in the armor and we should promote that
narrative as you do in your link. Tulsi Gabbard has also expanded the awareness, hopefully
she will make the upcoming debates despite strong efforts to silence her. I'll try more to
focus on the positive!
@ 6 jr.. there is a press release on all what was said
here for anyone interested..
lavrov quote and etc. etc.. "We suggested to our colleagues that in order to dispel all
suspicions that are baseless, let us publish this closed-channel correspondence starting from
October 2016 till November 2017 so it would all become very clear to many people. However,
regrettably, this administration refused to do so. But I'd like to repeat once again we are
prepared to do that, and to publish the correspondence that took place through that channel
would clear many matters up, I believe. Nevertheless, we hope that the turbulence that
appeared out of thin air will die down, just like in 1950s McCarthyism came to naught, and
there'll be an opportunity to go back to a more constructive cooperation."
I continue to believe that the FBI and Horowitz perjured themselves
in the FISA report. To correct a mistake in a previous post I made, I
believe they lied when the claimed the Steele Dossier was not a
predicate for opening crossfire hurricane. How can the Steele dossier
not be instrumental in the opening of the investigation when bruce ohr's
wife nellie ohr was working at fusion gps when bruce ohr met with
steele
to discuss the dirty dossier.
In other words, the FBI
was concocting Operation Crossfire Hurricane prior to the time they had
any knowledge of the phony Papadopoulus predicate that the russians were proferring
the clinton emails to the trump campaign.
The FISA report claim that Operation Crossfire
Hurricane was predicated solely on the Papadopolous allegations is therefore a lie. There
was, in fact, no real predicate for Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The predications
cited were all fictions and inventions fabricated in a conspiracy between MI6(the FFC or
friendly foreign country cited in the Horowitz report), the
DOJ and the FBI. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was a massive Psyop from its inception.
What major publications have picked up this info from the State Dept PR? Which of them are
questioning why Trump didn't agree to let the Russians publish the exonerating information?
And how many of those are linking this strange fact to other strange facts and thus raising
troubling questions about the 2016 election?
<> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not just that Trump refused to publish exculpatory material. Anyone that's been
reading my comments (and/or my blog) knows that Trump also:
- hired Manafort - whose work for pro-Russian candidates in Ukraine had drawn the ire of
CIA - despite Manafort's having no recent experience with US elections;
- helped Pelosi to be elected Speaker of the House by inviting her to attend a White
House meeting about his border wall (along with Chuck Schumer) prior to the House vote to
elect a Speaker.
- initiated Ukrainegate by talking with Ukraine's President about investigating an
announced candidate - he didn't have to do this(!) he could've let subordinates work
behind the scenes .
And then there's a set of suspicious activity that is difficult to explain, such as: ...
- Kissinger's having called for MAGA in August 2014 (Trump announced his campaign 10
months later and he was the ONLY MAGA candidate and the ONLY populist in the Republican
primary) ;
- London as a nexus for the US 2016 campaign (Cambridge Analytica; GPS Fusion;
Halper, etc.) ;
- Hillary's making mistakes in the 2016 campaign that no seasoned politician would
make;
- the settling of scores via entrapments of Flynn, Manafort, and Wikileaks/Assange
(painted as a hostile intelligence agency and Russian agent).
All of these and more support the conclusion that CIA-MI6 elected MAGA Trump and initiated
Russiagate.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous asserted compatriot what two
anonymous sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claim to have heard
somewhere that something happened in the Kremlin. <-- Perhaps it is too much to add that
the entire conversation happen in a pub, like an eyewitness account of a trout caught by an
angler that was larger than a tiger shark [the trout was so large, not the angler].
I am a great fan of Dmitri Orlov and have just read a large portion of his linked
post.
What I do not see Orlov doing is taking into account--in his takedown of "scientific"
models---evidence of global warming/change such as *actual* observations of *actual, current*
phenomena that are being measured today, such as the condition of the world's coral reefs;
the rate of melting of permafrost and release of methane gas; the melting of Greenland (and
other) glaciers and release of fresh water into the oceans; acidification of oceans; and
quite a lot of evidence for sea level rise, such as saltwater intrusion into freshwater
swamps, aquifers, etc.
More can be gleaned by the manner in which BigLie Media spin the investigation's results. At
The Hill , Jonathon Turley makes that clear in the first paragraph:
"The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz
greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many
people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude
one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its
investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump."
The further he goes the worse it gets for the Ds. And he's 100% correct about the biases
present in reporting about the Report.
Remarks made by Lavrov at the presser were likely done prior to anyone from Russia's
delegation having digested any of the Report. What I found important was the following
revelation by Lavrov:
"Let me remind you that at the time of the first statements on this topic, which was on
the eve of the 2016 US presidential election, we used the communications channel that linked
back then Moscow and the Obama administration in Washington to ask our US partners on
numerous occasions whether these allegations that emerged in October 2016 and persisted until
Donald Trump's inauguration could be addressed. The reply never came. There was no
response whatsoever to all our proposals when we said: look, if you suspect us, let's sit
down and talk, just put your facts on the table. All this continued after President Trump's
inauguration and the appointment of a new administration. We proposed releasing the
correspondence through this closed communications channel for the period from October 2016
until January 2017 in order to dispel all this groundless suspicion. This would have
clarified the situation for many. Unfortunately, this time it was the current administration
that refused to do so. Let me reiterate that we are ready to disclose to the public the
exchanges we had through this channel . I think that this would set many things straight.
Nevertheless we expect the turbulence that appeared out of thin air to calm down little by
little, just as McCarthyism waned in the 1950s, so that we can place our cooperation on a
more constructive footing." [My Emphasis]
Lavrov on Mueller Report: "It contains no confirmation of any collusion." End of story.
But we do have all this compiled evidence within our communications we're ready to publish is
the USA
agrees.
The Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) organization has yet to publish anything
about the report. However, Matt Taibbi often writes for that outlet, so his reporting at
Rolling Stone ought to be seen as a proxy FAIR report.
Now that we know Carter Page was working for the CIA as an informant in 2016, is it
reasonable to speculate that Page was planted in the Trump campaign by the CIA?
The Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Micheal Horowitz's report on the move to
delegitimize the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is clear proof of the massive rot
that lies at the heart of the US' political system. If this matter is whitewashed over by the
MSM, then one more step will have been taken to a violent and bloody revolution in the US of
A.
By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked
"Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the
Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in
relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There
might be a motive hidden there.
Thank you for posting Lavrov's words. Between those words and the IG report the kabuki
farce is revealed. Why was Trump ignoring the Russian offer you might ask. Because it suited
him to have this nonsense dominate the news cycle, you might conclude. Trump and Comey and
Brennan deserve each other.
just like 9-11... this is an inside job... does anyone really think the truth is going to
come to light in any of it?? i'm still with @ 2 caseys view...
Thanks for your reply! Yes, agreed, and I'd add Obama and Clinton.
Lavrov also held another presser at the conclusion of his visit that provides additional
info not covered in the first. The following is one I thought important:
"Question: The day before, US Congress agreed on a draft military budget, which includes
possible sanctions against Nord Stream-2 and Turkish Stream. Have you covered this topic? The
Congress sounds very determined. How seriously will the new restrictions affect the
completion of our projects?
"Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our
relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I
mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you
that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted."
I must emphatically agree with Lavrov's opinion and was very pleased he answered
forthrightly. What seems quite clear is the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by
Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate, with bipartisan Congressional backing.
That she lost didn't stop the anti-Russian wheel from being turned. So, logic tells us to
discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've written here why I think
that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the
planet and its people regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance made
reality by that policy goal. That a supermajority in Congress remain deluded is clearly a
huge problem, and those continuing to vote for the War Budget need to be removed.
b posted, in part;"When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the
relevant powers launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump."
It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO.
Are you aware of any means by which a member of congress or of a congressional committee can
be impeached or otherwise censured for the misconduct of official duties? That would at least
be Schiff...
Posted by: Paul Damascene | Dec 11 2019 21:24 utc |
32
@ 31 john.. i didn't know i had to read the orlov article to say what i did to you!! your
post @11 never make any internet link to orlov... what am i missing? does this mean i can
only speak with you after i have read another orlov article? lol...
"It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO."--ben @28
Ah, but that would be legitimate deligitimization, like attacking his actual policies.
Those are rocks that would break the Democrats' own windows as well as Trump's.
1. Senate Foreign Relations Comm passed Turkey sanctions bill
2. Pentagon Chief warned Turkey moving away NATO
3. U.S. lawmakers introduce legislation to curb Turkey's nuclear weapon obtainment"
Finally, the pretense of being nice to Turkey has come to an end. It will now intensify
its looking East, and pursue its national interests. IMO, the Eastern Med's energy issues
will now become a major headache.
karlof @ 29: The head Dems know their pushing the " Russia did it"meme is weak, but the
PTB
insist on it, to keep the MIC funds flowing.
The "no-brainer" charges should be; "Obstruction" and "Emoluments" violations. Charges the
public can grasp.
What happens if you, or any average person, ignores a summons to appear? They are
arrested.
Funneling govt. funds for personal gain is a violation of law, if you are POTUS.
These are violations average Americans can grasp, not the current circus of he said, she
said, going on in D.C. lately.
Guess my point is, this hearings are built to fail, because most of our so-called
leaders
like things the way they are. The rape of the workings classes will continue.
Yes. The impeachment process is the same as for Trump. Censuring is much easier but doubt
it will occur as too many are deserving. We're seeing the reason Congressional elections are
held every two years--vote 'em out if they're no good!
... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for
Clinton to escalate ...
I don't agree that the baton would be passed to Clinton. The Deep State uses the two-party
system as a device. It's not tied to partisan concerns. If the Deep State and the
establishment really wanted Clinton elected, they would've made that happen. Few expected
Trump to win and few would've been outraged if he had lost. Yet he won. Against all odds. Furthermore, Clinton wasn't the MAGA candidate as called for by Kissinger - Trump was. And
he was from the beginning of his candidacy.
Russiagate was based on suspicions of a populist that was compromised by Russia.
Hillary has too much baggage to play populist or nationalist - including Bill's involvement
with Epstein.
Also, you're forgetting the set ups of Manafort, Flynn, and Wikileaks/Assange - which were
important parts of Russiagate and also a convenient way of settling scores. These set-ups
required the Russiagate-tainted candidate (Trump) to win.
And Trump's beating Hillary makes him the classic come-from-behind hero - giving Trump a
certain legitimacy that an establishment candidate wouldn't have. That's important when
contemplating taking the country to war in the near future.
It's strange to me that people can think that Hillary was the 'chosen candidate', and be
OK with that but find a possible selection of a different candidate (Trump, as it turns out)
to be outrageous and inconceivable.
=
... with bipartisan Congressional backing . That she lost didn't stop the
anti-Russian wheel from being turned.
Since the Deep State and the Establishment desired an effort to restore the Empire, they
would turn to whomever could most effectively accomplish that task.
Once again: It didn't have to be Hillary that was selected. In fact, for many reasons
(that I've previously expressed) Hillary would have been a poor choice.
=
So, logic tells us to discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've
written here why I think that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full
Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people ...
FSD is US Mil policy, not a political goal. It states that US Mil will strive to have
superiority in weapons and capability in every sphere of combat.
Politically, FSD is just one of several means to an end. IMO that end is the maintenance
and expansion of the Anglo-Zionist Empire (aka New World Order).
Also, your dominance theory doesn't answer the question of WHY NOW? (more on that
below)
... regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance ...
Firstly, US Deep State believes that it is possible. And I personally don't buy the notion
that Russia and China are fated to prevail. If that were obvious, then the moa bar would have
no patrons.
Secondly (and again), WHY NOW? The Sino-Russo Alliance was long in the making. Why did USA
suddenly take note?
It's
Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger
calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing
immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice
(to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an
inevitability as the US elite had assumed.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I've written many times of Kissinger's Op-Ed and of indications that the Deep State
selected MAGA Trump to be President while also initiating a new McCarthyism. Why is it STILL
so difficult to believe a theory that makes so much sense?
Yes, the status quo is very generous to the Current Oligarchy and its tools, but not so
for the vast public majority which is clamoring for change. IMO, much can be learned from the
UK election tomorrow, of which there's been very little discussion here despite its
importance. I suggest following the very important developments from the past few days at
Criag Murray's Twitter and
at
his website , the linked article being a scoop of sorts.
Also harder to follow but important as well are ballot initiatives within the states.
This site
has current listing . I just looked over those for California where there are a few good
ones, but the threshold for signatures is getting higher, close to one million are now needed
in CA.
Lavrov's comments about the offers to open up normally closed communications really only
highlight two obvious issues:
The previous US Administration had no interest in shutting off the oxygen to the "Trump =
Moscow's Man" campaign; and
The current US Administration cannot afford to be perceived as receiving help in this matter
from the country he is alleged to be beholden to for his election.
With only 9% approval, it ought to be easy to toss out most Congresscritters, excepting
that part of the Senate not up for reelection.
You'd think so, but somehow the numbers pretty much reverse when these same people
consider their own rep, and the incumbency reelection rate is shockingly high (haven't
looked recently but IIRC it has hovered around 90% for decades). Apparently it is amazingly
easy to convince the masses that their guy is the one good apple in the bunch.
Jon Schwartz
reminds me why I don't stop and peruse magazine stands anymore. Seeing the words and this
picture would've sparked lots of unpleasant language:
"The best part of Michelle Obama explaining she shares the same values as George W. Bush
is she was being interviewed on network TV by Bush's daughter. There's nothing more American
than our ruling class making us watch them discuss how great they all are."
And the escalation wasn't rigged for Clinton to initiate--yeah, sure, whatever the rabbit
says.
Until there is some comparison of how the FISA court usually works, none of this chatter
means a thing. Violations of Woods procedures and assertions not supported by documents are
SOP. The FISA court is always a joke.
Delgeitimizing Trump, reversing the election, all simple-minded drviel, as only nitwits
see Trump as anything but the loser.
Skripal knows something that US-UK either 1) don't want the Russians to know OR 2) don't
want ANYONE to know.
What could that be? 1) That Steele dossier is bullshit? We know that. 2) That Steele
dossier was meant to be bullshit ? Well, that raises a whole host of questions,
doesn't it?
Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone?
Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past
working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public
(meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story).
Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written
articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier.
Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others.
The Afghanistan report outlines a *massive fraud*. $14 billion/month, 90% of the world's
opium, no "progress", oh, and lying to Congress for two decades.
physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the
weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the
bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the
UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns.
Fox News, now: Biden blames staff, says nobody 'warned' him son's Ukraine job could raise
conflict. In a TV comedy Seinfeld, one of the main characters, George, is a compulsive liar with a
knack of getting in trouble. Sometimes he has a job. Final scene of one of those jobs:
Boss: "You have been seen after hours making sex with the cleaning lady on the top of your
desk."
George (after a measured look at his boss): "If I was only told that this kind of things
is being frown upon..." [and she had cleaned the desk both before AND after!]
I have theory about why Horowitz did not bias in the FBI. The
definition of bias is to harbor a deeply negative feeling that
clouds one's judgement about a person or subject. However, the
conspirators' judgement was not clouded in this case. Their
negative feelings focused their intent to destroy the object of
their feeling. The precise term for this is malice.
So Horowitz
was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might
have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice.
Re Really?? | Dec 11 2019 18:31 utc | 14 and AshenLight | Dec 11 2019 19:36 utc | 19
I agree with you. Orlov is a brilliant, insightful analyst, who is also very funny. But he
is off the mark with his dismissal of global warming and also with his endorsement of nuclear
power. The immense amounts of waste from uranium mining all the way to hundreds of thousands
of tons of high-level waste in spent fuel pools pose a huge threat to current and future
generations . . . like the next 3000 generations of humans (and all other forms of life) that
will have to deal with this. Mankind has never built anything that has lasted a fraction of
the 100,000 years required for the isolation of high-level wastes from the biosphere. Take a
look at Into
Eternity which is a great documentary on the disposal of nuclear waste in Finland.
Orlov's analysis is superficial, unfortunately, in these areas.
If the allegations against the president are all completely false, then his supporters can
continue to back him with a clear conscience, because anything and everything negative they
hear about the president must be false. The consistency of that message is more important than
the actual details, which frequently end up contradicting complex explanations for the
president's innocence that are often incongruous with each other, such as the
insistence that Robert Mueller's investigation was a "total exoneration" of the president,
but also " total bullshit ."
"... Yes, something happened, but it was because Ukraine did it and not us ..."
"... David Hale, an undersecretary in Trump's own State Department, expressed that concern at a Senate hearing on Tuesday. When asked about the national-security ramifications of the rhetoric, Hale said pointedly, "It does not serve our interests." ..."
This new front opened
when Representative Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, repeatedly
insisted during last month's impeachment hearings that Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 election against Trump. That drew
a stern rebuke from one witness asked to testify, the former Trump National Security Council adviser Fiona Hill, who
warned that congressional Republicans were spreading "a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by
the Russian security services themselves."
But Hill's words have not stopped Republicans from reprising those arguments. In late November, Senator John Kennedy
of Louisiana claimed during a television interview that Ukraine, not Russia, might have hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computers in 2016. After
retreating from that claim
, he went on
Meet the Press
on Sunday
and equated public criticism of Trump by some Ukrainian officials with
Russia's systematic interference campaign in 2016.
The Senate Intelligence
Committee, during its investigation of 2016 election meddling,
found no evidence of Ukrainian interference
. But when asked about Kennedy's comments this week, Senator Richard Burr
of North Carolina, the committee's chairman, came closer to endorsing rather than repudiating them.
"Every elected
official in the Ukraine was for Hillary Clinton,"
Burr told NBC
. "Is that very different than the Russians being for Donald Trump?" Burr went on to liken Russia's
massive intelligence and hacking campaign to occasional public comments by Ukrainian officials critical of Trump. "The
president can say that they meddled because they had a preference, the elected officials,"
Burr said
. Other Republican senators, including John Barrasso of Wyoming, offered similar arguments this week.
The report released on
Monday by House Republicans likewise blurred the difference. "Publicly available -- and irrefutable -- evidence shows how
senior Ukrainian government officials sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in opposition to President
Trump's candidacy," the report insisted.
Tucker Carlson took these arguments to new heights
on his show Monday night, not only minimizing Russian involvement
in 2016 but questioning why the U.S. was opposing its incursion into Ukraine at all. "I think we should probably take
the side of Russia if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine," Carlson insisted.
Republican
foreign-policy experts are still worried about the attempts by GOP leaders to defend Trump by disparaging Ukraine.
"For starters, you end up validating the Kremlin line which they have been peddling since 2016:
Yes, something
happened, but it was because Ukraine did it and not us
," says Richard Fontaine, who runs the nonpartisan Center for
a New American Security and was the top foreign-policy adviser to the late Senator John McCain of Arizona. "It's one
thing if Putin says these things, or if Kremlin spokespeople say these things; people, I hope, will take it with a
gigantic mountain of salt. But when you have U.S. elected leaders saying these things, it gives it a significant dose of
credibility, and that's not a good thing."
David Hale, an undersecretary in Trump's own State Department, expressed that concern at a Senate hearing on
Tuesday. When asked about the national-security ramifications of the rhetoric, Hale said pointedly, "It does not serve
our interests."
The accusations against Ukraine have drawn forceful pushback this week from Democrats, but only a few
Republicans -- most directly Senator Mitt Romney of Utah -- have openly condemned them. "What you are seeing unfortunately is
Republicans wanting to just adopt and parrot the Trump talking points, which also coincide with the Putin talking
points," Van Hollen said.
"... According to the Washington Examiner , the GOP-controlled Senate have no plans to call key witnesses to testify in an impeachment trial. This means Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson, Alexandra Chalupa and Ukrainian prosecutors involved in the Burisma case won't set foot in the Senate. ..."
"... Washington Examiner ..."
"... Washington Examiner ..."
"... That may not play well with Trump's base, who was expecting to see a doddering Joe Biden and his cokehead son Hunter answer tough questions about Ukraine. ..."
"... Without witness testimony, the Senate proceedings would take roughly two weeks according to the report. ..."
"... On Tuesday, House Democrats introduced two articles of impeachment accusing President Trump of abusing his power and obstructing Congress. Notably, there is no mention "extortion" or "quid-pro-quo" - accusations Democrats have been pounding on throughout the process. ..."
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Senate Republicans To Let Bidens Off The
Hook? May Skip Witnesses In 'Expedited' Impeachment Trial by Tyler Durden Tue, 12/10/2019 - 19:45 0
SHARES
While House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate
the Bidens for what looks like obvious corruption - Senate Republicans have no interest in
calling witnesses to determine whether Trump's request was justified in the first place.
According to the
Washington Examiner , the GOP-controlled Senate have no plans to call key witnesses to
testify in an impeachment trial. This means Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson,
Alexandra Chalupa and Ukrainian prosecutors involved in the Burisma case won't set foot in the
Senate.
Their reasoning? Senate Republicans have "no appetite" for it.
Senate impeachment rules require a majority vote to call witnesses, and with just two out
of 53 votes to spare, there is no "appetite" among Republicans to pursue testimony from
people that Democrats
blocked Republicans from subpoenaing during the House investigation . Indeed, Republicans
might forgo calling witnesses altogether, saying minds are made up on Trump's guilt or
innocence and that testimony at trial on the Senate floor would draw out the proceedings
unnecessarily. - Washington Examiner
Instead, top Senate Republicans are leaning towards calling a quick vote to acquit Trump
once House Democrats and the White House have delivered their arguments.
"At that point, I would expect that most members would be ready to vote and wouldn't need
more information," said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming - the #3 ranked Senate Republican. "Many
people have their minds pretty well made up."
"Here's what I want to avoid: this thing going on longer than it needs to," said Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R-SC). " I want to end this. "
The president is not in danger of being removed from office by the Senate, a move that
requires 67 votes.
But in a trial, he is seeking exoneration . Some Republicans question whether that's
possible without hearing from witnesses, whether it be these or other less politically
charged figures. " Not sure how you have a fair trial without calling witnesses ," said one
Trump ally in the House.
But with some Senate Republicans facing uncertain 2020 reelection contests and others
privately unhappy with Trump's behavior, mustering 51 GOP votes for Trump's dream witness
list appears impossible.
" How many senators would enjoy a Trump rally? That's probably your whip count for calling
Hunter, " a Republican senator said, requesting anonymity to speak candidly. Senate Democrats
are not expected to provide any votes to call Biden or the others. Or they might ask so high
a price, demanding that in exchange, they be allowed to call Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
and Vice President Mike Pence, that Republicans balk. - Washington Examiner
"It becomes endless motions to call people, and I'm not sure what anybody gains from all
that," said #2 Senate Republican, John Thune of South Dakota.
That may not play well with Trump's base, who was expecting to see a doddering Joe Biden
and his cokehead son Hunter answer tough questions about Ukraine.
"President Trump's allies will want to see witnesses called. How many, and which witnesses,
will quickly become a dividing line," said former Trump adviser Jason Miller, who co-hosts an
impeachment-centric podcast with Steve Bannon.
Without witness testimony, the Senate proceedings would take roughly two weeks according
to the report.
On Tuesday, House Democrats introduced two articles of impeachment accusing President
Trump of abusing his power and obstructing Congress. Notably, there is no mention "extortion"
or "quid-pro-quo" - accusations Democrats have been pounding on throughout the
process.
But with some Senate Republicans facing uncertain 2020 reelection contests and others
privately unhappy with Trump's behavior, mustering 51 GOP votes for Trump's dream witness
list appears impossible.
Oh, you mean their own corruption will be exposed.
Democrats will claim that it was a rush to 'Political Judgement' and that they did all the
investigating and the Senate did nothing ... which will be true.
We need a complete Senate trial to bring to light the truth ... the IG report did not do
it and the DOJ seem impossibly incapable ... only chance is complete witnessed Senate
trial
I,m just curious to see if anybody has the balls to publish the names of all the grifting
family members of Senators and Congressmen and the details of what they are skimming and
where.......
I Guess Peter Schweitzer is the closest we will get.....
Well, I just watched Nadler's Articles of Impeachment presser. Jeez, I never saw the dems
so scarred and glum. Nancy looked like a zombie, as did all the rest. Check out the fat, ugly
bitch in the red jacket near Adam Schiff. Tells you all you need to know about the dems.
"... Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be thorough and complete. This is neither. ..."
"... A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of Executive Privilege. ..."
"... JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the subjective intent of the actor is crucial. ..."
"... As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it " isn't evidence. ..."
The are two answers to the question, "How is lying the country into the Iraq war not
impeachable, and this mass of anodyne trivialities impeachable?"
The optimistic answer is, "Because the former is a matter of statecraft, and the latter is
using official power to derive a direct personal benefit, and the standards for impeachment
based statecraft are much higher." (Congress in rejected Cambodia based articles of
impeachment in 1974)
The cynical answer is, "Because everyone in Washington, DC has sad-sack children who get
jobs because of their political power, and Trump must not be allowed to infringe on our
privilege."
The thing is, BOTH answers are true for different people.
For folks like Pramila Jayapal or AOC, I think that they see this as bribery and an abuse
of office for personal gain. (This group has been calling for impeachment for a while)
For someone like Nancy Pelosi, whose kids have clearly had opportunities as a result of
her position, I think that it is the latter.
How these two categories are split in the Democratic caucus, and there are probably some
in the, "Both," camp, is beyond me.
However, even by a relatively strict interpretation if impeachable offense, we have
obstruction of justice in the Mueller report, obstruction of Congress right now, tax and bank
fraud (though those were done when he was a private citizen), connections to the mob, both
domestic and Russian, witness intimidation, and bribery off the top of my head. (Ignoring
campaign finance violations, because seriously, who cares)
I have always felt the the furor over Russian interference in the election, which was
minor compared to what Churchill did in 1940, was primarily about excusing the corrupt and
incompetent Democratic Party (mis)leadership, and you will notice that I have not included
any of that, though obviously the cover-up flowed from that in some cases.
As Lambert knows, I'm retired after working as a prosecutor in Silicon Valley for 32 years.
I think that Lambert is "on to something" here, but doesn't quite hit the mark. Selective
Prosecution is a huge issue in this country, but it isn't the issue here.
I agree that for years , Presidents have been committing "impeachable offenses"
without being impeached. Unlike the decision to prosecute an ordinary citizen, impeachment
is a political decision . However, the question being asked by the House Judiciary
Committee, whether attempting to extort the investigation of a political rival through the
withholding of foreign aid or favors to a foreign head of state is only one small facet
of the impeachment inquiry.
If Trump were to have engaged in such conduct, I believe that it would certainly constitute
an impeachable offense . Whether to proceed with an investigation into such an offense is a
political decision. I happen to agree that Trump is a turd and that he should be
investigated.
Once this political decision has been made, the potentially impeachable offense must be
investigated and prosecuted . The House leadership are engaging in the typical mistake of the
rookie prosecutor: saying to him/herself " I know he's good for it " and filing charges
without conducting a complete and thorough investigation . This is where Professor
Turley is correct:
Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for
this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to
be thorough and complete. This is neither.
A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate
(or to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with
the Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of
Executive Privilege.
JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the Venn circles of
"leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being exerted on behalf
of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however misguided that policy may
be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or financial benefit of an official.
These are "gray areas" in which understanding the subjective intent of the actor is
crucial.
This is where hard evidence such as tapes and transcripts of the actual words used become
critical. This evidence apparently exists, but House Democrats have failed to file suit to
obtain them. Only when we know the words used and the surrounding circumstances can we draw
inferences about the subjective intent of the actors. In the criminal law we draw such
inferences about an actor's subjective intent all the time . However, we apply special
rules when drawing inferences about a person's intent. Those inferences must not only be
reasonable , they must be the only reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
the facts and circumstances presented.
As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as
ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their
fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it " isn't
evidence.
This observation by Lambert Strether sums it up: "Karlan's wasn't even footnoted, whether
to facts, or to law." She is supposedly a professor of law, supposedly advising the Congress
about the process of impeachment. She didn't even try to do her job. One may not agree with
Turley, although the long excerpt brings a broad perspective to what is criminality and to
how much criminality we now consider normal in the U.S. government. To his credit, Turley
marshals facts into a synthesis.
What the Republicans don't seem to get is that will to power isn't all that matters and
that their commitment to economic degradation and looting the citizenry have thrown them into
a crisis (as the paleo-conservatives keep pointing out). Among liberals like Pelosi (and
Karlan), the cluelessness is breathtaking. American liberalism is in a profound crisis, with
Karlan's disquisition being particulary breathtaking for clichés-a-minute, sheer
vulgar thinking, and kitsch.
This is the end. For those of us on the left, and I hesitate to advise non-action, it may
be time simply to let these two rotten structures and ways of thinking collapse. It is like
watching two ghost ships engaged battle, desparately trying to sink one another into a putrid
ocean.
On a lighter (!) note, I will quote Gramsci:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying away and the new cannot
yet be born; during this break in continuity, unhealthy events of every kind are
happening.
La crisi consiste appunto nel fatto che il vecchio muore e il nuovo non può
nascere: in questo interregno si verificano i fenomeni morbosi piú svariati.
An old lawyer adage: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the
law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law , pound the
table.
FBI Didn't Tell Surveillance Court That Carter Page Was "Operational Contact" For CIA
With "Positive Assessment" by Tyler Durden Tue, 12/10/2019 - 07:55 0
SHARES
The FBI failed to inform surveillance court judges that Carter Page was an "operational
contact" for the CIA for years , and that an employee at the spy agency gave the former Trump
aide a "positive assessment," according to a Justice Department report released Monday.
The finding is included in a list of seven of the FBI's "significant inaccuracies and
omissions" in applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against
Page, a longtime energy consultant who joined the Trump campaign in March 2016.
(emphasis ours)
The report said the FBI "omitted" information it obtained from another U.S. government
agency about its prior relationship with Page.
The agency approved Page as an "operational contact" from 2008 to 2013, according to the
report.
"Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with
certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA
application," the report stated.
Page told the Daily Caller News Foundation he believes the agency in question is the CIA.
Page has previously said he provided information to the CIA and FBI before becoming ensnared in
the bureau's investigation of the Trump campaign.
The report stated an employee with the CIA assessed Page "candidly" described contact he had
with a Russian intelligence officer in 2014. But the FBI cited Page's contact with the officer
to assert in its FISA applications that there was probable cause to believe that Page was
working as a Russian agent.
The IG faulted the FBI for failing to disclose to FISA judges that Page was an operational
contact for the CIA for five years, and that "Page had disclosed to the other agency contacts
that he had with Intelligence Officer 1 and certain other individuals."
The report also stated that the FBI omitted that "the other agency's employee had given a
positive assessment of Page's candor."
The IG said the FBI's failure to disclose Page's relationship with the CIA "was particularly
concerning" because an FBI attorney had specifically asked an FBI case agent whether Page had a
current or prior relationship with the other federal agency.
***
[editor's note: Not only that, an FBI employee - undoubtedly 'resistance' lawyer
Kevin Clinesmith , altered an email to specifically state that Page was "not a source" for
the CIA . ]
The FBI agent falsely asserted Page's relationship was "outside scope" of the investigation
because it dated back to when Page lived in Moscow from 2004 to 2007.
"This representation, however, was contrary to information that the other agency had
provided to the FBI in August 2016, which stated that Page was approved as an 'operational
contact' of the other agency from 2008 to 2013 (after Page had left Moscow)," the IG report
stated.
The report also said Page's CIA contacts considered him to have been candid about his
interactions with a suspected Russian intelligence officer who was later indicted for acting as
an unregistered agent of Russia.
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 8 minutes ago
link
I sometimes think Page was a plant- he's vigorously defended Trump and slammed the CIA and
the hoax of the spying- but that could all be a ruse.
In my mind the jury is still out.
Papadopolous on the other hand- was clearly used, honey pot and all.
The entire "Russian collusion" investigation is another example of the Feds manufacturing
false evidence. Mitsud, supposedly a Russian agent, was actually an asset of US intelligence.
Ever since the foisting of the 17th Amendment, which destroyed the veto of the several states
of Washington excesses and corruptions, Washington D.C. has been the only REAL enemy that the
people have ever had.
Rudy is going to take a huge Trump Dump, right on the heads of the Libtards this
week....... Open wide Retards..........
=============
Breaking: Ukrainian Official Reveals Six Criminal Cases Opened in Ukraine Involving the
Bidens
Trump told the waiting reporters that his personal attorney former New York City Mayor
Rudy Giuliani "found plenty" of "good information" during his recent trip to Ukraine and
Europe.
Trump then added that he believes Giuliani wants to present a report to the Attorney
General William Barr and to Congress. Trump added Giuliani has not told him what he
found.
Giuliani reportedly traveled to Budapest and Ukraine this past week to meet with several
Ukrainian officials about corruption.
OAN reporter Chanel Rion has been traveling with Rudy Giuliani and reporting on his
investigations in Hungary and Kiev, Ukraine.
In her report released on Sunday night Chanel Rion mentioned that Ukrainian officials
showed her six criminal cases involving the Bidens, Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
A more powerful force is at work here, the agencies are their tools, operators. We need to
get our heads out of the weeds if we are to identify the source. Whatever it is, it is likely
internal, thought a higher cause and convincing as CIA, FBI have bought in?
I read the linked article. Quite fascinating that Hillary and her minions were treated
with kid gloves (and nothing at all about Obama, Lynch, Holder, Jarrett, et al) and extended
every courtesy and soft-pedal, yet Roger Stone and Paul Manafort were greeted with platoons
of FBI ninjas and armored vehicles in early morning raids akin to those in Stalinist
Russia.
The FBI didn't tell the FISA court a lot of things. The FBI failed to tell the FISA court
the interview with Papadopoulos revealed there to be absolutely NO Russian collusion. The FBI
deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence that would have freed General Flynn and ended the
investigations.
Instead, the FBI covered up the truth with omissions and lies. That what I call bias.
Call it willful blindness by omission, but I prefer to call it a criminal act and sedition
against a President.
This guy is an Annapolis grad and CIA contact and they destroyed him. Hes gonna get very
rich with lawsuits now. The thing that amazes me no one is talking about.........motivation.
All of these major and minor infractions add up to one thing.....an orchestrated attempt to
frame and over throw the President.\ of the United States
"... Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress . ..."
"... What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties. The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko were not done independently. ..."
"... Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch. ..."
In a fantastic display of true investigative journalism, One America News journalist Chanel
Rion tracked down Ukrainian witnesses as part of an exclusive OAN investigative series. The
evidence being discovered dismantles the baseless Adam Schiff impeachment hoax and highlights
many corrupt motives for U.S. politicians.
Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how
former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress .
What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties.
The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko
were not done independently.
Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence
priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously
protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey
Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch.
Imagine what would happen if all of the background information was to reach the general
public? Thus the motive for Lindsey Graham currently working to bury it.
You might remember George Kent and Bill Taylor testified together.
It was evident months ago that U.S. chargé d'affaires to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, was
one of the current participants in the coup effort against President Trump. It was Taylor who
engaged in carefully planned
text messages with EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland to set-up a narrative helpful to Adam
Schiff's political coup effort.
Bill Taylor was formerly U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine ('06-'09) and later helped the Obama
administration to design the laundry operation providing taxpayer financing to Ukraine in
exchange for back-channel payments to U.S. politicians and their families.
In November Rudy Giuliani released a letter he sent to Senator
Lindsey Graham outlining how Bill Taylor blocked VISA's for Ukrainian 'whistle-blowers' who are
willing to testify to the corrupt financial scheme.
Unfortunately, as we are now witnessing, Senator Lindsey Graham, along with dozens of U.S.
Senators currently serving, may very well have been recipients for money through the
aforementioned laundry process. The VISA's are unlikely to get approval for congressional
testimony, or Senate impeachment trial witness testimony.
U.S. senators write foreign aid policy, rules and regulations thereby creating the financing
mechanisms to transmit U.S. funds. Those same senators then received a portion of the laundered
funds back through their various "institutes" and business connections to the foreign
government offices; in this example Ukraine. [ex. Burisma to Biden]
The U.S. State Dept. serves as a distribution network for the authorization of the money
laundering by granting conflict waivers , approvals for financing (think Clinton Global
Initiative), and permission slips for the payment of foreign money. The officials within the
State Dept. take a cut of the overall payments through a system of "indulgence fees", junkets,
gifts and expense payments to those with political oversight.
If anyone gets too close to revealing the process, writ large, they become a target of the
entire apparatus. President Trump was considered an existential threat to this entire process.
Hence our current political status with the ongoing coup.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out , because, well, in reality all of the U.S.
Senators (both parties) are participating in the process for receiving taxpayer money and
contributions from foreign governments.
A "Codel" is a congressional delegation that takes trips to work out the payments
terms/conditions of any changes in graft financing. This is why Senators spend $20 million on a
campaign to earn a job paying $350k/year. The "institutes" is where the real foreign money
comes in; billions paid by governments like China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Ukraine, etc.
etc. There are trillions at stake.
[SIDEBAR: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell holds the power over these members (and the
members of the Senate Intel Committee), because McConnell decides who sits on what committee.
As soon as a Senator starts taking the bribes lobbying funds, McConnell then has
full control over that Senator. This is how the system works.]
The McCain Institute is one of the obvious examples of the financing network. And that is
the primary reason why Cindy McCain is such an outspoken critic of President Trump. In essence
President Trump is standing between her and her next diamond necklace; a dangerous place to
be.
So when we think about a Senate Impeachment Trial; and we consider which senators will vote
to impeach President Trump, it's not just a matter of Democrats -vs- Republican. We need to
look at the game of leverage, and the stand-off between those bribed Senators who would prefer
President Trump did not interfere in their process.
McConnell has been advising President Trump which Senators are most likely to need their
sensibilities eased. As an example President Trump met with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in
November. Senator Murkowski rakes in millions from the multinational Oil and Gas industry; and
she ain't about to allow horrible Trump to lessen her bank account any more than Cindy McCain
will give up her frequent shopper discounts at Tiffanys.
Senator Lindsey Graham
announcing today that he will not request or facilitate any impeachment testimony that
touches on the DC laundry system for personal financial benefit (ie. Ukraine example), is
specifically motivated by the need for all DC politicians to keep prying eyes away from the
swamps' financial endeavors. WATCH:
This open-secret system of "Affluence and Influence" is how the intelligence apparatus gains
such power. All of the DC participants are essentially beholden to the various U.S.
intelligence services who are well aware of their endeavors.
There's a ton of exposure here (blackmail/leverage) which allows the unelected officials
within the CIA, FBI and DOJ to hold power over the DC politicians. Hold this type of leverage
long enough and the Intelligence Community then absorbs that power to enhance their self-belief
of being more important than the system.
Perhaps this corrupt sense of grandiosity is what we are seeing play out in how the
intelligence apparatus views President Donald J Trump as a risk to their importance.
Everyone loves money. I like money. The only question is how to earn them. Neither I, nor
you, nor many of us will cross a certain moral and ethical line (border), but there are
people without morality, without ethical standards, without conscience. We all look the same
outwardly, but we are all completely different inside.
Ukraine is Obama's **** , this is not Trump's ****. Trump's stupidity was only one - he
got into this ****. I wrote, but I repeat - USA acted as the best friend in relation to
Russia, having taken off a leech from Russia and hanging it on itself. Do you know such an
estate of Rothschilds - called Israel and its role in the life of USA?
So, Ukraine was for the Russians the same Israel in terms of meaningless spending. Look at
Vlad, in 2014 he looked like a fox who was eating a chicken, and on January 1, 2020 he will
look like a fox who eating a whole brood of chickens. I think he has portraits of Obama and
Trump in his bedroom.
Yes, indeed. Lindsey will bury the story, he is on the take. Your tax dollars at work. By
the way, the Fed picked up all of the Ukies gold for safekeeping at 33 Liberty St. NY, with
Yats permission, of course.... https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-18/ukraine-admits-its-gold-gone
A glimpse into how elected officials accumulate millions, retire wealthy, pampered and
privileged....and I'm not talking pensions I'm talking corruption. Obama, Biden, Hillary,
Kerry, Holder, Rice and ALL the senior Obama Administration officials knew of each other's
corrupt sinecures.
Well, it is based on a OAN story. Believe it or not, they actually sent a reporter to
Ukraine to talk to people with knowledge of the matter and look what they came up with. Kind
of makes you wonder why other well funded news organizations never thought to do something
like that.
I don't know that we deserve this. We are all working people, with families to raise,
taxes to pay and the Dems and Commies have been working against us 24/7. And most of them get
paid to do so from government jobs that pay them 8 hours a day when many work 1 hour a day,
all the while scheming against us.
If Trump wins a second term, he is gonna **** these people up good.
Now that I've read the article, I'm both shocked and appalled at learning that Ukraine is
a money laundering operation for the politically connected. (They provide many other 'perks'
as well.)
I've warned about light in the loafers Lindsey as well as McConnell before and more than
once. Sessions should also be denied a re-admission into the swamp. There are others.
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat
to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a
manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus
warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
I agree with everything you say in the article, Mr. Larison. And yet, I have serious qualms
about whether Congress should impeach and remove Trump.
From a purely legal perspective, they should. But impeachment is a blend of legalism and
politics. And the politics here are murky at best. The problem is that Congress does not
come to these issues with clean hands. It is common knowledge that Congress, too, is
corrupt and sells out the national interest in favor of their own political and personal
interests on a daily basis. They have no moral credibility here; who are they to judge the
President? Neither the impeachment itself, nor the subsequent, apparently inevitable,
acquittal by the Senate will be seen as legitimate, except by partisans of the respective
acts. It is all the more problematic because an election is less than a year away.
Yes, I want Trump out of office, too. But unfortunately our Congress lacks the moral
legitimacy to do this; the impeachment and trial will serve only to reinforce each party's
views of the other as treasonous. The impeachment will be seen as an attempted coup, and
the acquittal will be seen as a whitewash and cover-up. (If by some odd circumstance he is
removed rather than acquitted, it will be seen as a successful coup, an undoing of the 2016
election.)
There are no really good outcomes from this scenario. It would, I think, be better for
the the country were the Democrats to reverse course and leave the removal of Trump to the
people next November. We have survived nearly three years of him, we can survive one more.
I fear the fallout from impeachment and trial will create more problems than are
solved.
I agree. I also respectfully disagree with Larrison's judgment and consider this
development as very dangerous for the Republic. We need to weight our personal animosity
toward Trump with the risks of his forceful removal on dubious charges.
Please remember that nobody was impeached for the Iraq war. That creates a really high
plank for the impeachment. And makes any Dems arguments for Trump impeachment not only moot
but a joke.
The fundamental question is: How is lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable,
and this entrapment impeachable?
The furor over Russian interference in the election, which was extremely minor, if
existed at all, compared to what Churchill did in 1940, was primarily about excusing the
corrupt and incompetent Clinton wing of Democratic Party leadership (Neoliberal Democrats.)
Political "shelf life" for whom is over in any case as neoliberalism is dead as an ideology
and entered zombie ( bloodthirsty ) stage. Hillary political fiasco taught them nothing.
Russiagate was and still is a modern witch hunt, the attempt to patch with Russophobia the
cracks in the neoliberal facade. Neo-McCarthyism, if you wish.
In view of the Iraq war, the impeachment of Trump means the absolute contempt for the
plebs. Again, Trump's election happened because neoliberalism as ideology died in 2008, and
plebs in 2016 refused to follow corrupt neoliberal democrats and decided to show them the
middle finger. They will not follow the neoliberal elite in 2020, impeachment, or no
impeachment. So the whole "Pelosi gambit" (and from the point of view of Nuremberg
principles she is a war criminal like Bush II and Co ) will fail.
The House Democrats did not act as ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the
evidentiary record, and provide the equality of procecutor and the defense in the process
which is the fundamental part of the Due Process prior to filing charges. A large part of
their witnesses (Karlan, Hill, Vindman) were just "true believers" (Karlan) or corrupt Deep
Staters (Hill, Vindman) taking a stand to defend their personal well-being, which is based on warmongering. And protect
their illegal role in formulating the USA foreign policy (actually based on the quality of Fiona Hill book alone, she should
be kept at mile length
from this area; she is a propagandist not a researcher/analyst)
Among State Department witnesses there could well be those who were probably explicitly
or implicitly involved in the money laundering of the US aid money via Ukraine
(Biden-lights so to speak)
The article of impeachment saying:
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat
to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in
a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump
thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold
and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
opens a huge can of worms (this is essentially the Moscow show trials method of removing
politicians.) This is equivalent to a change in the Constitution, introducing the vote of
no confidence as the method removal of the top members of the executive branch.
Impeachment is always a political decision. And here I am not sure the "Pelosi gambit"
will work. I think many independents, who would stay home or would vote for Dems in 2020
now will vote for Trump as a protest against the abuse of impeachment by the
Neoliberal/Corporate Dems.
That people are still dredging up the ludicrous Russiagate
conspiracy theory is beyond pathetic. If that were not enough, there is no
evidence that "Russian hackers" or anyone "screw[ed] with swing states'
election databases".
Full disclosure: were I allowed to decide Trump's
fate, impeachment would be the least of his fears. I would
subject him to the fate of the defendants at Nuremberg.
"... This is merely political theater and a way to stiffen their spines of jello for their coup. Heaven forfend that President Evo Morales Donald Trump be ousted in a coup by the American Deep State. Our ruling class and their servants really are stupid enough to believe that destroying the norms, both written and unwritten, that our society is actually governed by is a good thing. ..."
"... For the powers that be war crimes are not impeachable offenses. ..."
"... The MSM is reporting the "impeachment" as if it was a serious (approved by expert academics) endeavor. However, the veil is lifting. The revealed face of the ruling class is Neo-Orwellian. ..."
"... Turley says he is now getting threatening phone calls as well people trying to get him fired as professor because he dared to pooh pooh the case for impeachment. ..."
"... The insanity of [neo]liberals strikes me as the actions of the philosophically bankrupt, the hysterical demonizing of Trump being their desperate way to avoid recognizing that fact. ..."
"... Nadler, like Schiff before him, is putting on a diversionary show. The big rush in both shows has been to construct narratives to sow doubt in the minds of viewers and voters, on a tight schedule. That schedule has been known for some time, with a big component dropping today in the IG report. ..."
"... Whether it's Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and any others I've missed, I want to know how many of these rats had / have financial interests in these wars ..."
"... The verdict is prepared before the charges! ..."
"... The House Dems started to boil when Trump suggested the Magnitsky Act was not impartial and Browder might be a crook, heaven forbid. But when Trump really started to focus on the Ukraingate stuff the House shifted into high gear. ..."
"... Schiff started to look like a cornered animal, the expression on his face went from moral superiority to downright angst. His eyes started to bug out. Nancy went from no impeachment to, almost overnight, yes impeachment. And Rudy Giuliani was accused of Treason for questioning their favorite operative, Joe Bagman. ..."
"... Let the last stage of the Great Looting of the Planet begin. ..."
"... I think there are too many moving parts to allow any meaningful analysis of such a soon-to-be-fait accompli. Justice, fairness, Constitution, "rule of law" are the shibboleths of the weak. None of those are anything but fig leafs over tumescent power, mentioned occasionally and clearly without adherence or conviction by that tiny set of front people and spokespersons for the even smaller set that actually move the levers of power. In the end, of course, as with all the climax events of the last few generations, we mopes will never get more than a modified limited hangout of an inkling to what actually happened, and not even that while the play's afoot. ..."
"... "However hurried a court may be in its efforts to reach the merits of a controversy, the integrity of procedural rules is dependent upon consistent enforcement because the only fair and reasonable alternative thereto is complete abandonment." Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St. 2d 209 (1980). ..."
"... Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be thorough and complete. This is neither. ..."
"... A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of Executive Privilege. ..."
"... JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the subjective intent of the actor is crucial. ..."
"... As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it " isn't evidence. ..."
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. –Matt 23:24
Patient readers, I had originally intended to compare and contrast the statements of the
four lawyers (Feldman, Karlan, Gerhardt, and Turley)
appearing before the House Judiciary Committee . But I changed course, for a few reasons:
First, Feldman, Karlan, and Gerhardt simply didn't produce serious documents; all were short,
and Karlan's wasn't even footnoted, whether to facts, or to law.
Turley's statement at least showed signs of legal reasoning, as opposed to preaching to the
choir, but there's no point my summarizing it;
you can just read it .[1]
Second, since the House Judiciary's report on the " Constitutional
Grounds for Impeachment " followed so soon after the lawyers' testimony that it could
hardly have been influenced by it, their testimony was evidently for show. Finally, this
abbreviated Season 2 of Impeachment! , "UkraineGate," reminds me of nothing so much as
Gish Gallop : There's
too much to track in the time frame available, the few trustworthy interpreters are
overwhelmed, and that's by intent. (Season 1, "RussiaGate," was more of a Gish stroll by
comparison.)
So I'm going to do something completely different. Conventional wisdom agrees that when
impeaching a President, the House plays the role of the prosecutor, and brings and prosecutes
the indictment; and the Senate then tries the case. From Senate.gov
, just as a change from citing the Federalist Papers, which I too shall get to:
In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the
federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of
representatives, called "managers," acts as prosecutors before the Senate.
The question nobody seems to be asking is whether the House, in this impeachment
inquiry, is acting as a prosecutor should act[2]. That is the question I will ask in this post.
(I'm sensible that we have actual prosecutors in the readership, and so I'm going out on a limb
here; the fact that nobody I can find has gone out on this particular limb doesn't mean that it
is, or is not, a good limb to go out on. We'll see!)
The primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law,
not merely to convict . The prosecutor serves the public interest and should act with
integrity and balanced judgment to increase public safety both by pursuing appropriate
criminal charges of appropriate severity, and by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal
charges in appropriate circumstances. The prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and
convict the guilty, consider the interests of victims and witnesses, and respect the
constitutional and legal rights of all persons, including suspects and defendants.
What then is justice? Philosophers differ, but here is a defintion from which "the rule of
law" (of which we hear so much) can be derived. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy :
The third aspect of justice to which Justinian's definition draws our attention is the
connection between justice and the impartial and consistent application of rules
– that is what the 'constant and perpetual will' part of the definition conveys.
Justice is the opposite of arbitrariness. It requires that where two cases are
relevantly alike, they should be treated in the same way . Following a rule that
specifies what is due to a person who has features X, Y, Z whenever such a person is
encountered ensures this. And although the rule need not be unchangeable – perpetual in
the literal sense – it must be relatively stable. This explains why justice is
exemplified in the rule of law, where laws are understood as general rules impartially
applied over time. Outside of the law itself, individuals and institutions that want to
behave justly must mimic the law in certain ways (for instance, gathering reliable
information about individual claimants, allowing for appeals against decisions).
The Law Dictionary conceptualizes the requirement for "impartial and consistent application
of rules" as fairness. From " The Four Pillars of the Rule
of Law ":
It's one thing for the laws to be written fairly, but if they are enforced in such a way
that is either arbitrary or unfair then the rule of law begins to break down. For example, if
a jurisdiction passes laws against drug use, but then only enforces those laws against a
particular ethnic minority or social group, then the laws are not being enforced fairly.
Citizens living under a rule of law system have a right to know that the laws are being
administered and enforced in a way that is fair and accessible.
There are many theories of justice, but surely the "impartial and consistent application of
rules" is understood by lay readers as fundamental. From the Washington Post, "
The U.S. court system is criminally unjust ":
We like to believe that decisions made in U.S. courts are determined by the wisdom of the
Constitution, and guided by fair-minded judges and juries of our peers.
Unfortunately, this is often wishful thinking. Unsettling research into the psychology of
courtroom decisions has shown that our personal backgrounds, unconscious biases about race,
gender and appearance, and even the time of day play a more important role in outcomes than
the actual law.
Having established that the House, when impeaching a President, acts as a Prosector, that
the duty of a prosecutor is not merely to seek conviction, but justice, let's now ask ourselves
whether the House, assuming it to have impeached Trump, will have acted in accordance with its
duties, or not.
As a sidebar, it may be urged that unlike a prosecutor's office, the House has no permanent
prosecutorial function. Indeed, House.gov seems, unlike the Senate, to have no page on
impeachment at all; and the House is structured
very differently :
The House is the only branch of government that has been directly elected by American
voters since its formation in 1789. Unlike the Senate, the House is not a continuing body.
Its Members must stand for election every two years, after which it convenes for a new
session and essentially reconstitutes itself -- electing a Speaker, swearing-in the
Members-elect, and approving a slate of officers to administer the institution. Direct,
biennial elections and the size of the membership (currently 435 voting Representatives) have
made the House receptive to a continual influx of new ideas and priorities that contribute to
its longstanding reputation as the "People's House."
It could be argued, then, that the "rules" for impeachment need only to be consistent during
the two years of a House session, and could then be changed at the next session, an evident
absurdity since the President serves for four years, and could presume himself acting
unimpeachably for two years, and then be impeached, for the same acts , in the third.
Clearly, some sort of institutional memory of what is impeachable and what is not, even if
tacit, must be shared among the three branches of government and the public -- even if not
adhered to by all. Fortunately, for Trump's impeachment, we have such repository in the person
of the Leader of the House -- one might call them the Chief Prosecturor -- Nancy Pelosi, to
whose remarkable statement I now turn. End sidebar.
Here is how Nancy Pelosi describes her past exercise of her prosecutorial function (in this
case, declining to prosecute:
DEAN CHIEN, STUDENT, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: So, Speaker Pelosi, you resisted calls for
the impeachment of President Bush in 2006, and President Trump, following the Mueller report
earlier this year.
This time it's different. Why did you impose – why did you oppose impeachment in the
past? And what is your obligation to protect our democracy from the actions of our President
now?
PELOSI: Thank you. Thank you for bringing up the question about – because when I
became Speaker the first time, there was overwhelming call for me to impeach President Bush,
on the strength of the war in Iraq[3], which I vehemently opposed, and again not –
again, I – I say "Again," I said – said at other places that I – that was
my we – all has always (ph) Intelligence.
I was Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee even before I became part of the
leadership of Gang of Four. So, I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq . It
just wasn't there.
They had to show us now – to show the Gang of Four all the Intelligence they
had. The Intelligence did not show that that – that was the case. So, I knew it was a
– a misrepresentation to the public. But having said that, it was a, in my view, not a
ground for impeachment. That was – they won the election. They made a
representation . And to this day, people think – people think that that it was
the right thing to do.
If people think that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11, I mean it's as appalling what
they did. But I did – and I've said, if somebody wants to make a case, you bring it
forward.
(Remarkably, or not, Pelosi kept her knowledge that the Iraq War was built on lies secret
from the public. This doesn't strike me as the right approach to " a Republic, if you can keep it .") First,
apparently a President's "misrepresentation to the public" that led to war -- a war that
resulted, even in the early years of the war, in tens of thousands of civilian deaths,
thousands of American deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the Abu Ghraib torture
scandal -- is not a "high crime or misdemeanor." Pelosi would have us believe that Bush's
disinformation campaign was not, as Madison writes in Federalist 65 , a
case of "misconduct of public men, or, in other words the abuse or violation of some public
trust." And why? Because "[Bush] won the election." Except Pelosi gets the timeline wrong. Bush
won his election in 2004. The Democrats took back the House in 2006 -- how we cheered, then; it
was almost as satisfying as Obama's inaugural -- based in large part on Bush's botched handling
of Iraq. Pelosi "won the election." And then didn't do anything with her power.
Let's ask a little consistency from our Chief Prosecutor, shall we? Because that's what
justice demands? If "misrepresentation to the public the public" in service of taking the
country into war -- the aluminum tubes, the yellowcake, all the whackamole lies that Bush put
forth -- is not impeachable, then how on earth is what Trump did, even under the very worst
intepretation, impeachable? Are we really going to convict Trump because he -- Bud
from Legal insists I insert the word "allegedly" -- tried to muscle Zelensky? Here is
what Turley, who approached his statement as a lawyer would, did with that accusation . I'm
going to quote a great slab of this, because the whole thing ticks me off so much:
Presidents often put pressure on other countries which many of us view as inimical to our
values or national security. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama reportedly put
pressure on other countries not to investigate the U.S. torture program or seek the arrest of
those responsible.103 President Obama and his staff also reportedly pressured the Justice
Department not to initiate criminal prosecution stemming from the torture program.104
Moreover, presidents often discuss political issues with their counterparts and make comments
that are troubling or inappropriate. However, contemptible is not synonymous with
impeachable. Impeachment is not a vehicle to monitor presidential communications for such
transgressions. That is why making the case of a quid pro quo is so important – a case
made on proof, not presumptions. While critics have insisted that there is no alternative
explanation, it is willful blindness to ignore the obvious defense. Trump can argue that he
believed the Obama Administration failed to investigate a corrupt contract between Burisma
and Hunter Biden. He publicly called for the investigation into the Ukraine matters.
Requesting an investigation is not illegal any more than a leader asking for actions from
their counterparts during election years.
Trump will also be able to point to three direct conversations on the record. His call
with President Zelensky does not state a quid pro quo. In his August conversation with Sen.
Ron Johnson (R., WI.), President Trump reportedly denied any quid pro quo. In his September
conversation with Ambassador Sondland, he also denied any quid pro quo. The House
Intelligence Committee did an excellent job in undermining the strength of the final two
calls by showing that President Trump was already aware of the whistleblower controversy
emerging on Capitol Hill. However, that does not alter the fact that those direct accounts
stand uncontradicted by countervailing statements from the President. In addition, President
Zelensky himself has said that he did not discuss any quid pro quo with President Trump.
Indeed, Ambassador Taylor testified that it was not until the publication of the Politico
article on September 31st that the Ukrainians voiced concerns over possible preconditions.
That was just ten days before the release of the aid. That means that the record lacks not
only direct conversations with President Trump (other than the three previously mentioned)
but even direct communications with the Ukrainians on a possible quid pro quo did not occur
until shortly before the aid release. Yet, just yesterday, new reports filtered out on
possible knowledge before that date -- highlighting the premature move to drafting articles
of impeachment without a full and complete record.105
Voters should not be asked to assume that President Trump would have violated federal law
and denied the aid without a guarantee on the investigations. The current narrative is that
President Trump only did the right thing when "he was caught." It is possible that he never
intended to withhold the aid past the September 30th deadline while also continuing to push
the Ukrainians on the corruption investigation. It is possible that Trump believed that the
White House meeting was leverage, not the military aid, to push for investigations. It is
certainly true that both criminal and impeachment cases can be based on circumstantial
evidence, but that is less common when direct evidence is available but unsecured in the
investigation. Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set
for this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is
meant to be thorough and complete. This is neither.
Put Turley's justifiable polemic against a childish West Wing view of international
relations aside. Just look at the triviality of the subject matter, whether you think Trump
is guilty or not . White House appearances. Military aid. Corruption investigations. How is
lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable, and this mass of anodyne
trivialities im peachable? When it's the same prosecutor declining to indict for Iraq,
and deciding to indict for Ukraine? Whatever this is, it's not "the impartial and consistent
application of rules", and that means the House is failing in its prosecutorial duty to seek
justice, and not merely conviction.
NOTE Yes, I'm leaving the national security aspects of Ukraine aside. We can take up the
question of whether the interagency process should run foreign policy, or the President, and
the Blob's peculiar view of the national interest another time.
I agree with this analysis, but Madam Speaker Pelosi and her fellow players are not doing
what they are doing for the Republic's, the law, ethics, morality, and certainly not for
justice's sake. If they were, Pelosi would not have mentioned her prewar knowledge of
President Bush's and his Administration's lies on the reasons given for going to war.
This is merely political theater and a way to stiffen their spines of jello for their
coup. Heaven forfend that President Evo Morales Donald Trump be ousted in a coup by
the American Deep State. Our ruling class and their servants really are stupid enough to
believe that destroying the norms, both written and unwritten, that our society is actually
governed by is a good thing.
Maybe TPTB truly believe that an increasingly ungovernable, immiserated, and desperate
society in an increasingly unpredictable climate is just another chance to consume the poor
instead of the poor consuming them.
The democrats couldn't go after the bush administration for falsely leading this country to
invade iraq, for one big reason . they were JUST as guilty . They, including clinton; voted,
and went on all the air waves, did op eds; all justifying the charade, that was the run up to
the iraq invasion.
People ought not forget,
EVERY bit of information proving the iraq war was a lie . was in plenty of places BEFORE the
invasion. And every establishment shill did their level best to not only ignore the truth,
but to discredit it with pathetic lies and rhetoric.
The democrats were just as guilty for iraq as the republicans.
And when the terrorists who were used as a ploy to blow up the twin towers, were being
protected by the fbi between 1998 and 2000.(look at Robert Wright and John Vincent fbi agents
from chicago office, who were told by superiors to "let sleeping dogs lie".. after a two year
investigation of two of the "were to become terrorists"and yasin al-qadi. their money man who
was a co owner of P-TECH(above top secret clearances at :cia,fbi,nsa,faa,secret
service,norad,nro,etc.) and later a donor to the MITT Romney campaign) The clintons and the
democratic elite were right there pretending nothing was happening. And have since pretended
that "the war on freedom",,,,or as they call it "the war on terror" is justified.
whether it was the democratic party or the new york times or la times or washington post of
the weekly standard or fox news or PBS EVERY media powerhouse was on the side of "the big
lie"..
Pathetic logic fails were fed to the american population 24/7/365
The truth be damned and still is
When you have a Democrat do away with Glass-Steagall, who needs Republican villains. Both
totally corrupt parties are beholden to the banks and corporations, and need to be voted out
of office.
Question, is there a statute of limitations for impeachable offenses? Because the Speaker of the House admitted on the public record of implicitly participating
(by her silence) in an orchestrated lie that led to the deaths and maiming of thousands of
American soldiers. Should we be taking that public statement and calling for her impeachment? Can you impeach
the Speaker of the House?
Maybe the Democrats are hoping that once it reaches the Senate, that one of their number
will step up, make a stirring West-Wing style speech which will cause all those present
– Republicans included – to rise to their feet and clap and cheer as they vote
for Trump to be finally kicked out of the White House. Then in their newfound maturity, they
will make Mike Pence the new President of the United States as they work together for a
better country with new respect for each other.
The MSM is reporting the "impeachment" as if it was a serious (approved by expert
academics) endeavor. However, the veil is lifting. The revealed face of the ruling class is
Neo-Orwellian.
"Nadler's committee will likely vote to impeach Trump. In a report defining what it
considers impeachable offenses, the committee states that even if Trump did not actually
break any laws in his supposed "quid pro quo" dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky, he can still be impeached for his unstated motives.
"The question is not whether the president's conduct could have resulted from
permissible motives. It is whether the president's real reasons, the ones in his mind at the
time, were legitimate, " it stated."
Turley says he is now getting threatening phone calls as well people trying to get him
fired as professor because he dared to pooh pooh the case for impeachment.
There has been a
vast and irrational response to Trump from day one–perhaps based on the fantasy that
the presidency really is like The West Wing whereas the reality is likely closer to the HBO
comedy Veep. From "now watch this drive" Dubya to Obama and his "propeller heads" our
presidents are a series of vain peacocks with Trump merely the extreme case. Impeach them
all–or none.
This observation by Lambert Strether sums it up: "Karlan's wasn't even footnoted, whether
to facts, or to law." She is supposedly a professor of law, supposedly advising the Congress
about the process of impeachment. She didn't even try to do her job. One may not agree with
Turley, although the long excerpt brings a broad perspective to what is criminality and to
how much criminality we now consider normal in the U.S. government. To his credit, Turley
marshals facts into a synthesis.
What the Republicans don't seem to get is that will to power isn't all that matters and
that their commitment to economic degradation and looting the citizenry have thrown them into
a crisis (as the paleo-conservatives keep pointing out). Among liberals like Pelosi (and
Karlan), the cluelessness is breathtaking. American liberalism is in a profound crisis, with
Karlan's disquisition being particulary breathtaking for clichés-a-minute, sheer
vulgar thinking, and kitsch.
This is the end. For those of us on the left, and I hesitate to advise non-action, it may
be time simply to let these two rotten structures and ways of thinking collapse. It is like
watching two ghost ships engaged battle, desparately trying to sink one another into a putrid
ocean.
On a lighter (!) note, I will quote Gramsci:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying away and the new cannot
yet be born; during this break in continuity, unhealthy events of every kind are
happening.
La crisi consiste appunto nel fatto che il vecchio muore e il nuovo non può
nascere: in questo interregno si verificano i fenomeni morbosi piú svariati.
I think your last quote hits the nail on the head. It should be painted on every highway
overpass. The insanity of [neo]liberals strikes me as the actions of the philosophically bankrupt,
the hysterical demonizing of Trump being their desperate way to avoid recognizing that fact.
I can understand that almost all people crave certainty, but Jesus its time to let it go and
strike out to elsewhere.
An old lawyer adage: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the
law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law , pound the
table.
Nadler, like Schiff before him, is putting on a diversionary show. The big rush in both
shows has been to construct narratives to sow doubt in the minds of viewers and voters, on a
tight schedule. That schedule has been known for some time, with a big component dropping
today in the IG report.
They had seen enough in SCIFs and elsewhere to know that Team Dem was going to get slammed
due to its supporters in the FBI and DOJ. That much is evident in reviewing the report and
scores of other documents available to the public. What hasn't been made available, like the
Atkinson piece, also provide further support to the Schiff and Nadler accelerants.*
In a way, I almost feel sorry for Rep. Schiff as he was sent on a fool's errand. History
will be unkind to him, among others.
Of greater concern during their proceedings is the absolute lack of regard for the
principles like Due Process established in our US Constitution, and the rule of law.
Then she's a war criminal too! I also remember her saying, "well, we didn't want to ruin
our chances" (in the next election). My fondest wish is that GW Bush, Jr. and the gang who
lied us into the war in Iraq be prosecuted and convicted for war crimes. A somewhat hopeless
wish – that.
She can be surprisingly frank about these things sometimes. She is saying the same thing
in this quote ("people think that that it was the right thing to do" = opposing this would
have cost us votes). I can't understand why anybody would ever trust her again after a
revelation like that.
Whether it's Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and any others I've missed, I want
to know how many of these rats had / have financial interests in these wars including daily
drone-fests a few years ago.
The war drums have been beating on the Ukraine vs Russian for a
few years now. Pelosi is worth over $100,000,000 on mere $200,000 humble public servant
salary, many others on both Team Blue and Team Red similar.
If Team Red Senate votes to
summarily dismiss impeachment it is the tell that there were / are many more cockroaches they
do not want to expose, such as Lindsey Graham, Mitt, McCain, Kerry, not to forget Rummy,
Wolfe, Condi, Cheney, W, O, Hillary, Poppy and so on.
Any 20 somethings in those households
die or maimed "over there"? Let them all hang, dig their corpses up if you have to. Trump
should double-dog dare them all to do it.
I voted for Trump solely as a bull in the china shop, with everything preceding him the
past ~ 40 years as the china shop. Andy Jackson was not on the ballot 3 years ago, so I had
to settle.
I agree that DJT's misdeeds (at least the ones we know about) do not approach those of the
Bush/Cheney presidency (the ones we know about). I wonder what lies beneath the D
determination to impeach. I have been getting emails from various D-oriented organizations asserting that control of
the Senate is within reach for the Ds in 2020, and asking for funds.
Given the near certainty that the Senate will not vote to convict (either through ~20Rs
voting with Ds or ~30Rs simply not voting), perhaps it is hoped that a failure to convict in
the Senate would help Ds make the case for an extra heavy base turnout in 2020 to deliver the
Senate to the Ds.
They can't, or won't, govern. But with control of both houses, they might be able to
impeach and convict.
If the Democratic Party refuses to govern, just why should they be in office? Unless it is
Goldman Sach, Jeff Bezos, and their fellow oligarchs, it is just mendacity masquerading as
seriousness. The Republicans also do not govern, but loot the lower 80% of the population
while dismantling the government.
Just before the Civil War, Republican Party replaced the American Whigs and the Democratic
Party split in two and looked like it too was going away as well. Let's have a clean sweep
this time and maybe prevent another war.
It seemed that the Democrats started out focused on a Trump connection to laundered
Russian money. They didn't like his friendliness toward Putin. The FBI and Mueller went
straight for Manafort and got him cold. It's possible they can't get Trump because he dealt
through DeutscheBank and DB has been protected so far from prosecution.
Every bank in the EU
seems to have laundered Russian money. So to start prosecuting would/will be a total circus.
The House Dems started to boil when Trump suggested the Magnitsky Act was not impartial and
Browder might be a crook, heaven forbid. But when Trump really started to focus on the Ukraingate stuff the House shifted into high gear.
Schiff started to look like a cornered
animal, the expression on his face went from moral superiority to downright angst. His eyes
started to bug out. Nancy went from no impeachment to, almost overnight, yes impeachment. And
Rudy Giuliani was accused of Treason for questioning their favorite operative, Joe Bagman.
And how impolite of Trump and Rudy to suggest that Joe's doofus son could be up to the same
corruption as daddy. So the fear in the House is visible. I'm thinking there are lotsa
members who might be not just complicit in the coup but complicit having received money for
favors. Or in the case of Browder, helping an international thief and conman with high
connections here and in the UK. High connections usually means political bribes. So Trump
knows where the skeletons are buried imo and it freaks them out beyond any possible just
proceeding. And Nancy's an idiot with a gavel.
Prosecutors seeking justice? On what alien planet do you suppose that might be happening?
Prosecutorial misconduct, caprice, and inconsistency is a hallmark of the US criminal
carcerial system. Our Gulag doesn't just fill itself it needs prosecutors to keep the ball
rolling. Sorta like insurance delivering healthcare.
How is lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable, and this mass of anodyne
trivialities impeachable?
It's not. The system has broken completely down, although many americans don't know it
yet. The democrats need to back off, although I wouldn't put money on it.
Good to remember the ultimate frame that bounds this Gong Show Trial: "In the long run we
are all dead."
What's going on here seems to me to have the same overall flavor of what's happening in
Britain. Let the last stage of the Great Looting of the Planet begin.
I think there are too many moving parts to allow any meaningful analysis of such a
soon-to-be-fait accompli. Justice, fairness, Constitution, "rule of law" are the shibboleths
of the weak. None of those are anything but fig leafs over tumescent power, mentioned
occasionally and clearly without adherence or conviction by that tiny set of front people and
spokespersons for the even smaller set that actually move the levers of power. In the end, of
course, as with all the climax events of the last few generations, we mopes will never get
more than a modified limited hangout of an inkling to what actually happened, and not even
that while the play's afoot.
And what good would it doe us to know all the details? What power do American mopes, for
sure, atomized and fearful and befuddled, have to "bend the arc of history toward
justice"?
Well, I think we made a credible effort to bend the arc of history in 1776, and again in
1865. I have little doubt that history will eventually repeat itself, or at least rhyme quite
nicely.
Pence represents a large cohort of Evangelicals who are not averse to using 'direct
action' to advance their causes. Think of the abortion doctors who were shot by 'right wing
nutters,' and the horrific tactics used against women trying to enter and leave abortion
clinics.
One of Pence's strengths is his unswerving adherence to a particular ideology. He has focus,
and that aspect of his character gives him strength and purpose.
Even Napoleon realized the value of the Moral in human affairs.
Also consider groups within the Government and Military aligned with the Evangelical mind
set. Pence has ample resources to manage the job of President.
History shows that relatively small groups of committed and coordinated True Believers can
take over and run governments. Pence is the figurehead for such a group. Beware.
Biden was asked if he would comply if subpoenaed for the Senate trial and he said no. So
Trump is to be impeached for his "crimes" while his potential opponent defies the law and
that's ok because .why was that ok again?.
"However hurried a court may be in its efforts to reach the merits of a controversy, the
integrity of procedural rules is dependent upon consistent enforcement because the only fair
and reasonable alternative thereto is complete abandonment." Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St. 2d
209 (1980).
"We have granted discretionary review because a majority of a Court of Appeals panel has
refused to follow a long line of decisions of the highest court of this state in violation of
S.C.R. 1.030(8)(a) which provides:
'The Court of Appeals is bound by and shall follow applicable precedents established in
the opinions of the Supreme Court and its predecessor court.'
The rule is fundamental and is absolutely necessary in a hierarchical judicial system. If
every tier of courts in the judicial hierarchy were free to disregard the decisions of a
higher court, the Court of Appeals could freely disregard the decisions of the Supreme Court,
the circuit courts could freely ignore the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court and our District Courts would be bound by no law at all, free to ignore the decisions
of all higher courts. The result of that course is anarchy." Special Fund v. Francis, 708
S.W.2d 641 (Ky. 1986).
The above favorable articulations notwithstanding what I've been seeing the past decade,
or so, is something much more akin to "The Rule of Whimsy," with said rule of whimsy having
replaced "The Rule of Law."
I don't think the comparative impeachable offenses argument adds any clarification. The
distinction is that the current proceedings are about potential extortion that impacts the
next election; the impeachable lies and corruption that led to the Iraq war took two years
for the public to perceive. Future versus past. Even if Kerry won in 2004, there would not
have been convictions because the conflict was still in progress. Besides, those that carry
out orders are the ones that get convictions, not the commanders. Oh, and let's not forget
"the fog of war" – a very useful alibi for top military advisers and political
leaders.
I think the problem with the current impeachment mess can be Venn diagrammed. Imagine two
circles. Once circle titled political leverage, the other circle titled extortion. Move the
circles together to partially overlap. Where they overlap is titled Joe Biden. A distinction
can usually be made between political leverage and extortion by asking who the stakeholders
are. Leverage (with military aid) is always going on, and it benefits "regional stability"
and "national security". Extortion benefits the requester, weakens his rivals, creates a
compromising dependency the supplicant. In the overlap area the extorted political smear gets
executed and the goods get delivered. I think the GOP's argument is that as long as the goods
get delivered it is acceptable political leverage. They want to minimize the effect of
smearing Joe Biden on the election. They want to blur the distinction between extortion and
leverage.
Back to future versus past: The current mess may originate with an lack of conflict of
interest oversight during/by the Obama administration by sending Joe Biden and John Kerry to
Ukraine to negotiate anti-corruption deals favorable to the US, knowing that their family
members were involved with Burisma. Surely there were others in the state Department that
could have been direct envoys of the administration. If Burisma wants to stack their board
with influential people and pay them a ridiculous sum for doing nothing – just to
attract investors – well you can chalk that up to corporate stupidity. It's not
necessarily corruption, especially if it works. How many US private equity firms have
high-visibility dead weight board members?
It took me all of one week to connect corruption with the Iraq war, back when it was
beginning. The comparison of past with present is quite useful because it highlights the
injustice that is going on right now. Even if Trump committed impeachable offenses, does not
give the House any moral authority to engage in selective prosecution for the exact same type
of behavior that they themselves, and past presidents have engaged in. This whole circus is
nothing but politics, it certainly isn't about justice, nor doing what is actually good for
the country. Disclaimer: I voted for Jill Stein. Deal with it.
I can only watch small snippets of the "impeachment hearings" before screaming at the TV
like an insane man. Even if one accepts the argument that Trump was using leverage to influence US
election: BIDEN WAS NOT THE NOMINEE !!!!!!!!!!! there were many others vying for the position. How
can you use leverage for personal gain on an event which hasn't and may not occur ?
It only works if he becomes the nominee. Trump was very effective at portraying his
opponents as he wanted during the 2016 campaign ("Crooked Hillary" ) with all the self
inflicted gaffs "Uncle Joe" makes it would seem to be shooting fish in a barrel for Trump in
2020 Why work through Ukraine, when he'd have it so easy destroying him on national TV while
stroking his own ego at the same time
So, in Myanmar, should the Hague not act because it's hands aren't clean? It hasn't acted
against the US, for example, which was a much more dangerous agressor in the ME recently (not
to speak of other cases), and so clearly, the investigation into Myanmar is "merely"
political. Even if investigating the US is impractical, it could investigate smaller
countries that have been involved in that case -- but they haven't, since this is merely
"political".
In fact, following this to the reduction to absurdity, no court ever has clean hands --
everything is corrupt to some extent, self-interested and hypocritical. Do we abandon all
pretense at systems of justice? Or is the case presented here "special" in some sense,
whereby we should look at the goals of the accusers beyond and above the acts and goals of
the accused?
Thank you, Lambert this is a great piece. I haven't been able to follow this impeachment
thing at all. But your final question and answer pulls it together for me.
It doesn't make sense because it really doesn't make sense. Also why now, when we are about to have an election?
I just wish I had the nerve and moral strength to share your post.
The are two answers to the question, "How is lying the country into the Iraq war not
impeachable, and this mass of anodyne trivialities impeachable?"
The optimistic answer is, "Because the former is a matter of statecraft, and the latter is
using official power to derive a direct personal benefit, and the standards for impeachment
based statecraft are much higher." (Congress in rejected Cambodia based articles of
impeachment in 1974)
The cynical answer is, "Because everyone in Washington, DC has sad-sack children who get
jobs because of their political power, and Trump must not be allowed to infringe on our
privilege."
The thing is, BOTH answers are true for different people.
For folks like Pramila Jayapal or AOC, I think that they see this as bribery and an abuse
of office for personal gain. (This group has been calling for impeachment for a while)
For someone like Nancy Pelosi, whose kids have clearly had opportunities as a result of
her position, I think that it is the latter.
How these two categories are split in the Democratic caucus, and there are probably some
in the, "Both," camp, is beyond me.
However, even by a relatively strict interpretation if impeachable offense, we have
obstruction of justice in the Mueller report, obstruction of Congress right now, tax and bank
fraud (though those were done when he was a private citizen), connections to the mob, both
domestic and Russian, witness intimidation, and bribery off the top of my head. (Ignoring
campaign finance violations, because seriously, who cares)
I have always felt the the furor over Russian interference in the election, which was
minor compared to what Churchill did in 1940, was primarily about excusing the corrupt and
incompetent Democratic Party (mis)leadership, and you will notice that I have not included
any of that, though obviously the cover-up flowed from that in some cases.
As Lambert knows, I'm retired after working as a prosecutor in Silicon Valley for 32
years. I think that Lambert is "on to something" here, but doesn't quite hit the mark.
Selective Prosecution is a huge issue in this country, but it isn't the issue
here.
I agree that for years , Presidents have been committing "impeachable offenses"
without being impeached. Unlike the decision to prosecute an ordinary citizen, impeachment
is a political decision . However, the question being asked by the House Judiciary
Committee, whether attempting to extort the investigation of a political rival through the
withholding of foreign aid or favors to a foreign head of state is only one small
facet of the impeachment inquiry. If Trump were to have engaged in such conduct, I
believe that it would certainly constitute an impeachable offense . Whether to proceed with
an investigation into such an offense is a political decision. I happen to agree that Trump
is a turd and that he should be investigated.
Once this political decision has been made, the potentially impeachable offense must be
investigated and prosecuted . The House leadership are engaging in the typical mistake of the
rookie prosecutor: saying to him/herself " I know he's good for it " and filing
charges without conducting a complete and thorough investigation . This is where
Professor Turley is correct:
Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this
country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be
thorough and complete. This is neither.
A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or
to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the
Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of
Executive Privilege. JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the
Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being
exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however
misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or
financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the
subjective intent of the actor is crucial.
This is where hard evidence such as tapes and transcripts of the actual words used become
critical. This evidence apparently exists, but House Democrats have failed to file suit to
obtain them. Only when we know the words used and the surrounding circumstances can we draw
inferences about the subjective intent of the actors. In the criminal law we draw such
inferences about an actor's subjective intent all the time . However, we apply special
rules when drawing inferences about a person's intent. Those inferences must not only be
reasonable , they must be the only reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
the facts and circumstances presented.
As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as
ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their
fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it "
isn't evidence.
As Lambert knows, I'm retired after working as a prosecutor in Silicon Valley for 32
years. I think that Lambert is "on to something" here, but doesn't quite hit the mark.
Selective Prosecution is a huge issue in this country, but it isn't the issue
here.
I agree that for years , Presidents have been committing "impeachable offenses"
without being impeached. Unlike the decision to prosecute an ordinary citizen, impeachment
is a political decision . However, the question being asked by the House Judiciary
Committee, whether attempting to extort the investigation of a political rival through the
withholding of foreign aid or favors to a foreign head of state is only one small
facet of the impeachment inquiry. If Trump were to have engaged in such conduct, I
believe that it would certainly constitute an impeachable offense . Whether to proceed with
an investigation into such an offense is a political decision. I happen to agree that Trump
is a turd and that he should be investigated.
Once this political decision has been made, the potentially impeachable offense must be
investigated and prosecuted . The House leadership are engaging in the typical mistake of the
rookie prosecutor: saying to him/herself " I know he's good for it " and filing
charges without conducting a complete and thorough investigation . This is where
Professor Turley is correct:
Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this
country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be
thorough and complete. This is neither.
A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or
to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the
Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of
Executive Privilege.
JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the
Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being
exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however
misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or
financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the
subjective intent of the actor is crucial.
This is where hard evidence such as tapes and transcripts of the actual words used become
critical. This evidence apparently exists, but House Democrats have failed to file suit to
obtain them. Only when we know the words used and the surrounding circumstances can we draw
inferences about the subjective intent of the actors. In the criminal law we draw such
inferences about an actor's subjective intent all the time . However, we apply special
rules when drawing inferences about a person's intent. Those inferences must not only be
reasonable , they must be the only reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
the facts and circumstances presented.
As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as
ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their
fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it "
isn't evidence.
"... If Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads constitutes election interference, and Donald Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is too - then Hillary Clinton takes the cake when it comes to influence campaigns designed to harm a political opponent. ..."
"... The article suggests that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page "has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials - including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president." ..."
"... Steele told us that in September [of 2016] her and Simpson gave an "off-the-record" briefing to a small number of journalists about his reporting, " reads page 165 of the FISA report, which says that Steele "acknowledged that Yahoo News was identified in one of the court filings in the foreign litigation as being present. " ..."
"... Put another way, Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele to feed information to the MSM in order to harm Donald Trump right before the 2016 election . Granted, there were intermediaries; the Clinton campaign paid law firm Perkins Coie, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid Steele. And if asked, we're guessing Clinton would claim she had no idea this happened - which simply isn't plausible given the stakes. Whatever the case - the act of Simpson paying Steele to peddle fiction to the media for the purpose of harming Trump, by itself , constitutes blatant election meddling by every standard set by the left over the past three years. ..."
If Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads constitutes election interference, and Donald
Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is too - then Hillary Clinton takes the cake
when it comes to influence campaigns designed to harm a political opponent.
Contained within Monday's FISA report by the DOJ
Inspector General is the revelation that Fusion GPS, the firm paid by the Clinton campaign to
produce the Steele dossier, " was paying Steele to discuss his reporting with the media. " (
P.
369 and elsewhere)
And when did Steele talk with the media - which got him
fired as an FBI source ? Perhaps most notably was Yahoo News journalist Michael Isikoff ,
who says he was invited by Fusion GPS to meet a
"secret source" at a Washington restaurant . That secret source was none other than
Christopher Steele , who fed Isikoff information from his now-discredited dossier - and which
appeared in a
September 23, 2016 article roughly six weeks before the election - which likely had orders
of magnitude greater visibility and impact coming from a widely-read, MSM source vs. $100,000
in Russian Facebook ads.
The article suggests that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page "has opened up private
communications with senior Russian officials - including talks about the possible lifting of
economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."
Steele told us that in September [of 2016] her and Simpson gave an "off-the-record" briefing
to a small number of journalists about his reporting, " reads page
165 of the FISA report, which says that Steele "acknowledged that Yahoo News was identified
in one of the court filings in the foreign litigation as being present. "
Put another way, Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele to feed information to the MSM in
order to harm Donald Trump right before the 2016 election . Granted, there were intermediaries;
the Clinton campaign paid law firm Perkins Coie, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid Steele. And
if asked, we're guessing Clinton would claim she had no idea this happened - which simply isn't
plausible given the stakes. Whatever the case - the act of Simpson paying Steele to peddle
fiction to the media for the purpose of harming Trump, by itself , constitutes blatant election
meddling by every standard set by the left over the past three years.
We're sure Hillary can explain that if and when she jumps into the 2020 race.
Schiff behaviour was egregious and as such it is now DemoRats liability...
Goldman finding are all bogus as they can't be compared with crimes on Obama and Clinton family.
Notable quotes:
"... Castor accused Democrats of sustaining a months-long quest to find an issue on which to impeach Trump. After Mueller's investigation didn't deliver the results they wanted, he said Democrats now are focusing on Trump's interactions with Ukraine, particularly his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. ..."
"... "The record in the Democrats' impeachment inquiry does not show that President Trump abused the power of Congress or obstructed Congress," Castor said. "To impeach a president who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney." ..."
Here's the Democratic position, according to their lawyers...
"The evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power" by trying to get
Ukraine to help his prospects for re-election by announcing an investigation into a political
rival, former Vice President Joe Biden," said Barry Berke, counsel to House Judiciary
Democrats.
He and Daniel Goldman, counsel for Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, also cited
numerous instances of the Trump administration withholding documents and other evidence
sought by Congress in connection with the Ukraine probe.
...and the Republican position.
The panel's Republican counsel, Steve Castor, reiterated one of the chief defenses of the
president that's been put forward by Trump allies: "The impeachment inquiry's record is
riddled with hearsay, presumptions and speculation."
He accused Democrats of pursuing an "artificial and arbitrary political deadline" to
overturn the 2016 election and impeach Trump's before the Christmas holiday.
Goldman detailed what he called four "critical" findings from the investigation, according
to Dems. All of these points will likely feature prominently in the articles.
Trump used the power of his office to pressure and induce the newly-elected president of
Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidential election for Trump's personal and political
benefit.
In order to increase the pressure on Ukraine to announce the politically-motivated
investigations that the president wanted, he withheld a coveted Oval Office meeting and $391
million of essential military assistance from Ukraine.
Trump's conduct undermined the U.S. election process and poses an imminent threat to our
national security.
Faced with the revelation of his pressure campaign against Ukraine, Trump directed an
unprecedented effort to obstruct Congress' impeachment inquiry into his conduct.
Meanwhile, Republicans insist that the Dems' impeachment drive was a waste of time because
it doesn't show abuse of power.
Castor accused Democrats of sustaining a months-long quest to find an issue on which to
impeach Trump. After Mueller's investigation didn't deliver the results they wanted, he said
Democrats now are focusing on Trump's interactions with Ukraine, particularly his July 25
phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
"The record in the Democrats' impeachment inquiry does not show that President Trump
abused the power of Congress or obstructed Congress," Castor said. "To impeach a president
who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney."
Unfortunately, the impeachment hearing blitz has done little to shift public opinion. Poll
averages compiled by FiveThirtyEight and RealClear Politics show that Americans are evenly
divided with roughly 47% to 48% supporting impeachment and 44% to 45% opposing. Some individual
polls have found that more than eight in ten people say their minds are made up.
Though Nadler says he hasn't yet made a final decision, it looks like evidence from the
Mueller probe will be left out of the articles of impeachment by Democrats (probably not a bad
idea).
Looks like Schiff went overboard and it is he who should be impeached...
Notable quotes:
"... Likewise, Mr. Schiff published call records between Mr. Giuliani and me and suggested they involved my Ukraine stories. Many contacts I had with Mr. Giuliani involved interviews on the Mueller report and its aftermath or efforts to invite the president's lawyer on the Hill's TV show, which I supervised. ..."
"... Mr. Schiff's team has tried to minimize the conduct because he never subpoenaed my phone records directly but extracted them from others' call records. That defense is laughable. ..."
"... Similarly, in the days since Mr. Schiff's phone-record release, I have had people who openly talked to me on the phone this year suddenly ask to communicate only by encrypted apps. They don't want their names splashed in the next congressional report. And they fear a bipartisan open season on phone records of political opponents in the future. ..."
"... Mr. Schiff appears to assume that Congress enjoys unlimited investigative powers under the Constitution's Speech or Debate clause. He does not. I recommend the chairman examine the record in McSurely v. McClellan , a two-decade legal battle that began in 1967 and pitted a powerful committee chairman against a liberal activist couple in Kentucky. It is widely regarded -- along with the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s -- as one of most egregious episodes of misconduct in the modern history of congressional oversight. ..."
"... "can only stand as a small reaffirmation of the proposition that there are bounds to the interference that citizens must tolerate from the agents of their government -- even when such agents invoke the mighty shield of the Constitution and claim official purpose to their conduct." ..."
The Federal Bureau of Investigation's
Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide , the bible for agents, has long recognized
that journalists, the clergy and lawyers deserve special protections because of the
constitutional implications of investigating their work . Penitents who confess to a priest,
sources who provide confidential information to a reporter, and clients who seek advice from
counsel are assumed to be protected by a high bar of privacy, which must be weighed against the
state's interests in investigating matters or subpoenaing records. Judges and members of
Congress also fall into a special FBI category because of the Constitution's separation of
powers.
The FBI and Justice Department have therefore created specific rules governing agents'
actions involving special-circumstances professionals, which include high-level approval and
review. There are also special rules for
subpoenaing journalists.
If the executive branch, and by extension the courts that enforce these privacy protections,
observe the need for such sensitivity, it seems reasonable that Congress should have similar
guardrails ensuring that the powers of the state are equally and fairly applied.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff apparently doesn't see things that way
.
His committee secretly authorized subpoenas to AT&T earlier this year for the phone records of President
Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and an associate. He then arbitrarily extracted
information about certain private calls and made them public.
Many of the calls Mr. Schiff chose to publicize fell into the special-circumstances
categories: a fellow member of Congress ( Rep. Devin Nunes, the Intelligence Committee's
ranking Republican), two lawyers (Mr. Giuliani and fellow Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow ) and a
journalist (me).
More alarming, the released call records involve figures who have sometimes criticized or
clashed with Mr. Schiff. I wrote a
story raising questions about his contacts with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, a key
figure in the Russia probe, that brought the California Democrat unwelcome scrutiny. Mr. Nunes
has been one of Mr. Schiff's main Republican antagonists, helping to prove that the exaggerated
claims of Trump-Russia election collusion were unsubstantiated. Messrs. Sekulow and Giuliani
represent Mr. Trump, who is Mr. Schiff's impeachment target.
Mr. Schiff's actions in obtaining and publicizing private phone records trampled the
attorney-client privilege of Mr. Trump and his lawyers. It intruded on my First Amendment
rights to interview and contact figures like Mr. Giuliani and the Ukrainian-American
businessman Lev Parnas without fear of having the dates, times and length of private
conversation disclosed to the public.
Contrary to Mr. Schiff's defense that he was simply serving the investigative interest of
Congress, the release of the phone records served much more to punish people whose work Mr.
Schiff found antagonistic than to fulfill an oversight purpose . And it served Congress poorly
because it spread false insinuations. Mr. Schiff's report suggested, for instance, that Mr.
Giuliani called the White House to talk to the Office of Management and Budget, implying he
might have been trying to help Mr. Trump withhold aid to Ukraine as Democrats allege. The White
House says that claim is wrong; the number was a generic phone entry point and no one in OMB
talked to Mr. Giuliani.
Likewise, Mr. Schiff published call records between Mr. Giuliani and me and suggested they
involved my Ukraine stories. Many contacts I had with Mr. Giuliani involved interviews on the
Mueller report and its aftermath or efforts to invite the president's lawyer on the Hill's TV
show, which I supervised.
Mr. Schiff's team has tried to minimize the conduct because he never subpoenaed my phone
records directly but extracted them from others' call records. That defense is laughable.
Once a journalist and his calls are made public through the powers of the surveillance
state, there is an instant chilling effect on press freedom.
I know this firsthand. In 2001 and 2002, when I was a reporter for the Associated Press, the
Justice Department obtained my home phone records and the FBI
illegally seized my mail without a warrant in an effort to unmask my sources on federal
corruption and stop publication of a story about the government's counterterrorism failures
before 9/11. In the end the FBI returned my reporting records, apologized to me privately, and
announced new rules to avoid a repeat for other journalists.
Yet by that time many of my longtime sources had told me they had chosen not to contact me
for fear of being detected. Others would only meet in person, concerned that my phones were
wiretapped.
Similarly, in the days since Mr. Schiff's phone-record release, I have had people who openly
talked to me on the phone this year suddenly ask to communicate only by encrypted apps. They
don't want their names splashed in the next congressional report. And they fear a bipartisan
open season on phone records of political opponents in the future.
Rep. Mike Turner (R., Ohio), a member of the Intelligence Committee, tells me he's drafting
legislation to put guardrails on future congressional subpoenas for phone records. That's a
good start, but more needs to be done sooner.
Mr. Schiff appears to assume that Congress enjoys unlimited investigative powers under the
Constitution's Speech or Debate clause. He does not. I recommend the chairman examine the
record in McSurely v. McClellan , a two-decade legal battle that began in 1967 and pitted a
powerful committee chairman against a liberal activist couple in Kentucky. It is widely
regarded -- along with the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s -- as one of most egregious episodes
of misconduct in the modern history of congressional oversight.
In one of the final
appellate decisions in that topsy-turvy case, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia ruled that Congressional oversight isn't boundless and that the Speech or
Debate Clause has limits. The final paragraph of that ruling derided a "sorry chapter of
investigative excess."
The judges wrote that their decision:
"can only stand as a small reaffirmation of the proposition that there are bounds to the
interference that citizens must tolerate from the agents of their government -- even when
such agents invoke the mighty shield of the Constitution and claim official purpose to their
conduct."
Imagine if it were Devin Nunes subpoenaing the phone records of Adam Schiff, and Schiff's
private conversations with, say, a reporter at CNN...and then making them public.
The MSM would go BALLISTIC!!!!! Heads would have to roll in Congress, and elsewhere. It
would be top-of-the-page headline news 24/7.
But, because this is ALL ABOUT getting rid of the Bad Orange Man, what do we hear from the
MSM??? *crickets*
And the MSM wonders why Congress has a better approval rating among the American public
that they do.
Adam Schiff is the tip of the iceberg. Wanton disregard for the rule of law, all the while
espousing strict adherence to it, is rampant. While living among us, these Neo-liberals have
declared war on us. To them, any means are legitimate in 'defeating' us. They know they would
never win a direct confrontation with facts, so subversion, deception, and sabotage are their
methods of choice. They have co-opted media, education, and government into their ideology of
control. The vast majority of the populace will be subdued and programmed into believing and
doing anything. For all intents and purposes, we're already there.
They poisoned with the USA with Russophobia for decades to come, and that really increases
the risk of nuclear confrontation, which would wipe out all this jerks, but also mass of innocent
people.
Notable quotes:
"... The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5. Not holding my breath I am afraid. ..."
"... Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better distractions). ..."
Sooner or later you'll have this, IMHO: Reaction time 7 minutes . You know,
decision-making time to say "launch" or not. The decision-maker in the White House, Downing
Street and Elysees Palace either a geriatric or one of this new multiracial breed. Just think
about those people
Add to that the level of overall expertise by the crews manning those systems, its
maintenance etc. Add increased automation of some parts of the launch process with
hardware/software as it's produced now (you know, quality control etc.).
It will take a miracle not to have that launch sooner or later. Not big, say .80 KT. What
happens after that is anybody's guess. Mine, taking the second point from the fourth
paragraph .a big bang.
The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of
their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5.
Not holding my breath I am afraid.
@peterAUS The rational actor false supposition has it that the biologics can't be used
because they don't recognize friend from foe.
Rational actors? Where? Anthrax via the US mail.
One rational actor point of view is that you have to be able to respond to anything.
Anything. In a measured or escalating response. Of course biologics are being actively
pursued to the hilt. Just like you point out about Marburg.
But, the view from above is that general panic in the population cannot be allowed, and so
all biologics have to be down played. "of course we would never do anything like that, it
would be insane to endanger all of humanity". Just like nukes. So professors pontificate
misdirection, and pundits punt.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis. "We only want the fear that results
in more appropriations. Not the fear that sinks programs." Don't generate new Church
commissions. Hence the fine line. some fear yes, other fears, no.
Well Washington D.C.
Hahahahaha sorry, couldn't resist.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis.
I don't.
But I also probably forgot more about nuclear war than most of readers here will ever
know. And chemical, when you think about it; had a kit with atropine on me all the time in
all exercises. We didn't practice much that "biologics" stuff, though. We knew why, then.
Same reason for today. Call it a "stoic option" to own inevitable demise.
Now, there is a big difference between the age of those protests I mentioned and today.
The Internet. The access to information people, then, simply didn't have.
Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real
world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better
distractions).
Well, they will care, I am sure. For about ..say in the USA ..several hours, on
average.
We here where I am typing from will care for "how to survive the aftermath" .. for two
months.Tops.
Appearing on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Maté
said Ukraine's efforts to tamper in the election are "no secret."
"Ukrainian officials -- they leaked information that exposed some apparent corruption by Paul Manafort and it was consequential.
It led to Paul Manafort's resignation
from the Trump campaign," he said. "And, the stated intent of Ukrainian officials was to weaken the Trump campaign because they
wanted to help elect Hillary Clinton ."
Yet, when Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told "Meet The Press" host
Chuck Todd Sunday that reports from various
media outlets indicated that former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko favored Clinton over now-President Trump, Todd accused him
of parroting Russian President
Vladimir Putin's talking points.
"Are you at all concerned that you've been duped?" Todd asked.
On the same network, anchor
Nicolle Wallace and her guest The Bulwark Editor-at-Large Charlie Sykes echoed Todd, agreeing that Kennedy "comes off as an addled
Russian asset on television" after "peddling Vladimir Putin's talking points."
"I don't understand the proactive work on behalf of Putin's Kremlin," said Wallace.
Maté told Carlson that what these pundits are trying to do is "conflate that with a different theory by Ukrainian meddling. Which
is not proven -- it's true."
"And, that is the one that Trump tried to put forward in this
phone call with Zelenksy where he appears to be saying that it wasn't Russia that was behind the
hacking of the DNC and that it might have been Ukraine," he continued.
"It's true there's no evidence for that theory, and it's fair enough to point out that. But. what's also ironic here is that the
people who are indignant about that claim by Trump are accepting the claim that Russia hacked the DNC," Maté stated, adding that
journalists should be demanding to see the underlying evidence used by U.S. intelligence to draw that conclusion.
Carlson said the mainstream media now accuses anyone who questions their narrative of being a "traitor to the country" and supporting
Russia. Julia Musto is a reporter for Foxnews.com
The tread is reproduced as is. And out 100 posts available in NYT "all view mode 90% can be classified as plain vanilla Neo-McCarthyism
If they are representative sample of the country, the country is crazy.
This editorial can also be classified as lunatic. But in reality it is much worse: the paper became completely subservant
to intelligence agencies. Should probably be renamed the Voice of the CIA. .
Monday's congressional hearing and the inspector general's report tell a similar story.
By Jesse Wegman Mr. Wegman is a member of the editorial board.
When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected.
That's the most important lesson from the two big events that played out Monday on Capitol Hill -- the House Judiciary Committee's
hearings on President Trump's impeachment and the
release of the report on the origins of the F.B.I.'s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
One of these involved the 2016 election. The other involves the 2020 election. Both tell versions of the same story: Mr. Trump
depends on, and welcomes, Russian interference to help him win the presidency. That was bad enough when he did it in 2016, openly
calling for Russia to hack into his opponent's emails -- which
Russians tried to do that
same day . But he was only a candidate then. Now that Mr. Trump is president, he is wielding the immense powers of his office
to achieve the same end.
That is precisely the type of abuse of power that the founders
were most concerned about when they
created the impeachment power, and it's why Democratic leaders in the House are pressing ahead with such urgency on their inquiry.
They are trying to ensure that the 2020 election, now less than a year away, is not corrupted by the president of the United States,
acting in league with a foreign power. "The integrity of our next election is at stake," said Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee. "Nothing could be more urgent."
On Monday morning, lawyers for the Democrats on the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees presented
the clearest and most comprehensive narrative yet of President Trump's monthslong shakedown of the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, for Mr. Trump's personal political benefit. They explained in methodical detail how the president withheld a White House
meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in crucial, congressionally authorized military aid to Ukraine, all in an effort to get
Mr. Zelensky to announce two investigations -- one into Mr. Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, and another
into Ukraine's supposed interference in the 2016 election.
David Leonhardt helps you make sense of the news -- and offers reading suggestions from around the web -- with commentary every
weekday morning.
Who would benefit from these announcements? Mr. Trump, who believes his re-election prospects are threatened most by Mr. Biden,
and Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, who has been working for years to make Ukraine the fall guy for his own interference
in the 2016 election. Mr. Putin has not fooled serious people, like those in the American intelligence community who determined that
his government alone was responsible
for meddling on Mr. Trump's behalf . But he has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices
by faithfully parroting Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press.
Republicans are in lawyer mode, advocating for Trump as if he were their client. Lawyers make the best case they can for their
clients. It helps if they believe in the case, but it also helps to know the case's weaknesses so they can avoid them. The best
lawyers can do both at the same time. Republicans are called on by the Constitution to exit lawyer mode and enter juror mode (which
is, or should be, similar to why-did-this-aircraft-crash mode). So far, they are not heeding this call. From all appearances,
they are mouthing the words of the Constitution while avoiding or refusing to hear or understand them. They took an oath to support
the Constitution, but they are deaf to its call, or have moved to a place beyond understanding it.
The issue of whether to impeach was made by the President when he engaged in an abuse of his office for personal gain and then
obstructed Congress' oversight function. We all understand the political downside arising from an acquittal in the Senate but
that interest needs to be secondary to doing the right thing. On these facts, the decision representatives must make of whether
to impeach really is no decision at all. Just do the right thing.
When Senator John McCain died, he scripted his own funeral as a full bore defense against Trumpian Nationalism, and as an admonishment
against a GOP too willing to sell the soul of our nation out to a cultist repudiation of objective fact, truth, and Constitutional
order. McCain was a controversial maverick –a person I both admired and disliked in equal proportion. But there is one thing I
will always admire him for: his final letter to the nation. It was a warning! He blew a golden bugle to sound the alarm against
those entities both within and without our nation who wish to do our democratic republic harm. McCain, whether you agreed with
the premise of the Vietnam war or not, was an American hero who served his country and his fellow soldiers with incontrovertible
valor and love. President Donald Trump has no concept of what that dedication and sacrifice entails – and sadly, neither do many
of the GOP members who continue to lie and make excuses for a president who is clearly abusing his office for personal gain. McCain
characterized Trump's actions in Helsinki as an unfathomable 'abasement of the U.S. presidency.' All I can say is the GOP sure
ain't the party of my father who fought in WWII against fascism and autocracy. It aggrieves me to no end to witness what too many
members of Congress have become: tyrants toward the very meaning of American democracy. God save us from our own duplicity.
@Twg Well said, and though I sometimes did not agree with McCain on matters of policy, I wish he were still with us, hopefully
to show his fellow republicans what integrity looks like, and what America is supposed to be about. The Republican party I have
known and respected is alas, like Senator McCain, no longer with us.
Americans have to realize that the whole world is mocking us, and that doesn't necesarily inspire respect. That cold be dangerous.
Many medical professionals have noticed a decay in the mental abilities of the president, and certain abnormalities. It would
be wise to suggest to the family that maybe the best way forward, with minimal losses would be to motivate a retirement. That
would be face saving for them, and save the country from a bitter impeachment spectacle that would not be positive for the USA.
I'm waiting for Trump's financial info to be released. There's something in there he doesn't even want his base to know . I think
the logical conclusion is that whatever financials DJT has hidden do indeed lead to Moscow. Actually, all of this is very, very
alarming. Does Putin have a political asset planted here? Y or N I wish the answer was no and that we had a different President.
Can we as a nation hold things together when our leader wants to tear us apart?
All roads lead to the highest bidder(s). 21st century America in the era of Citizens United. Market pricing and the government
is open for transactional business domestic and international. Alternate realities per GRU/FOX/GOP misinformation. Combine foreign
money carefully grooming an in-need Trump, and a party worshipping money and you have a perfect storm removing any sense of civic
duty. Hundreds of years to build and unwound in a few decades, the breathtaking and tragic fall of greatness and hope in our lifetime.
It's not fiction, and every day I have to check if it's really happening, and shockingly it is.
There was no Russian meddling, only Ukraine who meddled in 2016 and they are still at it. Listening to the Judiciary Committee
hearings, it seems that the Russians have hacked into the Republican Party servers and are sending talking points to Republicans
who are defending the indefensible president.
At some point, Republicans have to ask themselves which is better for their party and the country. Slavish devotion to Trump,
or losing an election and leaving Democrats a mess to clean up, as in 1932 and 2008?
Block witnesses from testifying, then say that the hearing is incomplete. Romney told America at the Republican Convention in
2012 that Russia was our biggest enemy, DJT wanted them to help Republicans win in 2016, said he believed Putin in 2018, and wants
to convince us that it was really the Ukraine in 2019. The House has to impeach, even if politically it may be a bad move, because
it is the right thing to do; indeed, the very actions I've seen in the past several weeks has given me glimmers of hope for the
country.
Trump will be reelected for the reason that the Russian intelligence agencies are still able to hack our election results, because
Trump has blocked fixing the weaknesses. That is what happens when a Manchurian candidate is elected and then allowed to obstruct
justice. It is not clear the US will survive Trump. One key thing he did was arrange to have the teams at DHS that watch for smuggled
nuclear bombs were stood down and disbanded. See the report in the LA Times last July "Trump administration has gutted programs
aimed at detecting weapons of mass destruction".
I don't suppose a constructed transcript of Trump's meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov tomorrow will be offered up as
a token of our leader's transparency.
It's clear now that AG William Barr isn't interested in enforcing the rule of law with fellow republicans, and especially the
president. How can there be no recourse when an attorney general completely sells out to a criminal president? Can the employees
of the Justice Dept hold a vote of no confidence in the AG? Can 10,000 attorneys nationwide express the same? The prospect of
Trump and Barr running roughshod over the rule of law for another year is truly frightening.
65,845,063 voters knew clearly who this man was from the beginning and voted for what would have been a better now and future.
It was never any secret. 62,980,160 voters also knew clearly who this man was and voted for him anyway. If the Democrats can ensure
that we have a fair election in 2020. I'm confident they will win the majority in the house and senate and retake the White House
and the end game for Trump will be jail. The problem is, he might not be the only one who's crimes come to light and I suspect
a good lot of the GOP are threatening and blackmailing each other to hold the line. If there's any good men or women left in the
GOP, your country and history are calling you.
It has easy to predict Trump's next move for the last 3 years. Just ask, "What would both benefit Trump, and benefit Putin?" Trump
supporters = Putin supporters.
Do you know the American people are fed up with the discourse of all politicians. The republicans are fed up with any decency
for the republic. The democrats are fed up with the republicans not facing the common sense of a exec not capable of being the
President of the United states. I as a person am fed up with a political system that is not working for all people, just a select
few. It's time too have term limits for all positions in gov't. That means all people that serve the people whether it be judges,
senators or congressmen/women. It's time to find common sense again in our society as a whole society. We on this earth are all
HUMAN.
Unfortunately their are serious problems with term limits. Just consider yourself in the role of a Congressional Representative
limited to 4 terms. You know that in 8 years, you'll be be back on the job market. You can selflessly work for the public and
damage your ability to get a job or tend to people who can hire you after you leave office. You're rational. Which future would
you pick?
Trump needs to keep Putin happy lest he unleash with all the damaging info he has collected on Trump and his financial crooked
deals with Russians over decades. THe Russian mob reports to Putin as a former KGB agent he knows how to collect compromat on
a politician and how to use it to get Trump to break into a giddy smile when he sees Putin his master it's obvious to most keen
observers.
Folks it is simple. Can we hear what Trump and Putin said to each other a few months ago. It is recored and on a server it should
not be on. I am not sure why nobody is talking about these transcripts.
Finally! We get someone stating the obvious fact of Trump/Putin. Why are the Dems not talking about this all the time? Why are
Congressmen and women not asking the witnesses about this? This is the ONE thing the Republicans are afraid of, so it is the one
thing Democrats should do. I have been disappointed that the Russian asset thing hasn't been brought up....It's as if it is purposely
bold. Trump is a Russian asset, either witting or unwitting. I doubt if there is one upper Intelligence Official that wouldn't
say this. So find the right one and have them sit as a witness for this inquiry. And now the Russian big wig Diplomat and KGb
spy, Lavarov, is visiting tomorrow. Good grief! Everyone is thinking this, so get out and say it Dems! Dr. Fiona Hill tried to
lead into this direction but still the Dem Committee would take it up and aske her what she thought. Say it: All of Trump's Roads
Lead to Russia.
Any American adult who has made an effort to educate himself or herself about Mr. Mueller's investigation or these impeachment
proceedings understands that yes, with Trump all roads lead to Russia. Now if the poll numbers mean anything, Trump's crimes and
Russia's involvement only matter to about 60% of us. As Trump's poll numbers remain steady, some 40% of Americans don't care what
lawbreaking he is involved with or whether other nations now control our elections. Stop and think about this for a minute. Trump
supporters know but literally do not care that Russia is tampering with our elections (2016 and 2020). Their cult-like support
for Trump is why the Republican Senate will not remove him. There is no other reason Trump will remain in office. Trump has mesmerized
his supporters like a modern day Rasputin. They will do literally anything for him, and Senate Republicans know this. Trump voters
do not mind that Putin controls our nation at the highest levels of decision making. Again - think about this - they know he does,
and they do not care. So I ask the rest of us. Is this the America we want to live in? To raise our families in? Where a large,
rabid minority is in thrall to a lunatic puppet whose strings are firmly in Putin's hands? Because this is very much the America
we live in now. The time will come, though, when we, the majority, will no longer tolerate the Trump/Putin regime. But the longer
we wait, the harder it will be oust these tyrants.
In 2008, Donald Trump Jr. said Russia was an important source of funding for the Trump businesses. American banks wouldn't lend
him money. Saudi Arabia likely bailed out Jared's disastrous real estate investment in NYC. Follow. The. Money.
You say that Mr. Putin "has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices by faithfully parroting
Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press." You are correct on all counts, except that the Republicans have not been fooled
by Putin. They have gone along, headlong and absolutely willingly, in a complete sellout of personal and national principle and
integrity. They should not be forgiven for this conduct, any more than Mr. Trump should be forgiven for his sellout of America.
For Republicans who believe so fervently in their counterfactual narrative, there is an immediate remedy. Bring facts and evidence
to the Committees and testify under oath. Without witnesses and evidence presented under oath, all of the GOP antics simply look
foolish and very much like they are defending the guilty. It is unfortunate that there is no penalty for elected officials who
share unfounded conspiracy theories, engage in innuendo and obstruct process in official Committee hearings. It is also regretable
that this President is not held accountable for trying to intimidate witnesses in real time during testimony. And it is a sad
reality that one of the most corrupt rulers in the world, who rules a hostile power, has managed to entirely win over one of our
major parties.
The strangest defense advanced today was the idea that the alleged state of the economy was reason not to impeach the President:
the Republicans assert that America, the Constitution, the principle of our government are for sale to be bought by the rising
stock market and a plethora of low-wage jobs. We are Faust, and the smell of sulphur is nauseating.
If the IG's report on the 2016 Russia investigation had found the only problem was that two of the agents involved had horrible
hangnails, Barr and Trump would have condemned it.
Whatever Trump is doing, he always care about his main benefactors, Putin and MBS. This is the first time I have witnessed in
history that an American president became a Russian puppet with all his Republican followers at the Congress and Senate. American
constitutional crisis happening right in front of the world. I heard the cries of James Madison, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin
from their graves.
Sir, do you honestly think that House Republicans have been "fooled" by Mr. Putin? On the contrary, it's pretty obvious they understand
and believe the conclusions from our Intel community. These are instead willful lies for political gain. And while some Americans
may actually be misled by the theater presented as rebuttal to the impeachment, it's hard to imagine for most it's once again,
not conviction but convenience that places such "patriots" solidly in Russia's back pocket.
The pattern of behavior is clear and compelling: Trump is selling out this country, its national security, its integrity and sovereignty,
in order to keep power and avoid his own prosecution, and protect his financial interests. We must get the truth about his relationships
and indebtedness to Putin, the Saudis, and Erdogan. Our country has been hijacked and Trump will continue to corrupt the US and
turn it into an autocracy if he is not stopped and held accountable under the law.
The country voted for this President knowing he is a flawed man in many ways. I don't think anything changes here - the Senate
will speedily acquit him and the voters in the swing states will have to decide if they want to give Mr. Trump a second chance
while the rest of the country impotently watches.
If one looks at all of his actions as "How could this benefit Russia?" most of it makes sense. Why start a trade war with China
and Western allies? Why withdraw from Syria? Why try to polarize the American public? Effectively showing this to the public is
critical.
Excellent piece. We all know Trump, Inc. turned to Russian oligarchs after '08 for condo sales. It just so happened that those
same oligarchs (read as kleptocrats) were laundering money through Deutsche Bank, who was the only bank willing to lend to Trump.
Trump's loan officer amazingly was SC Justice Anthony Kennedy's son. Trump was and is a desperate man in need of cash/ Putin is
a desperate man who knows that the geyser of oil money that funds his national budget, and has done so since the 1920's, is coming
to an end. Russia has no large material economic exports other than oil and gas, but it does still have a large military, hence
the military incursions into Moldova, Ossetia, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. Desperate men do desperate things, and desperately
try to project power with weak hands.
The Republicans in Congress were not fooled by the Russians. They believe in Trump no matter what the Russians do. The bottom
line is - What does Putin have on Trump
I don't understand why there hasn't been more of a pushback by the military. They went heavily for Trump in 20116, with many bases
in the South and many recruits from economically devastated areas, but in the interim, they have seen his reckless, lurching foreign
policy, worship of Putin, and clear evidence that somehow everything he does benefits Russia. A commander's first obligation is
to their troops, so knowing the man in charge considers their lives subject to both Trump's whims, and Putin's whispers should
provoke some reaction. No?
Unfortunately - to put it mildly - impeachment will have no effect on the conduct of the 2020 election. The wheels are already
turning, everyone knows their part, and only a massive commitment by an honest intelligence apparatus (if there is one) can stop
it. One can only hope that, in 2020, the American people make a statement so overwhelming that there can be no doubt as to their
intent, despite whatever meddling there may have been. It is entirely possible that there will never be a truly credible election
again as long as there are bad actors who are power hungry or bent on destabilizing democratic governments. And make no mistake,
these threats are coming from right wing autocracies, and they are in the ascendancy all over the world. American centrists and
liberals are the only force that can change that. Are those stakes big enough for you?
We may finally have the answer as to why Trump is so accommodating to Putin. Trump has so many investments in Russia dependent
on Putin's support. Trump financial reports will reveal this collusion between Trump and Putin. This should not come as a surprise
to attentive Americans. Think of the worst an American president can do and that will bring you close to understanding Trump.
Nobody's saying how Trump withholding military aid to Ukraine would benefit Putin and Russia in their WAR against Ukraine. It
was, indeed, MILITARY aid he was withholding, was it not? I understand that this is not the impeachable offense of attempting
to enlist a foreign government to win an election, but I believe this aspect of the situation should be brought out.
The Republican Party has been officially reduced to a giant miasma of fraud, fiction, fantasy, conspiracy theory, deflection,
misdirection and prevarication. After tax cuts for rich people and rich corporations...the GOP has no other public policy ideas
(except for bankrupting the government). A civilized country needs little things like infrastructure, education, technology, voting
rights, law and order, regulations, fair taxation and facts to move forward. But none of those things are ever mentioned by the
Republican Party; conspiracy-mongering and tax cuts are now the official governing planks of the Grand Old Propaganda/Grand One
Percent party. This is no way to manage a nation anywhere except into the ground. Americans need to hit the Trump-GOP eject button
before these Lord of the Fly Republicans take us over a very steep right-wing cliff of insanity.
The Republican Party is now Trump's party and the Republicans know it and are acting accordingly. You could call them opportunists
following the way the political winds are blowing. The Constitution is based on members of Congress caring about the Constitution
and searching for the truth. Since this is now not the case when if comes to the Republicans the Constitution has no remedy for
this situation. The only remedy is an election and if Trump can manipulate elections to his advantage using foreign powers then
there is no remedy and the system of government set up by the founders will be no more. The new system replacing it will be controlled
by Trump. Putin figured out how to control Russian elections so he always wins and it is likely that Trump has a goal of imitating
Putin. Ultimately this would mean taking over the press as Putin did. Trump cannot declare total victory as long as the there
is a free press which he has labeled the enemy of the people.
From an acute perspective ..indeed shocking to say the least of the nature of this peculiar relationship. But looking at the big
picture as evidence by all that has occurred in his or during this eye opening period for all the world to see....not so much
so...For me, this dynamic is much expected.
"The witness has used language which impugns the motives of the president and suggests he's disloyal to his country, and those
words should be stricken from the record and taken down," Mr. Johnson said. The Johnson rule effectively reads the impeachment
power out of the constitution. How can you impeach a president if no one can say anything bad about him/her?
We have yet to plow the most fertile road yet. What does Trump care about over all else? Trump. How does Trump gauge his progress?
His money. Where does his money come from? Good question. We all know he has filed for bankruptcy 6 times. We all know that because
of those bankruptcies, American banks will not loan him any money. We all know he has significant financial dealings with Deutsche
Bank. Now, who put the money in Deutsche Bank that ended up financing Trump's business.? That is the two billion dollar question.
We also know that Russian oligarchs deal in billions of dollars. We also know that Trump has close relations with Russian business
interests. We also know that Trump kowtows to Putin like Pence kowtows to him. We also know that Trump is doing everything possible
to conceal his financial dealings from everyone and everything. So, we know that one billion plus one billion equals two billion.
But does it also equal Trump? This money road is one we should take a ride on. Will it also take us to Putin?
The first Democratic candidate who labels Trump a "Russian agent" will own the simplest and most effective tag line going into
the general election, provided of course that that candidate does his best to channel his inner Trump by never backing down but
instead doubling down every chance he or she gets. Is Trump a Russian agent, paid for and accounted for? Not easy to say without
some doubt, but that doesn't really matter because he sure as shoottin' acts like one. And when have the facts ever stopped Trump
from going on the attack? The more Trump denies the label, the more he'll be digging his own grave. The real crime here is not
so much the strong arming of Zelenskyy for a Biden investigation. That's small potatoes compared to Trump's withholding congressionally
designated US military aid from a country engaged in a hot war with Russia, the same cast of characters who starved anywhere from
one to eleven million Ukrainians during the 1930's. The Russian agent must go.
I would not say Trump's lying "is effective", I would say it "has been effective". At some point, the public and his party may
have had it with the thuggery and we do not know when that breaking point is.
For the sake of protecting our 2020 elections from Russian hackers and disinformation, the House is justified in moving forward
fast, over the process howls of Republicans, with the compelling evidence they have surrounding Ukraine. But they need to continue
investigating his business and financial ties to Russia and any other autocratic governments and their oligarchs, e.g. Turkey
and Saudi Arabia. Especially if he is not convicted and removed by the Senate and stands for re-election, Americans need to know
what conflicts of interest he has in making foreign policy and military decisions because American soldiers' lives are at stake.
The Mueller investigation did not go down that road. Any businessman with global interests is automatically compromised, even
more than a vice president whose son sits on a foreign corporation's board of director. Trump's own children continue to do business
in foreign countries and we have no idea what Ivanka and Jared, sitting in the White House with top security clearances, are doing.
In short, Ukraine should not be the only concern of congressional oversight committees. There's a lot more.
Trump must believe that Russian help in 2016 did help him to win. He must feel that fake evidence presented by an "independent"
investigator such as a foreign government appears to carry more weight that the same fake evidence from a partisan investigator.
Otherwise why would he be taking such chances to duplicate via Ukraine what he got from the Russians in 2016. But now that the
Russian connection is outed, he can't go back to that well.
I worry it's all for naught. Dems in the House vote to impeach, GOP in the Senate vote to acquit. Trump remains highly competitive
in 2020 election, Russia and other adversaries interfere, Trump stays put. Then what?
@NA Wilson Think of this situation differently. To have all possible scope to defeat him, we must support everything we can to
undermine him. Lack of impeachment would have been business as usual. At some point his finances will get out and then all bets
are off.
@NA Wilson: It's all Hands on deck to save the country. Don't just vote, donate what money you can, work for candidates, knock
doors, make calls. It's the only way out of this nightmare.
The Impeachment hearings weren't really necessary to prove what most everyone who's been paying attention knows. With Trump, all
roads lead to Moscow. In fact, he's already acting very Putin-esque in his own way by forbidding anyone in the White House to
respond to subpoena, by installing the fear of God in those who do, by punishing anyone who dares to think or act on their own,
and then there's the act of holding a foreign country ransom until they agree to do his bidding -- not to mention inviting outside
interference in our presidential elections. All the signs are not only there but they are ominous. By holding himself above the
U.S. Constitution, Trump has declared war on this country and all the laws that govern it. And while entertainment-starved Americans
laugh and cheer at his rallies, he and the Republicans drain our right to vote, and with it our Democracy. Today wasn't an epiphany.
It was a warning.
There seems to be no discussion of the financial backing trump received after '08-09 from sources inside Russia and how these
actors would have expressed their support (or conditions for their silence) to the trump campaign during '15-16. Did the FBI not
identify and investigate the funders behind trump and their interactions with the campaign during 2016? Would this not have been
reasonable for an investigation to look into when its entire raison d'etre was to detect sources of Russian influence?
I wonder if Mr. Wegman believes that this editorial will change anyone's mind or influence how anyone votes in the upcoming presidential
election. Basically, this is classic preaching to the choir and sadly mostly a wasted effort. I would like to read articles with
proven ideas that worked to change the minds of Republicans and other like them. Such articles might give me some better ideas
to convince my pro-Trump friends and neighbors to Vote for America next November.
"When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected." This! This is the central fact of all the things Trump has
done (so far), and yet, the Democrats have failed to make this the central focus of the case against him. Instead, they've focused
on one incident, and not even the most egregious one, to justify impeachment and removal from office. This was a terrible miscalculation.
No, there is no doubt that Trump attempted to coerce Ukraine into helping with his re-election by announcing a bogus investigation
of the Bidens. Nor any doubt that this constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors". But this was not the highest of crimes he's
committed, nor have the Dems been able to convince any Republicans, or many independents, that this deserves Trump's removal.
Moreover, they failed to produce the "smoking gun" of one witness or document in Trump's own words directing the quid pro quo.
They gave plenty of room for the Republican attack machine to cast enough doubt and confusion that all but ensures Trump's acquittal
in the Senate. Instead of focusing only on this one incident, the Democrats should have built their case around the theme that
"with Trump, all roads lead to Russia". That is a crime that even the most skeptical doubter can grasp, and when linked together,
all of his crimes can be shown to be of a pattern of serving Putin, and not the people of the United States. All roads lead to
Putin, but the Democrats chose to follow a dead end.
@Kingfish52 I completely agree with you and truly don't understand why the Democrats have not been shouting this from the rooftops.
For mercy's sake! The problem is not just that the president solicited help from a foreign power for his own personal gain! That's
bad enough, but isn't the point that he did this because he is beholden to Russia? Russia. is. not. our. friend. Why aren't the
Democrats explaining this clearly to the American people? Trump is Putin's puppet and it could not be more obvious! Don't people
understand that it doesn't just happen to be Ukraine that Trump took a notion to squeeze for his "personal gain"? He doesn't just
want to win because it is so nice to win elections. He has to do what Putin tells him. Obviously, every last Republican in Congress
understands this clearly. Why can't the Democrats explain it to the American people clearly?
Obama did not provide lethal aid to Ukraine, after the Russians invaded Crimea. Obama did not Russia prevent the Iranian nuclear
deal. Trump cancelled the Iranian nuclear deal, then provided lethal aid to Ukraine. Now I get it. Trump is working for Putin.
By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75
million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the
Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency. That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles. Trump appears
to be echoing a critique leveled at the Obama administration by the late Republican Sen. John McCain. "The Ukrainians are being
slaughtered and we're sending blankets and meals," McCain said in 2015. "Blankets don't do well against Russian tanks." While
it never provided lethal aid, many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine's military.
Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many
of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar.
The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank
missiles, something long sought by Kiev.
@Mike Trump was not the one providing lethal aid to Ukraine. It was the house and senate that proposed and forced this aid into
an appropriation bill - against the wishes of the Trump administration. After Trump realized he could not block this funding he
did the second best thing - he used it to blackmail the Ukraine government to provide him with dirt on Biden and support for Putin's
favorite narrative (that it was Ukraine not Russia that interfered in the 2016 election).
@Mike It also took two acts of Congress to get the aid to Ukraine. Trump had nothing to do with it. Only the Impound Inclusion
Act for foreign aid allows the President to time the release of the funds, which Trump did not follow. The Act was created because
Nixon, like Trump, was playing fast and loose with our tax dollars. Who was the last President who asked for help from a foreign
intelligence agency? Which President favored foregn intelligence agencies over his own? Answer no one other than Trump. If that
doesn't show he's in someone's pocket, nothing does.
Carlson mocked her testimony and found some old footage of her pushing the lie of "white
male privilege" all the way back in 2006.
"We have to seize back the high ground on patriotism and love of our country because we have
more reason than they do to love America," Karlan says in the clip. "The rich, pampered
prodigal sanctimonious incurious white, straight sons of the powerful do pretty well everywhere
in the world and they always have."
"This lady needs a shrink," Carlson joked. "'The sons of the powerful?' Really? You are a
law professor at Stanford and you are lecturing other people how they are powerful? Right."
During her testimony, Karlan also regurgitated old neocon talking points insisting we need
to arm the Ukrainians "so we can fight the Russians there and we don't have to fight them
here."
Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley, who's spent
decades studying presidential powers as an academic and legal commentator, said the ongoing
impeachment process against President Trump is "woefully inadequate" and would be the first
impeachment in history with no established crime.By the way, save money while improving
your daily life by ordering the
Change Your Life Trifecta Pack during our Cyber Week sales!
"And I think in the Intelligence Committee you heard testimony that it isn't just our
national interest in protecting our national elections, it isn't just our national interest to
make sure that the Ukraine remains strong and on the front lines so we can fight the Russians
there and we don't have to fight them here," Karlan said.
Karlan also made a very stupid joke about Barron Trump, got scolded by Melania Trump and
chose to come out and apologize:
The idea that Trump wanted to derail Biden is very weak. Biden is optimal opponent for Trump.
He can just wipe floor with him because of his long recoprd in Congress and dirty deals he was
involved, including Burisma.
Notable quotes:
"... It's funny because 3 out of 4 of those people screaming "Framers" had frames on.. so is it the framed trying to frame the framers or is it the presidents framers framing the framed..wait a minute!.. uhhmm ..."
"... Professor Karlan I believe has tanked her career ..."
It's funny because 3 out of 4 of those people screaming "Framers" had frames on.. so is it
the framed trying to frame the framers or is it the presidents framers framing the
framed..wait a minute!.. uhhmm
What I see is copious amounts of wailing from the usual sources about the demise of what
was supposed to be an era of Unipolar dominance by the Evil Outlaw US Empire and blame being
thrown in all directions hoping some sticks instead of directing it at themselves for they
are he true authors of the Empire's decline--they being the Current Oligarchy and their
Congressional, Administrative, and BigLie Media accomplices. The Empire's current "defense"
doctrine calls for war to be waged against the nation(s) impeding the Empire's unilateralism.
The brats are spoilt beyond belief and 100% believe they're entitled to having Full
Spectrum Dominance because of their exceptionalist ideology--they've destroyed their own
basic law to attain that goal; the impeachment derangement is just the most overt symptom
being shown at the moment. Just look at the unanimity on the two recent anti-China
votes--Congress is in almost 100% lockstep with Marco Rubio's insanity.
IMO, there were saner heads in 1962 than now, particularly in Congress. What's worse than
an Evil Outlaw US Empire is it's becoming deranged.
"... Lavrov told reporters Thursday: "I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is multiplying in this world." He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under the guise of NATO as well. ..."
"... "Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for some reason ." ..."
"... NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in search of new official enemies. ..."
"... I'm wondering how many NATO states don't have US Military Bases positioned in them. It's a small distance between a forward operating base and an occupying forces. ..."
"... What NATO is doing is called racketeering. Only the problem of Europe is not Russia, but the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same Americans and NATO. ..."
"... Children sometimes need a made-up friend, and these bastards need a made-up enemy. Russia is perfect for this. ..."
"... LOL. The NATO ONLY serves US interests. It has the same function as always. Keep the US in, Russia out and Germany down. ..."
"... The collapse of the US empire has been underway for years. Nobody is excited about it because, instead of gracefully adapting to change with the dignity of a great nation, the US will continue to cling to denial, lashing out at all and sundry as reality intrudes upon the myth of American exceptionalism. ..."
"... US geopolitics has created a foe it cannot defeat without itself being destroyed. ..."
"... Technocratic sociopaths, doing a CYA for their incompetence. ..."
"... ZATO cries out in pain as it strikes you. ..."
NATO Seeking To "Dominate The World" & Eliminate Competitors: Russia's Lavrov by
Tyler Durden Mon,
12/09/2019 - 02:45 0 SHARES
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has charged NATO with wanting to "dominate the world"
a day after 70th anniversary events of the alliance concluded in London.
"We absolutely understand that NATO wants to dominate the world and wants to eliminate any
competitors, including resorting to an information war, trying to unbalance us and China,"
Lavrov said from Bratislava,
the capital of Slovakia, while attending the 26th Ministerial Council of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
He seized upon NATO leaders' comments this week, specifically Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg, naming China as a new enemy alongside Russia . Stoltenberg declared
at the summit that NATO has to "tackle the issue" of China's growing
capabilities.
Lavrov told reporters Thursday: "I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We
are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is
multiplying in this world." He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under
the guise of NATO as well.
The new accusation of 'world domination'
comes at a crisis moment of growing and deep divisions over the future of the Cold War era
military alliance, including back-and-forth comments on Macron's "brain death" remarks, and
looming questions over Turkey's fitness to remain in NATO, and the ongoing debate over cost
sharing burdens and the scope of the mission.
"Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov
stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to
persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position
to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for
some reason ."
A consistent theme of Lavrov's has been
to call for a "post-West world order" but that NATO has "remained a Cold War institution"
hindering balance in global relations where countries can pursue their own national
interests.
NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in
search of new official enemies.
Remember the last Bilderberg meeting. Russia and China were not invited. The globalists
have planned this, and apparently, Russia has better intelligence to know what's going on,
and they will take the necessary precautions, along with China. Let's just hope it's not
going to lead us to WW3.
I'm wondering how many NATO states don't have US Military Bases positioned in them. It's a small distance between a forward operating base and an occupying forces.
NATO is not trying to dominate, NATO is trying to extend its profit from frightened
European donkeys who still believe that the USSR exists, and Uncle Joe sits in the Kremlin
and eats a Christian baby in garlic sauce for lunch.
What NATO is doing is called racketeering. Only the problem of Europe is not Russia, but
the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same Americans and NATO.
So there will
be a big "raspathosovka" with shooting and explosions, do not even doubt it.. Only the problem of
Europe is not Russia, but the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same
Americans and NATO. So there will be a big **** with shooting and explosions, do not even
doubt it.
I'll just repeat the erased: NATO - lovers of freebies and they don't refuse this
freebie voluntarily. Children sometimes need a made-up friend, and these bastards need a
made-up enemy. Russia is perfect for this.
NATO is obsolete. The organization no longer serves US interests, and quite frankly,
hasn't for some time. I respectfully suggest the USA move all forces out of Germany on day 1, and station them
at Fort Trump in Poland.
Day 2, the US forms a new "mutual defense pact" with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
(Former Eastern Bloc nations)
Russia and Germany can duke it out, just not where our guys are hanging out. Hades,
Germany and France can limp wrist at each other as they have done in the past so many
times. But insofar as US troops leaving continental Europe forever? Sorry Sergei, that ain't happening, no matter how much
propaganda you shove up western
europe's (willing) ***.
Meanwhile Vlad makes new friends around the world... Last year Putin signed accords with President Macri of Argentina which included Russia
recognizing Argentina's Falklands claim. (La Voz, 23 Jan 2018).
An Argentinian claim based upon 'usurpation' – meaningless in the 18th century and
inheritance from Spain just like Mexico inherited California and Texas.
The NATO advantage right now is of the least dirty shirt variety. As it stands, I am not
excited about the thought of the US empire collapsing. People have been predicting that for
a while and for the moment, I don't see a legit replacement stepping up to the plate. The
US is a crooked gangster, but the other countries are not exactly ready for the big
league.
The NATO advantage right now is of the least dirty shirt variety.
The NATO disadvantage right now is of the "sitting with pants full of **** and asking
others who farted" variety.
As it stands, I am not excited about the thought of the US empire collapsing.
The collapse of the US empire has been underway for years. Nobody is excited about it
because, instead of gracefully adapting to change with the dignity of a great nation, the
US will continue to cling to denial, lashing out at all and sundry as reality intrudes upon
the myth of American exceptionalism.
I don't see a legit replacement stepping up to the plate.
US imperial decline is reminiscent of Casey at the Bat.
but the other countries are not exactly ready for the big league.
Or they've decided the US game is not worth playing.
Since 2013 I have followed Russian foreign policy and actions in the middle east and
elsewhere,thanks to statesmen like Lavrov they have crossed every t and dotted every i
following international law and convention, true history will be a lot kinder to Russia than
N ot A nother T errorist O rganisation
What is happening to Europe is the same as what's happening to Russia, only Russia
didn't ask for it. Nevertheless, Azeris and Tatars are on the rise demographically, and
Russians are on the decline.
I don't think Russia ... or China for that matter ... need to worry much. The West is imploding and NATO will implode along with it. The West can't even depend on its technical superiority anymore ( see Boeing 737MAX
); it sure can't depend on (most of) its people to do any real fighting.
NATO is fading and becoming a contradictory mess. China and Russia will be the foe, with possibly India, and far more effective,
economically and militarily. Europe doesn't stand a chance against these no matter how they posture, their slope is
downward.
US geopolitics has created a foe it cannot defeat without itself being destroyed.
"The problem is ZATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to
persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only ZATO is in the
position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West
dislikes for some reason ."
Israel Shamir quoting Prof Michael Brenner of Pittsburgh U, who has noted:
"Europe's political class is psychologically unable to break free of its
dominant/subordinate relationship with America. This pattern endures despite the presence of
a mentally impaired man in the White House. The prognosis, therefore: 'Wither thou goest, we
go!" American leaders have exploited this compulsive deference ruthlessly. It allows
Washington to ensure European fealty at virtually no cost. Moreover, they can extract
compliance across a wide array of non-security issues – commercial, financial, IT
(warring against Huawei), political, diplomatic – by drawing on the same free-floating
loyalties.
"Europe has been obedient to the siren call of Uncle Sam in following it over the cliff
time after time – in Afghanistan, in Iraq (France excepted), on Russia, on Iran (by
acquiescing in severe sanctions), on Saudi Arabia, in Yemen, in embracing Bolsonaro (invited
Keynoter at Davos), even on Venezuela and Bolivia. The ultimate test will come were
Washington to pick a fight with China that it, and the West, cannot win; will Europe then
take the final, fatal leap hand-in-hand?"
A long time ago I watched "Manufacturing Consent" and have since assumed that what passes
for mainstream "news" is nothing more than propaganda, and that Mark Twain was entirely
correct in his observation that if you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do
read the newspaper you are misinformed. Though it is sad when I see the likes of the once
great Nature engage in such, all things must pass and I am sure they will too, most of what I
read these days comes straight off arxiv.org so they have already been disintermediated in my
life.
@32 c1ue
That will be £1,000,000 for linking to my post, please pay within 24 hours or legal
action will be taken!
"... there is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly Sovietized ..."
"... This article below inadvertently illustrates the obsession with malign foreign influences, like that which pervaded Soviet discourse and remains a bad smell in Russia to this day. ..."
"... Another rapidly creeping Soviet trait is the weaponization of politics, turning any disagreement into an existential struggle, opponents into enemies, the way words like "treason" or "Russian asset" have become common coin ..."
"... increasingly they have that "enemy of the people" ring to them. The growing prominence of the intelligence services in political life, and their alumni on cable TV news shows, is another worrisome trend to watch. ..."
There is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly
Sovietized, writes Weir .
This is becoming quite the meme. Upon reflection, I do think there is something in it. Not
this idiotic suggestion that Repubicans have somehow morphed into borscht-swilling,
shapka-wearing, Putin-loving Russkies. Indeed, there are hardly any actual Russians like that.
But there is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly Sovietized. Of course it's two separate camps, not a monolith, and the Democrats are at least
as guilty as Republicans.
This article below inadvertently illustrates the obsession with malign foreign influences,
like that which pervaded Soviet discourse and remains a bad smell in Russia to this day.
Russians scoff at the idea that Putin is able to get his own man elected president of the US
when he can't even fix the governor in Irkutsk. But the author of this piece implies that Putin
is somehow pulling the strings, not only of Trump but all Republicans?
Another rapidly creeping
Soviet trait is the weaponization of politics, turning any disagreement into an existential
struggle, opponents into enemies, the way words like "treason" or "Russian asset" have become
common coin. And they are not just deployed as simple insults: increasingly they have that
"enemy of the people" ring to them. The growing prominence of the intelligence services in
political life, and their alumni on cable TV news shows, is another worrisome trend to watch.
Also, it looks like big part of the media have become almost Pravda-like, making ideological
mission their main priority. I spend some of my down-time perusing shows from Fox News and
MSNBC, which an alien from outer space would think were the propaganda organs of two different,
mutually-hostile states -- but both very Soviet-like.
... ... ...
THEATLANTIC.COM
The Russification of the Republican Party
GOP lawmakers used to oppose the president's embrace of Putin and the Kremlin. Not anymore.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/impeachment-republican-party-russia/603088/?fbclid=IwAR1EC0-CDBEx-3SMS1lJTMT2m0xVjfaguZehK4BIeZ5Bov41Ds1XFi_Cbkg
This comment follows onto earlier comments about Ukrainian influence and media censorship.
I have always tried to keep politics out of science, in order to be able to focus clearly
on the study of nature, instead of the opinions of people. Admittedly, some areas of science
are completely political, such as climate change, ecology, and nuclear power. I also
recognize that the so-called prestige press for science - journals such as Nature (UK) and
Science (US) - are going to reflect the conventional, if not the corporate perspective.
Nevertheless, a book review in this week's (5 DEC 2019) issue of Nature really pissed me
off. The book is about natural gas pipelines and their ability to overcome political
differences:
The Bridge: Natural Gas in a Redivided Europe
by Thane Gustafson
Of course, such a topic is completely political and the author is a political scientist.
Gustafson is Professor of Political Science at Georgetown University and Senior Director of
Russian and Caspian Energy for HIS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, whose chairman and
founder is Dr. Daniel Yergin, author of many best-selling books on the oil industry.
The offensive review is by Andrew Moracsik, whom I had never heard of. But, after a little
googling, I discover that his wife is the appropriately named, Anne-Marie Slaughter. She of
bomb Libya fame. (NOTE 1.) Andrew himself has quite the pedigree: educated at Stanford
and Johns Hopkins (Nitze SAIS), professor at Harvard and Princeton. He is a prominent scholar
of the EU and of Eastern Europe, and an editor at the journal Foreign Affairs.
Now to the review. Dr. Moracsik admits up front that:
(the book) offers a readable, intelligent, even-handed historical interpretation of this
relationship.
In other words, he can't fault the book for inaccuracy. But his purpose is really to bring
the non-stop villification of Russia to the pages of a scientific journal. Here are the
unfounded, false, and weasel-worded assertions he makes:
Russia also provoked a series of interventions and conflicts in Georgia, Moldova,
Syria, and Ukraine. The West responded by imposing sanctions...More recently, Russia
has become involved in the disruption of elections in the West, and in cyberwarfare.
Andrew Moravcsik is professor of politics and international affairs, and director of the
EU Program, at Princeton University in New Jersey.
-----
Why is it that whenever I find a US scholar talking about Eastern Europe, they have
some kind of refugee from Communism pedigree? Well, the obvious answer is that that is
the pedigree that gets you into the club of Russia hatred and gets you a free pass from
criticism about bias. In an earlier comment at MoA, I mentioned how the fascist Ukrainian spy
network of Reinhard Gehlen became the lens through which all CIA (and therefore US) foreign
policy was seen.
In Moravcsik's case the pedigree runs through his father, Michael Julius Moracsik. Michael
was a refugee from Hungary in 1948, who subsequently got a Ph.D in physics from Cornell. He
eventually became a scientific fellow at NATO. (NOTE 2.)
Just to round out the players' pedigrees, the author, Dr. Gustafson has given papers at the Danyliw
Seminar on Contemporary Ukraine, which describes itself as
"A unique forum for researchers from Canada, Ukraine and elsewhere open to all social
science and humanities research topics touching on Ukraine."
(Ah, Canada, whose deputy prime minister is Chrystia Freeland, an unrepentant defender of
her Banderite Ukrainian grandfather.) So, clearly Gustafson is a member of the club and
hence, the acknowledgement of factual correctness by Moravscik.
-------
This book review in this journal has driven home to me how complete the propaganda bubble
is in the Five Eyes countries. How does one have an impact in the face of such overwhelming
institutionalized propaganda? We have certainly reached the point described by Hannah
Arendt:
Equality of condition among their subjects is not sufficient for totalitarian rule because
it leaves more or less intact certain nonpolitical communal bonds between subjects,
such as family ties and common cultural interests. If totalitarianism takes its own claim
seriously, it must come to the point where it has "to finish once and for all with the
neutrality of chess," that is, with the autonomous existence of any activity whatsoever.
The lovers of "chess for the sake of chess", aptly compared by their liquidator with the
lovers of "art for art's sake", are not yet absolutely atomized elements in a mass
society whose completely homogeneous uniformity is one of the primary conditions for
totalitarianism. From the point of view of totalitarian rulers, a society devoted to
chess for the sake of chess is only in degree different and less dangerous than a class of
farmers for the sake of farming.
-p 322
So, I continue to read and post at MoA, but I have no expectation that it amounts to
anything more than German's listening to the BBC in WW2 did. What I do expect is that, sooner
or later, MoA will be blacklisted for simply relating true facts.
----
NOTE 1
Slaughter served on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School from
1989–1994
On 23 January 2009, U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, announced the appointment
of Slaughter as the new Director of Policy Planning under the Obama administration.
In July 2005, Slaughter wrote in the American Journal of International Law about the
responsibility to protect (R2P).
Slaughter wrote a strong endorsement of Western military intervention in Libya. In this
op-ed, Slaughter challenged the skeptics who questioned the NATO use of force in Libya,
On 25 August 2011, she was roundly criticized by Matt Welch, who sorted through many of
Slaughter's prior op-eds and concluded that she was a "situational constitutionalist".
Clifford May on 15 October 2014 wrote a piece in which he drew a straight line between
Annan and Slaughter's R2P "norm", and the failure in Libya. May noted that President Obama
had cited the R2P norm as his primary justification for using military force with Libyan
dictator Moammar Gadhafi, who had threatened to attack the opposition stronghold of
Benghazi.
In an 11 November 2014 piece entitled What Happened to the Humanitarians Who Wanted to
Save Libyans With Bombs and Drones?, Glenn Greenwald denounced her and her policies
Michael Julius Moravcsik - Hungarian, American physics professor.
Recipient Derek de Solla Price memorial medal;
Scientists and Engineers for Economic Development grant, 1974,
Senior fellow in Science, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 1974.
Background
Moravcsik, Michael Julius was born on June 25, 1928 in Budapest, Hungary.
Arrived in United States, 1948, naturalized, 1954.
Education
Student, University Budapest, 1946 -- 1948.
AB cum laude, Harvard University, 1951.
Doctor of Philosophy, Cornell University, 1956.
"Ahead of the Normandy Four meeting in Paris, I once again highlight the key priorities of
the Ukrainian World Congress position in support of the territorial integrity and sovereignty
of Ukraine. We ask that Ukrainian communities around the world maintain and call upon their
national leaders to maintain a clear and unequivocal position, specifically that..."
@29 john brewster... here - let me ''react''.. you gave a few really great examples.. i don't
know that anyone here would dispute how insipid all these russophobic articles are, or worse,
that they all follow a constant theme running out of the 5 eyes central offices..
it is entirely predictable at this point and you're absolutely correct - 110%
propaganda... y
ou've given another good example here with the treatment of stephen cohen... what i find
shocking is the lack of embarrassment towards all of this..
people in the west seem to be devoid of any type of response to it all, other then us
commenting on moa about it.. i don't know how any of it is going to change..
it seems to me the desire to protest all this is really low here in the west..
i admire the french for the protests they have been engaged in the past few months, which
get very little msm coverage.. i wish we could protest about all the propaganda we are
subject to here in canada or the usa, but we haven't reached a critical point in it all yet
it seems..
james #27 - " the drivel chris brown - regular columist for cbc posts.. and typically his
drivel is not open to comments.. here is his latest bs - In an obliterated landscape,
war-weary Ukrainians hope peace summit ends fighting for an insight into completely lopsided
reporting"
Is it my fading memory, or was the CBC once a relatively professional source of
international reporting? This piece is notably bad - not just from the skewed account of
2014's events, or the insistence on describing Donbass as "separatist", or the map which
includes Crimea as part of Ukraine. How is it that the Minsk Accords no longer seem to exist
in the corporate media, or the upcoming meeting in Paris properly described as a continuation
of that process (alleged failure to "live up" to said accords was used as a stick against
Putin for several years, and now their possible realization is vaguely referred to as
something bad). Why does a Chatham House spokesperson get to define Ukraine's supposed "red
lines", which are in reality the political position of the badly defeated former government?
Why is Zelensky's oft stated policy position presented here as Russian-induced capitulation?
Brown interviews four women of whom he says "none would tell us their last name out of fear
of repercussions from local authorities" except they allowed for their photos to be taken and
published. All of these story points result from conscious decisions, not sloppy errors.
"... I first heard of the interagency in Baghdad in 2009. I was there as part of a Council on Foreign Relations delegation to Iraq. As a U.S. Army general briefed us on how the war was being fought, he spoke of the interagency as the source of the strategy he was executing. Naively, I asked why he wasn't operating according to orders from his military superiors or the secretary of defense. ..."
"... He explained that American war-fighting was being guided by a "whole of government" philosophy. Incredibly, he explained that the war couldn't be won without, among other agencies, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor. Iraq needed economic expansion, modern farming, business statistics, new hospitals, a working court system and workplace regulations. The strategy framed by the interagency was nothing less than a yearslong engagement in nation building -- precisely what President George W. Bush had rejected in his 2000 campaign. ..."
"... When the war on terror opened, with all the secret activity it required, professional cadres in the diplomatic corps, the military and the nation's many intelligence agencies were able to transform interagency cooperative agreements that had existed since the Cold War into a de facto agency -- a largely informal and virtual bureaucracy -- with the assumed power, if need be, to determine and execute a foreign policy at odds with the intent of the president and Congress. ..."
"... Last month's testimony before the Intelligence Committee shed light on this club whose members are a permanent shadow government credentialed by family histories, elite schools and unique career experiences. This common pedigree informs their perspective of how America should relate to the world. The dogmatists of the interagency seem to share a common discomfort with a president who probably couldn't describe the doctrine of soft power, doesn't desire to be the center of attention at Davos, and wouldn't know that Francis Fukuyama once decided that history was over. ..."
Enthusiasm over entrepreneurship is now found in every corner of society -- even, apparently, within the federal bureaucracy.
Witness after witness in last month's House impeachment inquiry hearings referred to "the interagency," an off-the-books informal
government organization that we now know has enormous power to set and execute American foreign policy.
The first to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, State Department official George Kent, seemed to conceive of the
interagency as the definitive source of foreign-policy consensus. That Mr. Trump's alleged decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine
deviated from that consensus was, for Mr. Kent, prima facie evidence that it was misguided.
Next up, Ambassador William Taylor told the committee that it was the "unanimous opinion of every level of interagency discussion"
that the aid should be resumed without delay. Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official, gave the game away by admitting
how upset she was that Gordon Sondland, President Trump's ambassador to the European Union, had established an "alternative" approach
to helping Kyiv. "We have a robust interagency process that deals with Ukraine," she said.
What is the interagency, and why should its views guide the conduct of American diplomatic and national-security professionals?
The Constitution grants the president the power to set defense and diplomatic policy. Where did this interagency come from?
I first heard of the interagency in Baghdad in 2009. I was there as part of a Council on Foreign Relations delegation to Iraq.
As a U.S. Army general briefed us on how the war was being fought, he spoke of the interagency as the source of the strategy he was
executing. Naively, I asked why he wasn't operating according to orders from his military superiors or the secretary of defense.
He explained that American war-fighting was being guided by a "whole of government" philosophy. Incredibly, he explained that
the war couldn't be won without, among other agencies, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor. Iraq needed economic expansion, modern farming, business statistics, new
hospitals, a working court system and workplace regulations. The strategy framed by the interagency was nothing less than a yearslong
engagement in nation building -- precisely what President George W. Bush had rejected in his 2000 campaign.
Interagency cooperative agreements have been around for decades. The Justice Department, for example, has opioid-interdiction
programs that require it to work with the Department of Homeland Security. Today a dictionary of more than 12,500 official terms
exists to guide bureaucrats in writing interagency contracts that repurpose federal funds appropriated to various executive departments.
Often these interdepartmental initiatives devised by bureaucrats are unknown to Congress. It's hard to imagine that the legislative
branch wouldn't object to these arrangements, if only it were aware of them.
When the war on terror opened, with all the secret activity it required, professional cadres in the diplomatic corps, the military
and the nation's many intelligence agencies were able to transform interagency cooperative agreements that had existed since the
Cold War into a de facto agency -- a largely informal and virtual bureaucracy -- with the assumed power, if need be, to determine
and execute a foreign policy at odds with the intent of the president and Congress.
Last month's testimony before the Intelligence Committee shed light on this club whose members are a permanent shadow government
credentialed by family histories, elite schools and unique career experiences. This common pedigree informs their perspective of
how America should relate to the world. The dogmatists of the interagency seem to share a common discomfort with a president who
probably couldn't describe the doctrine of soft power, doesn't desire to be the center of attention at Davos, and wouldn't know that
Francis Fukuyama once decided that history was over.
The impeachment hearings will have served a useful purpose if all they do is demonstrate that a cabal of unelected officials are
fashioning profound aspects of U.S. foreign policy on their own motion. No statutes anticipate that the president or Congress will
delegate such authority to a secret working group formed largely at the initiation of entrepreneurial bureaucrats, notwithstanding
that they may be area experts, experienced in diplomatic and military affairs, and motivated by what they see as the best interests
of the country.
However the impeachment drama plays out, Congress has cause to enact comprehensive legislation akin to the Goldwater-Nichols Act
of 1986, which created more-efficient structures and transparent processes in the Defense Department. Americans deserve to know who
really is responsible for making the nation's foreign policy. The interagency, if it is to exist, should have a chairman appointed
by the president, and its decisions, much like the once-secret minutes of the Federal Reserve, should be published, with limited
and necessary exceptions, for all to see.
Mr. Schramm is a university professor at Syracuse. His most recent book is "Burn the Business Plan."
"A botched assassination attempt against Ukrainian politician and businessman Vyacheslav
Sobolev has resulted in the death of his three-year-old son, Alexander.
"While Sobolev and his wife were leaving his high-end restaurant "Mario" in Kiev this past
Sunday, right-wing thugs opened fire on Sobolev's Range Rover, missing him but hitting his
son who was seated in the back of the vehicle. The three-year-old died on the way to the
hospital.
"Police later apprehended two men who had fled the scene in a black Lexus sedan, Oleksiy
Semenov, 19, and Andrei Lavrega, 20. Both are veterans of the war in Donbass in eastern
Ukraine where they served as members of the fascist Right Sector's paramilitary formation
until June of this year.
"The Right Sector was instrumental in the US- and EU-backed, fascist-led coup in February
2014 that toppled the Yanukovitch government and replaced it with a pro-Western and
anti-Russian regime. Since then, the Right Sector has been among the far-right forces that
have been heavily involved in the war against Russian-backed separatists in East Ukraine.
"As is usual when members of neo-Nazi groups carry out political attacks, the Right Sector
and their former battalion commander fraudulently attempted to distance themselves from
Lavrega and Semenov, claiming they had lost contact with them since they left Ukraine's armed
forces in June. These claims are not credible.
"Lavrega, who has been identified as the principal shooter in the killing, has been a
member of the Right Sector for at least half a decade. He had participated in the Maidan
movement of 2014 as a member of the Right Sector and perfected his shooting skills as a
sniper killing separatist soldiers in eastern Ukraine. According to his Right Sector
battalion commander, Andrei Herhert, Lavrega -- also known as "Quiet" -- was "one of the best
snipers in the war" and "very ideological."
"As a thanks for his service to the right-wing Kiev government, Lavrega received a
military decoration from former President Petro Poroshenko for "courage" just last year, in
October of 2018." ..........
"Whoever is ultimately responsible for ordering this political assassination and the
murder of the three-year-old boy, it is clear that the same far-right forces that were
instrumental in the coup in February 2014 and the civil war are now being employed to carry
out political assassinations by the Ukrainian oligarchy.
"Since the 2014 coup, the number of targeted political assassinations by right-wing
neo-Nazi groups like C14 and the Right Sector has skyrocketed. At least 15 people have been
murdered in such hit jobs by the far right since 2014. Among them was the well-known
Belarusian journalist Pavel Sheremet and the politician Kateryna Handziuk, who was killed in
a horrific acid attack by right-wing thugs last year.
"In virtually all these cases, the perpetrators have been protected from serious legal
prosecution. One of the murderers of Handziuk received a barely three-year prison sentence. A
critical role in shielding the neo-Nazis is played by Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs'
Arsen Avakov, who controls the country's police force and possesses well-known ties to
Ukraine's most notorious fascist militia, the Azov Battalion.
"Avakov is one of the few members of the previous Poroshenko government that have remained
in the current Cabinet of Ministers under President Volodmyr Zelensky. He was recently
praised by former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch while testifying before the
House of Representatives regarding the Trump impeachment investigation (see also: "The
impeachment crisis and American imperialism").
"President Zelensky, who was elected in April this year on the basis of promises that he
would bring an end to the widely despised civil war in eastern Ukraine that has claimed the
lives of over 13,000 people, has maintained a conspicuous silence on this latest political
assassination attempt by the far right. Instead, the day after the murder, he posted a
message on Facebook to honor two Ukrainian soldiers who were killed while fighting in eastern
Ukraine this past weekend."
The rest of the story can be found at the WSWS https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/07/ukra-d06.html
The Right Sector links with the former US Ambassador-Democratic heroine- are topical.
Thank you for that insight. I cannot see how Zelensky will manage the Nazi Ukrainians
short of a virtual civil war against one western district. The USA will foment a major
insurrection to destroy him if he does a deal with Gazprom. Your suggestion as to where those
issues are discussed would be welcome.
A User #72
Thank you and well said. The eurocentric kabuki does mesmerise the information providers.
I too seek escape from that dominance and spent a good time today researching the Power of
Siberia implications and issues of South America. The global assault on all things African is
a matter of deep despair for me and I feel totally powerless to reverse the relentless
assault on their world.
"... The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders and Russiagate. ..."
"... Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured. ..."
"... It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then, it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of nuclear deterrence doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is. ..."
"... Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military, thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency). ..."
"... Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said any such thing. ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... "From 1922 onwards the strategic purpose of the Soviet Union was to defend the Soviet Union not global domination, whereas the purpose of the "West" has always been global domination. " ..."
"... "At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign
Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily determined to undermine Russia. A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United
States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had
to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow
celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on
Russia," Kevin says in his conversation with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion
eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating a disinformation" campaign today against
Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium
News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy Vogan.
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive
state of affairs deserve the widest possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed.
Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further
we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer we come to its revival.
Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States.
It is now so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first.
Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then, it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world
war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of nuclear deterrence
doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation
is.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been,
are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK
wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the
upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations – of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be
untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase Russophobia) sort – about Russian
hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour
Party's source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally
destroy the NHS and replace it with (of course) US "health" insurance company
profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity
among many Tory party supporters among the working and lower middle classes prevented them
from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the undermining, via
installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds
that would otherwise have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money
– a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally conceived and
constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov
(Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in
France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the neo-Nazis of
western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the
Donbass). The Donbass fighters are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny
them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile the support for the
neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the
Ukrainian military, thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what
I've read the man is the most diplomatic and intelligent politician (not just political
leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world stage. None
of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries.
Unlike their western "world" political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they
agreed they were defeated. The US merely assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated
and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked
well. We're trying to do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it
is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that doesn't. SIPIRI tags US military
spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the
energy department or our veteran's expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing
from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better than we can sustain
our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there
was NEVER a surrender, intended in any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships.
For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live and work in peace.
(By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear
as never before, a mad man throwing a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on
trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence
universally consulted), allowing the light in for the mass of the viewing and listening
public, it could change the world – both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as
the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK
obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who
is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian
citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a
nation which has been started by killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their
country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
Words are catalysts of connotations and connotations are functions of
expectations/framing..
Some conflate cause with purpose thereby limiting perception of cause and purpose.
Some understand that causation is interactive and in any lateral system the genesis of
causation is difficult to determine.
Some understand that evaluation is a function of purpose and that purpose can be evaluated
through such portals into wonderlands such as "What is the "United States of America" and how
is it facilitated?"
As thumb-nailed in the comments section of the article Capitalism's suicidal trajectory
– OlyaPola
December 6, 2019 at 07:46
"From 1922 onwards the strategic purpose of the Soviet Union was to defend the Soviet
Union not global domination, whereas the purpose of the "West" has always been global
domination. "
From 1922 onwards various tactics have been attempted by the "West" to facilitate their
purpose, including attempts at "Orange revolution" in many areas which catalysed many lateral
trajectories including the process of transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the Russian
Federation in the period from 1991 to 2005.
Consequently Mr. Suslov's observation re war of "The United States of America" can be
extended into present times and hence no "New cold war" exists.
""What is the "United States of America"
An initial step through the portal is that "The United States of America" is – a
regime of social relations to facilitate its purpose – the social relations not being
restricted to the "nation state" presently self designated "The United States of America" but
including classes in other "nation states".
Consequently alternative purposes and social relations pose an existential threat to "The
United States of America"; this being perceived of lesser significance in regard to "The
Soviet Union" and greater in regard to the Russian Federation.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United
States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country
on earth capable of obliterating the United States. Not even China has yet reached that
capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting,
and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the
scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The
Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met
with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment
for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin
seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last
two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems
to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
@Moi You are quite correct. The overly sanguine attitude of many Christians toward
nuclear war one might call "nuclear exceptionalism." They adopted the imaginary hope of
Anglo-Irish 1800's cult leader John Nelson Darby: "Darby has been credited with originating
the pre-tribulational rapture theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the
Church, from this world to its heavenly destiny before the judgments of the tribulation."
(Wikipedia).
The military leadership are loaded with rapture believers, in particular the Air Force. So
if the world nukes itself, that's fine by them; they have no skin in the "game."
Except that on Judgment Day they will have to give account for the lives they destroy by
their recklessness. The turning of Christ into a war god is both blasphemy and idolatry, for
which also they will give account. "My Kingdom is not of this world," said the Lord to
Pilate. Christians are to contend for the Gospel through love, not war.
Both Saker reviews are important, and I'll get both books.
My own experience with US Army officers and enlisted – and this extended over40
years off and on, the last encounters six continuous years ending in 1992 – was that
the WW2 men were realists and competent. And that their replacements were delusional fools.
The level of incompetence was breath-taking by 1992 – when NATO as the cloak of Empire
undertook to bomb cities in Yugoslavia – self evidently criminal and foolish officers
went along And I said Adios MoFo
@peterAUS Tactical nukes. Such a humane idea. Doesn't that make everyone feel warm and
fuzzy all over. Nuclear war, even a first strike, is now acceptable. Isn't semantics
wonderful! Tactical nukes are the thing, to NOT prick the conscience of the western public.
I do not envy the Russian position. They can't publicly warn the US/Israel against nuclear
strikes. The MSM would take such a common sense position and spin into more Russian bullying.
How dare they tell us what we can't do! The Russian message would quickly be lost in a wave
of western hysterics.
On the other hand, a secret warning is of limited value. If they listen, great. What if
they call Russia's bluff? Being secret, the Russians could back down and not even lose face.
It seems obvious that the psychopathic thinking among western elites is based on the idea
that they can get away with nuclear strikes against Iran because Russian retaliation will
mean the end of humanity therefore they will not respond.
I'm sure the Russians have already calculated what is and is not acceptable when war comes
to Iran. How much damage will nuking an entire country do to Russia and all of Asia? If the
fall out is that extreme then they might treat such an attack as an attack on Russia itself.
I do think the likely plan is to make the best of whatever happens. No matter how one spins
it, a Russian nuclear response is the end of humanity. An extreme option the Russians will
try to avoid if possible.
All this is based on the assumption Israel or America will use their nuclear arsenal. If
Hitler had the bomb in 1945 would he have used it? Of course he would have. The people
running the West have shown the same callous disregard for human life. There is no moral
deterrent to stop these people. Plus all western propaganda the past 20 years has been aimed
at making the use of nuclear weapons acceptable. Why would they be conditioning their public
unless they wished to have the option to use them?
How do we get there? Yes the US military has the ability to drop lots of bombs and destroy
many things. Yet in any war primary targets will all be hit fairly quickly. Then what? From
Day Two they are into the phase of diminishing returns. This is what confronted the IDF in
2006. So you go to tactical nukes. However I see the nuclear attack coming on the heels of a
ferocious Iranian counter attack. Psychologically can America handle even minimal losses? The
most likely response will be a huge temper tantrum: "how dare they fight back!" The nuclear
option will be taken because things will have gone wrong. It will be as much a show of
weakness as strength. Plus it won't be just one of two bombs. Because the Iranians will not
say "Uncle". The Japanese did after Nagasaki, however the Japanese were trying to surrender
the entire time. The Iranians will never surrender. Therefore 80 million dead might not be
unreasonable. Especially if there is no longer any Reason left in the western world.
This can be prevented but only by the western public. You know the most apathetic/ignorant
and propagandized public on the planet. As Vietnam and Iraq proved, Americans have no
conscience when it comes to dead foreigners. They get what they deserve for "starting" a war
against Uncle Sam. Yet there are two Achilles Heels.
1) Americans hate losing. Iraq was a great success during the Mission Accomplished phase.
The moment the narrative changed Americans quickly switched to hating their leadership for
botching Iraq. So how long before Americans turn against an Iran War that isn't an easy win
– and can't be won because the Iranians will never surrender. Or how well does the MSM
do in turning such losses into part of a patriotic war that Americans' must support and
win?
2) Quality of life. All westerners are the most spoiled people in human history.
Consequently we have become the most materialistic and the most superficial people ever. We
are an "end justifies the means" society. So long as we have our tvs and weekend football and
our quality of life hasn't fallen too far, too fast, we are perfectly happy to give our
political elites a blank cheque to do whatever they like. Bomb Yugoslavia, invade
Afghanistan, destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, murder Palestinians, sanction or threaten
regime change the list is endless. Everything is on the table – likely nuclear
holocaust too(so long as it's them doing the dying) – just don't mess with our Cozy
Prisons! Support for war on Iran will evaporate pretty fast unless such a war can be
prosecuted quickly and everything can return to normal fast. Definitely westerners –
not just Americans – will support nuclear strikes. There will be some initial shock,
which the MSM will cover over. Then everyone will fall into line because we'll need to win
the war and get back to normal. Nuclear weapons will be seen as the convenient solution for
the problem. End justifies the means.
Maybe I'm wrong about westerners and they still have a conscience. After 20 years of
accepting endless wars, it doesn't seem likely.
Circle 2021 on your calendars. Once Trump is re-elected there will be nothing to stop him.
If there are any history classes in the future then 2021 will be remember like 1914 or 1789
or 1066. I still hope it is remembered as the year the states of Israel and USA ceased to
exist.
@Jim Christian "Fact is, if the elites and corporate defense establishment of the US
would become diplomatic, imagine the cooperation between us and Russia that could take place.
Imagine the prosperity! Even the elites could share in it!"
Exactly so. This was the basis for my immediate initial support for Trump; his calling
bullshit on the entire rationale behind the empire, and the potential benefits of a new
detente. (Even if we were evil geni, it would make more sense to at least pretend to be
non-threatening.) This is the root of the hostility to Trump, IMO.
Incidentally, this piece and it's commentary is greatly supportive of Ron's argument that
heavy users should step up and financially support the UR. I haven't seen this sort of thing
anywhere else easily available on the web. I don't comment much here (feeling somewhat too
short for this ride ) but I do spend hours everyday, reading most of the articles and many
comments. Would definitely donate.
@Andrei Martyanov I suspect that the US is extremely concerned about Russia's
decapitating first strike capability via nuclear armed Zircons (1-2 minutes flight time to
Washington DC or New York) who are hard to detect, almost impossible to stop missiles. The US
does not have a capability like this. This is why the whole talk about buying Greenland. It
is very important to stop russian subs from reaching the Atlantic US Coast.
How can a US president sleep if he knows that a russian tactical nuclear missile could
arrive in 1-2 minutes?
In 1-2 minutes the WhiteHouse, Congress, Federal Reserve HQ, CIA and NSA HQs, Pentagon,
etc will be gone. No wonder Putin is trolling the US about selling some hypersonic
weapons.
.the psychopathic thinking among western elites is based on the idea that they can get
away with nuclear strikes against Iran because Russian retaliation will mean the end of
humanity therefore they will not respond.
Something like that.
I'm sure the Russians have already calculated what is and is not acceptable when war
comes to Iran.
Any interested state-level player has.
No matter how one spins it, a Russian nuclear response is the end of humanity.
Yep.
There is no moral deterrent to stop these people.
You mean TPTBs in the West? Yep ..
The Iranians will never surrender. Therefore 80 million dead might not be
unreasonable.
Disagree.
This can be prevented but only by the western public. You know the most
apathetic/ignorant and propagandized public on the planet.
Don't say.
So how long before Americans turn against an Iran War that isn't an easy win – and
can't be won because the Iranians will never surrender.
The Iranian regime can surrender–>from then on there are a couple of
scenarios.
As, for example:
So long as we have our tvs and weekend football and our quality of life hasn't fallen
too far, too fast, we are perfectly happy to give our political elites a blank cheque to do
whatever they like
And so long as I don't get drafted to be a part of occupying force in Iran among some
other things.
Definitely westerners – not just Americans – will support nuclear strikes.
There will be some initial shock, which the MSM will cover over. Then everyone will fall
into line because we'll need to win the war and get back to normal. Nuclear weapons will be
seen as the convenient solution for the problem. End justifies the means.
Yep.
Maybe I'm wrong about westerners and they still have a conscience. After 20 years of
accepting endless wars, it doesn't seem likely.
Now, the key question is, how is this relevant. I have no doubt that this and previous book
contain good info, but can this info be ever digested by the US politicians and neocons? Of
course not!
The US elites have degenerated to the point of no return. This always happens to the
elites of dying empires. So, discussing the reality, military or economic, with them is like
teaching madhouse inmates calculus. You might be right, but they won't appreciate it.
@Jim Christian There is already some internal opposition to war with Iran. Out of the
various recent provocations, the US has been reluctant to escalate. Maybe its Trump's
skepticism regarding the list of options provided by the military. Or his political
instincts. It would be an unpopular war without a rapid, decisive victory, which is
unrealistic.
I think other than a rather weak veto power, Trump is too weak to prevent a war. So I
think some other faction of the elite is resisting. Maybe the military. It would be logical
for them to resist. They got their big budget without needing a war. And they would be stuck
with the mess.
The war has been teed up for a Trump signoff two or three times lately. If the only
missing piece is finding the sucker to take the blame, it is inevitable. Rather, I would
infer that there is some deep opposition, that is lying low. The large defense contractors
have it pretty good right now, but they probably aren't set up to oppose any war, however
foolish.
@Andrei Martyanov Our societies have been gutted by thieves and their accomplices while
the thieves buddies look on and play loud music to confuse everyone. The thieves are the
buzzard 'capitalists', the accomplices are the crooked politicians and the noise comes from
the media.
The common denominator in the U.S., Canada, Australia, the U.K., NZ and others is that the
thieves den is a triumvirate: Old Money 'elite' (read: scum), New Money Jews and the
politicos (multi-generational civil servant families and the con artists talking head actors
who play president, pm, etc.).
The West has been systematically destroyed. Every institution has been corrupted including
our religions. The Vatican, for example, was completely corrupted in the early 1960's when,
according to Father Malachi Martin, Satan formally enthroned himself in Vatican City.
There is a common denominator here gentlemen: destruction. Satan is always close to any such
destruction which is why Communism has always been so anti-Christian and anti-religion (China
destroyed Buddhism and is destroying Falun Gong, or trying to). Our elites and the elite Jews
have a religion of their own: Luciferianism.
It is time to pray gentlemen. We need a miracle. It isn't too late to turn this ship around.
We just need the willpower to do it. Prayer is the beginning of building the strength to do
what is needed for our progeny.
@Passer by{ the US is extremely concerned about Russia's decapitating first strike
capability} {How can a US president sleep if he knows that a russian tactical nuclear missile could
arrive in 1-2 minutes?}
By making sure US does not initiate a nuke strike on Russia.
Why would Russia initiate a 'decapitating* nuke strike' on US?
What will she gain by it? Nothing.
Both US and Russia will have more than enough surviving nukes to wipe the other out, and then
some, if one of them initiates a nuke first strike.
My guess is Russia continues developing faster, harder to detect nuke strike systems to
deter the psychopaths in US from doing something stupid and awful. But the problem with all
these developments of ever faster strike capabilities – on both sides – is that
the possibility of an accidental nuke strike by one side or another, keeps increasing.
Because it takes a few minutes for a missile to reach its target, you cannot afford to wait:
if your defenses falsely detect a 'launch', then you _have_ to launch and then the runaway
chain reaction of strike-counterstrike-countercounterstrike begins ..and everything ends.
______________________________
* there is no such thing as 'decapitating' nuke strike against US or Russia. Both are
large enough and have enough nuke warheads (8,000-10,000) to render the idea of a
'decapitating' strike meaningless. Just one (surviving) boomer sub (US or Russia) carries
enough nuke warheads/megatons to wipe most of US/Russia.
Trump is right about the NATO members inadequate military spending; the US expects NATO
members to spend 2% of their GDP on their own defence, the US however, does not require them
to purchase American made weapons, they can produce their own weapons, like French do, or buy
from each other like Germans -- they just have to make their military up and ready in case of
emergency, that's not an unreasonable expectation.
Among the NATO members however, Canada's case is unique; due to its closeness and joint
high command (NORAD) with the US -- and direct threat from Russian claim on the Canadian
Arctic, Canada needs and must increase its military spending significantly, Canada should
purchase modern Air force fleet, Advanced Surveillance equipment, Warships and Submarines for
the defence of the Arctic; F-35, F-22, AH-64 Apache, Nuclear powered Icebreaker and
Submarines etc. because all these equipment will we be partially built in Canada which bring
many high tech jobs and economic growth to the Canadian communities.
Trump is right, NATO and Canada should spend much more on their own defence, and buying
American advanced weapons is the best strategic choice for the Canadians forces, there
shouldn't be any doubt about that.
LOL to the first comment, Russia is *zero* threat to Canada ** . Russia is zero threat to the
US or Europe either. NATO has long outlived its purpose and needs to die.
** I suppose Russia could claim the north pole, and threaten to hold Santa hostage.
@Jmaie
Russian annexation of Crimea was a blatant assault on the International Law, yet it went off
without serious consequences to Russia -- it's not a secret that Russia has claims on
Canadian Arctic seabed, Russia has already planted its flag on the Arctic seabed; here is a
Link that you should want to see: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/02/russia.arctic
I'd really be interested to understand how on earth the reintegration, by overwhelming
majority in a plebiscite acknowledged by all sides as free and unconstrained, of Crimea, a
Russian province for 300+ years, and a majority-Russian area for quite a long time, is "a
blatant assault on the International Law".
The "International Law" you quote must be a newcomer.
"I'd really be interested to understand how on earth "
It is very easy to understand. As Upton Sinclair observed "It is difficult to get a man to
understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Alistair repeats typical neocon viewpoint. Nothing original here. Neocons make their
living off threat inflation and this isn't cheap cynicism. It is simply a fact.
Fiona Hill is a shining recent example here -- this intellectual prostitute of MIC is a
member of Brookings Institution, Atlantic Council and other MIC lobbing organization that
promote Cold War 2 and neoliberal globalization.
The real question is "Why we should believe any of these chickenhawks?" They has been
proven liars so many times that they deserve the rotten tomatoes to be thrown at them on any
of their public appearances or, which is sadly impossible, at their Internet posts
But again money do not smell: unless neocons start facing very real and very personal
consequences, nothing will change. And like with any sect there is small number of
intellectually deficient people who still believe them.
3. Restrainers Want Realistic Foreign Policy Goal s. Instead of engaging in
costly and futile efforts to remake the world in our image, restrainers want U.S. foreign
policy to pursue more feasible objectives. The U.S. military must be strong enough to deter
attacks on the U.S. homeland, a task that is relatively easy to accomplish. When necessary,
the United States can also help other states uphold the balance of power and deter war in a
few key strategic areas outside the Western Hemisphere. America's economic clout will also
give Washington considerable influence over the institutions that manage trade, investment
and other beneficial forms of international cooperation, and it should use that influence
to ensure these institutions are working properly. But the United States has neither the
need, the capacity, nor the wisdom to conduct massive social engineering projects
("nation-building") in deeply divided and conflict prone societies, and it should cease
trying.
4. Restrainers Want Credible Foreign Commitments . The United States keeps taking
on new security obligations in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, but it rarely
debates their wisdom or value. Americans are now formally committed to defending more
countries around the world than at any time in U.S. history, even though some of these
states are hard to defend, have little strategic importance for the United States, and
sometimes act in ways that damage U.S. interests. Washington is also engaged in less
visible military activities in dozens of other countries, some of them shrouded in secrecy.
Yet anytime U.S. leaders contemplate trimming these obligations, alarmists warn that the
slightest reduction in America's global presence will undermine U.S. credibility, embolden
rivals, and lead to catastrophe. Having allowed itself to become overextended, the United
States ends up fighting endless wars in places with no strategic value in order to convince
allies and adversaries that it will still fight in places of greater importance.
The sooner the EU & Europe generally either discard NATO or create its own defence
force in parallel with NATO, the better.
Europe MUST take control of its own destiny. It can not have an external nation, the US,
with different, if not opposing interests, dictating European policy & action.
The “Russia” situation is a perfect example of this divergence of interests.
Europe’s future clearly lies with greater Eurasian integration. Energy, primary
products, & mercantile trade all lie to the East, through Russia to China, Vietnam etc.
Notably, some countries such as Italy are already pulling away from official EU policy &
turning East.
Unfortunately, The US has bribed & threatened (many) EU leaders, leaders who
couldn’t even imagine a change to the status quo. Thankfully, though, it seems that
many average Europeans are sick to their back-teeth with the status quo & Europe’s
“evermore” subservience to US imperialism.
German tax-payers, like most other Europeans, see no need to spend billions of
hard-earned euros against a non-existent threat from the East.
They don’t even want to spend their money turning back the actual threats spilling
across their borders, but climate change is way up there on the agenda. De-industrialised
Europe chock-full of third-world denizens is going to be heaven on earth.
"... Primacists use the security threats that are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't stop, or in fact increase, the use of force. ..."
"... These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example, veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all parties involved. ..."
"... September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and denying this space wouldn't have prevented it. ..."
"... For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the Pacific." ..."
"... The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and importance. ..."
"... This article originally appeared on LobeLog.com . ..."
The unrivaled and unchallenged exertion of American military power around the world, or
what's known as "primacy," has been the basis for U.S. Grand Strategy over the past 70 years
and has faced few intellectual and political challenges. The result has been stagnant ideas,
poor logic, and an ineffective foreign policy. As global security challenges have evolved, our
foreign policy debate has remained in favor of primacy, repeatedly relying on a select few,
poorly conceived ideas and arguments. Primacy's greatest hits arguments are played on repeat
throughout the policy and journalism worlds and its latest presentation is in a recent
article in
the Wall Street Journal, written by its chief foreign policy correspondent, titled,
"America Can't Escape the Middle East." The piece provides a case study in how stagnant these
ideas have become, and how different actors throughout the system present them without serious
thought or contemplation.
Hyping the threat of withdrawal
The WSJ piece trotted out one of the most well-worn cases for unending American military
deployments in the region. "The 2003 invasion of Iraq proved to be a debacle," it rightly
notes. However, there's always a "but":[B]ut subsequent attempts to pivot away from the region
or ignore it altogether have contributed to humanitarian catastrophes, terrorist outrages and
geopolitical setbacks, further eroding America's standing in the world."
Primacists often warn of the dire security threats that will result from leaving Middle East
conflict zones. The reality is that the threats they cite are actually caused by the
unnecessary use of force by the United States in the first place. For example, the U.S. sends
military assets to deter Iran, only to have Iran increase attacks or provocations in response.
The U.S. then beefs up its military presence
to protect the forces that are already there. Primacists use the security threats that
are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't
stop, or in fact increase, the use of force.
These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently
ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example,
veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at
unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even
draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't
induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the
Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and
don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all
parties involved.
Terrorism safe havens
And how many times have we heard that we must defend some undefined geographical space to
prevent extremists from plotting attacks? "In the past, jihadists used havens in Afghanistan,
Yemen, Syria and Iraq to plot more ambitious and deadly attacks, including 9/11," the WSJ piece
says. "Though Islamic State's self-styled 'caliphate' has been dismantled, the extremist
movement still hasn't been eliminated -- and can bounce back."
The myth of the terrorism safe havens enabling transnational attacks on the United States
has
persisted despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and significant scholarly research
that contradicts it. The myth persists because it provides a simple and comforting narrative
that's easy to understand. September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the
ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and
denying this space wouldn't have prevented it.
Terrorists don't need safe havens to operate, and only gain marginal increases in
capabilities by having access to them. Organizations engage in terrorism because they have such
weak capabilities in the first place. These movements are designed to operate underground with
the constant threat of arrest and execution. The Weatherman Underground in the United States
successfully carried out bombings while operating within the United States itself. The Earth
Liberation Front did the same by organizing into cells where no cell knew anything about the
other cells to prevent the identification of other members if members of one cell were
arrested. Organizations that engage in terrorism can operate with or without safe havens.
Although safe havens don't add significantly to a terrorist groups' capabilities, governing
your own territory is something completely different. ISIS is a commonly used, and misused,
example for why wars should be fought to deny safe havens. A safe haven is a country or region
in which a terrorist group is free from harassment or persecution. This is different from what
ISIS created in 2014. What ISIS had when it swept across Syria and Iraq in 2014 was a
proto-state. This gave them access to a tax base, oil revenues, and governing resources. Safe
havens don't provide any of this, at least not at substantial levels. The Islamic State's
construction of a proto-state in Syria and Iraq did give them operational capabilities they
wouldn't have had otherwise, but this isn't the same as the possible safe havens that would be
gained from a military withdrawal from Middle Eastern conflicts. The conditions of ISIS's rise
in 2014 don't exist today and the fears of an ISIS resurgence like their initial rise are
unfounded .
Credibility doesn't work how you think it works
For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always
be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America
withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea
and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the
Pacific."
Most commentators have made this claim without recognition of their own contradictions that
abandoning the Kurds in Syria would damage American credibility. They then list all the other
times we've abandoned the Kurds. Each of these betrayals didn't stop them from working with the
United States again, and this latest iteration will be the same. People don't work with the
United States because they trust or respect us, they do it because we have a common interest
and the United States has the capability to get things done. As we were abandoning the Kurds
this time to be attacked by the Turks, Kurdish officials were continuing to
share intelligence with U.S. officials to facilitate the raid on ISIS leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi because both the United States and the Kurds wanted Baghdadi eliminated and only
the United States had the capability to get it done.
Similarly, the idea that pulling out militarily in one region results in a direct chain of
events where our adversaries move into countries or areas in a completely different region is
quite a stretch of the imagination. Russia moved into Crimea because it's a strategic asset and
it was taking advantage of what it saw as an opportunity: instability and chaos in Kiev. Even
if we left troops in every conflict country we've ever been in, Russia would have correctly
assessed that Ukraine just wasn't important enough to spark a U.S. invasion. When the Soviets
withdrew from Afghanistan, did the United States invade Cuba? What alliance did the Soviets or
Chinese abandon before the United States entered the Korean War?
Assessments of credibility , especially in times of crisis (like that in Ukraine), are made
based on what leaders think the other country's interests are and the capabilities they have to
pursue those interests. There is no evidence to support -- in fact there is a lot of evidence
that contradicts -- the idea that withdrawing militarily from one region or ending an alliance
has any impact on assessments of a country's reliability or credibility.
Not all interests are created equal
Threat inflation isn't just common from those who promote a primacy-based foreign policy,
it's necessary. Indeed, as the WSJ piece claimed, "There is no avoiding the fact that the
Middle East still matters a great deal to U.S. interests."
The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need
to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists
couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve
all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and
importance. Vital interests are those that directly impact the survival of the United
States. The only thing that can threaten the survival of the United States is another powerful
state consolidating complete control of either Europe or East Asia. This would give them the
capabilities and freedom to strike directly at the territorial United States. This is why the
United States stayed in Europe after WWII, to prevent the consolidation of Europe by the
Soviets. Addressing the rise of China -- which will require some combination of cooperation and
competition -- is America's vital interest today and keeping troops in Afghanistan to prevent a
terrorism safe haven barely registers as a peripheral interest. There are U.S. interests in the
Middle East, but these interests are not important enough to sacrifice American soldiers for
and can't easily be secured through military force anyway.
Consequences
Most of these myths and arguments can be summarized by the claim that any disengagement of
any kind by the United States from the Middle East comes with consequences. This isn't entirely
wrong, but it isn't really relevant either unless compared with the consequences of continuing
engagement at current levels. We currently have 67,000 troops in the
Middle East and Afghanistan and those troops are targets of adversaries, contribute to
instability, empower hardliners in Iran, and provide continuing legitimacy to insurgent and
terrorist organizations fighting against a foreign occupation. One
article in The Atlantic argued that the problem with a progressive foreign policy
is that restraint comes with costs, almost ironically ignoring the fact that the U.S.'s current
foreign policy also comes with, arguably greater, costs. A military withdrawal, or even
drawdown, from the Middle East does come with consequences, but it's only believable that these
costs are higher than staying through the perpetuation of myths and misconceptions that inflate
such risks and costs. No wonder then that these myths have become the greatest hits of a
foreign policy that's stuck in the past.
"... For one the Ukraine is not fighting "the Russians". The Kiev government is fighting against east-Ukrainians who disagree with the Nazi controlled regime which the U.S. installed after it instigated the unconstitutional Maidan coup. Russia supplies the east-Ukrainians and there were a few Russian volunteers fighting on their side but no Russian military units entered the Ukraine. ..."
"... But aside from that how can anyone truly believe that the Ukraine "fights the Russians so we don't have to fight them here"? Is Russia on the verge of invading the United States? Where? How? And most importantly: What for? How would that be in Russia's interest? ..."
"... And how is it in U.S. interest to give the Ukraine U.S. taxpayer money to buy U.S. weapons? The sole motive behind that idea was greed and corruption , not national interest: ..."
"... To claim that it hurt U.S. national interests is nonsense. ..."
"... It is really no wonder that U.S. foreign policy continuously produces chaos when its practitioners get taught by people like Karlan. In the Middle East as well as elsewhere Russian foreign policy runs circles around U.S. attempts to control the outcome. One reason it can do that is the serious lack of knowledge and realism in U.S. foreign policy thinking. It is itself the outcome of an educational crisis. U.S. 'political science' studies implement a mindset that is unable to objectively recognize the facts and fails to respond to them with realistic concepts. ..."
"... In the meantime Trump is eliminating food stamps for some 700,000 recipients and the Democrats are doing nothing about it. Their majority in the House could have used the time it spent on the impeachment circus to prevent that and other obscenities. ..."
"... The same bs argument about "not fighting the Russians here" was used a couple of weeks ago by another witness, Tim Morrison. This shows you that the hysteria is bipartisan... ..."
"... I don't believe that the so called "Professor's View" is normative for the educated class of Americans. It is the normative view of the Ivy League pseudoeducated individuals that have been placed in leadership positions in the US Goverment and Politics but they are not EDUCATED in any way. Karlan is almost certainly a Jew. She is without a doubt a whore who will do anything for her John as directed by her pimp. ..."
"... Being a brain dead feminist helps her with that role in life. I had an ex wife who fought me post divorce for 10 years trying to destroy me in any way she could. She finally stopped with the Breast Cancer she had for 7 of those years finally killed her. I see the same psychotic, sociopathic and off scall narcissitic behavior in every one of these women in politics and academics today. So don't think that something will get better without a terminal solution. ..."
"... Americans are entranced by the kayfabe (mock combat). Just as in wrestling it is designed to look 'real' but just keeps people engrossed in the action, unable to think of what they are NOT being told. ..."
"... Her delusions are a prerequisite for teaching at an academic level. ..."
"... The military industrial complex is in the people of usa's interest.. they think they benefit from the rayatheons, lockheed martins, boeings and etc - as they have relatives working at these places... the usa is one sick puppy, and Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor is just further proof of this... sorry if someone else said what i did, as i didn't read the comments yet.. ..."
"... The fact that the "papers of record" have become mouthpieces for the CIA/deep state has played a huge role in the brainwashing of academia and the rise of neoliberalism. The false narratives these "trusted sources" of information have been serving up create a very real Matrix, a false reality that is ingrained into those who rely upon them for their daily "news". Karlan is merely repeating what she accepts as truth, garnered from the NY Times and Wash Post, CNN, NPR, etc. ..."
"... The US is dysfunctional on purpose to keep the masses under control and dumbed down/brainwashed ..."
"... BTW, it is totally lost on the entirety of Western establishment that you cannot make Ukraine strong (wouldn't we all love to see strong Ukraine?) while wrecking its economy by encouraging policies like spending 5% of GDP on the military, switching to more expensive energy sources, cutting itself from traditional markets and supplies, replacing with rather worthless "cooperation" agreement with a trading block that is neither particularly interested in trading with Ukraine (Ukraine strongest exports are in surplus within EU) nor inclined to subsidize it (budgets are tights and plenty of recent EU members are in dire needs already) ..."
"... Unfortunately this is endemic in the western world. 'Democracy' seems to consist of dumbing down the population as much as possible, and telling them what they have to think so the self-anointed leaders of society can have their way (both those in front, and behind the scenes). I'm far from certain this is a recipe for success. ..."
"... Russians and Chinese in particular, and BRICS/SCO in general, are showing the way. The countries involved have very different political systems, but they understand that co-operation is much more beneficial than constant conflict. ..."
"... This is a typical example of the stupidity and often dementia of most of the highly educated. Especially those in academia, who exist in a funhouse hall of propagandist and ideological mirrors. But it's true of the educated in the general. I personally know plenty of highly educated people who make themselves more stupid and mentally ill by the day by uncritically reading the NYT and watching CNN. ..."
"... So it's no wonder that an elite Stanford law professor is in practice the exact same stupid, ignorant, deranged yahoo as you could easily find in a trailer park, just with better manners and diction. ..."
"... After all, Karlan's Russia comment would receive enthusiastic thumbs up from at least Biden, Obama, W. Clinton, H. Clinton, Rubio, Klobuchar, Pelosi, Warren, Graham, Buttigieg, Romney, the late McCain, Pompeo, Bolton, Mattis...the list goes on and on. ..."
"... It's even worse than that. The economy will never recover while oligarchs have a stranglehold on economic activity and government. And USA's capitalist dementia ensures that will never change. (The West as a whole is headed in the direction of unabashed oligarchic rule.) ..."
"... Many of the dumbest people I met were university students or graduates. They are thought to absorb information as given, reproduce once, forget. They are not trained to question anything, they follow a narrative. Some even denounced everything they ever learned and became a follower of some religion, which is just another narrative. ..."
"... I've seen Jonathan Turley on TV a number of times. He always seemed to be a person of integrity. One needs to add courage to the list after testifying against impeachment on the presented "evidence". I will be very surprised to see him on PBS or CBS ever again. Their news readers are nearly giddy with excitement about impeachment. They never consider what could happen if Trump is convicted but refuses to leave the White House. Then what? ..."
"... Karlan type of academics is scattered all over the US universities. They are the Academia´s gatekeepers, watching over & "spotting" of our future leaders. the majority of them are claptraps selling jingoism to our youth in order to fulfill the Judeo-Zionist agenda. ..."
"... You hit the nail on the head. Karlan's loyalty is to her tribe, not this nation. That's the crux of almost every major problem and injustice we're suffering from in this country, from private prisons to Wall Street looting to endless foreign wars to censorship. There is one group of people behind it with a very bad track record in terms of how they treat their host nations. I wonder when we will finally get our act together and become the 110th country to expel them. ..."
"... IF Trump is removed from office then the war on Lebanon and Iran would be accelerated. Israel will likely go for all the marbles and annex the last remaining Palestinian holdings. Some here believe this couldn't happen but we all live in bizarro world now. ..."
"... it was obvious (on the video) that Karlan really thought she was (wait for it! It's on the way) landing a very clever bon mot! ..."
"... It is a small thing, yet it speaks volumes about the spirit of this clearly clueless human being (and others of her ilk), and her handlers, who must have cleared this little gotcha for prime time. Been up on the podium too long, bleating to students who can't/don't bleat back! No common sense. ..."
"... As the great wise man, Frank Zappa proclaimed about the USA: "Politics/government is the entertainment division of the Military-Industrial Government." American politics makes much greater sense (and is a hell of a lot more entertaining) if you understand this truism. ..."
During yesterday's impeachment hearing at the House House Judiciary Committee one of the
Democrats' witnesses made some rather crazy statements. Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law
professor, first proved to have bought into
neo-conservative delusions about the U.S. role in the world:
America is not just 'the last best hope,' as Mr. Jefferies said, but it's also the shining
city on a hill. We can't be the shining city on a hill and promote democracy around the world
if we're not promoting it here at home.
As people in Bolivia and elsewhere can attest the United States does not promote democracy.
It promotes rightwing regimes and rogue capitalism. The U.S. is itself
not a democracy but a functional oligarchy as a major Harvard study found:
Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial
independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest
groups have little or no independent influence.
But worse than Karlan's pseudo-patriotic propaganda claptrap were her remarks on the Ukraine
and Russia:
This is not just about our national interests to protect elections or make sure Ukraine stays
strong and fights the Russians so we don't have to fight them here , but it's in our national
interest to promote democracy worldwide.
That was not an joke. From the video it certainly seems that
the woman believes that nonsense.
For one the Ukraine is not fighting "the Russians". The Kiev government is fighting against
east-Ukrainians who disagree with the Nazi controlled regime which the U.S. installed after it instigated
the unconstitutional Maidan coup. Russia supplies the east-Ukrainians and there were a few
Russian volunteers fighting on their side but no Russian military units entered the
Ukraine.
But aside from that how can anyone truly believe that the Ukraine "fights the Russians so we
don't have to fight them here"? Is Russia on the verge of invading the United States? Where? How? And most importantly: What
for? How would that be in Russia's interest?
One must be seriously disturbed to believe such nonsense. How can it be that Karlan is
teaching at an academic level when she has such delusions?
And how is it in U.S. interest to give the Ukraine U.S. taxpayer money to buy U.S. weapons?
The sole motive behind that idea was
greed and corruption , not national interest:
[U.S. special envoy to Ukraine] Volker started his job at the State Department in 2017 in an
unusual part-time arrangement that allowed him to continue consulting at BGR, a powerful
lobbying firm that represents Ukraine and the U.S.-based defense firm Raytheon. During his
tenure, Volker advocated for the United States to send Raytheon-manufactured antitank Javelin
missiles to Ukraine -- a decision that made Raytheon millions of dollars.
The missiles are
useless in the conflict . They are
kept near the western border of Ukraine under U.S. control. The U.S. fears that Russia
would hit back elsewhere should the Javelin reach the frontline in the east and get used
against the east-Ukrainians. That Trump shortly held back on some of the money that would have
allowed the Ukrainians to buy more of those missiles thus surely made no difference.
To claim that it hurt U.S. national interests is nonsense.
It is really no wonder that U.S. foreign policy continuously produces chaos when its
practitioners get taught by people like Karlan. In the Middle East as well as elsewhere Russian
foreign policy runs circles around U.S. attempts to control the outcome. One reason it can do
that is the serious lack of knowledge and realism in U.S. foreign policy thinking. It is itself
the outcome of an educational crisis. U.S. 'political science' studies implement a mindset that
is unable to objectively recognize the facts and fails to respond to them with realistic
concepts.
The Democrats are doing themselves no favor by producing delusional and partisan witnesses
who repeat Reaganesque claptrap. They only prove that the whole affair is just an unserious
show trial.
In the meantime Trump is
eliminating food stamps for some 700,000 recipients and the Democrats are doing nothing
about it. Their majority in the House could have used the time it spent on the impeachment
circus to prevent that and other obscenities.
Do the Democrats really believe that their voters will not notice this?
Posted by b on December 5, 2019 at 15:40 UTC |
Permalink
This is the woman that Common Dreams describes as a leading legal scholar.
And maybe she is, it would certainly help explain the current state of the US Judiciary and
the legal system, which reflects internally the utter contempt for law and custom which
characterises US behaviour in international affairs.
The same bs argument about "not fighting the Russians here" was used a couple of weeks ago by
another witness, Tim Morrison. This shows you that the hysteria is bipartisan...
There is a large cohort of Americans who believe every word the professor spoke. Whatever you
and I may think about it the professor's view of the world is normative for the educated
class in America.
Regarding those food stamps, it is actually just a small rule change lowering the
unemployment rate to 6% (from 10%) above which a state can waive the existing work
requirement for single, non-disabled recipients aged 18-49. States can still also waive it if
they deem that job availability is low.
Attributed to Mark Twain. Perhaps the learned professor karlan may affirm: "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you
with experience."
Budapest has signaled that it will not support Ukraine's bid to join NATO until Kiev
reverses a law that places language restrictions on ethnic Hungarians and other minorities
living in the country.
Legislation that limits the use of Hungarian, Russian, Romanian, and other minority
languages in Ukraine must be repealed before Hungary backs Ukraine's NATO membership,
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said on Wednesday.
"We ask for no extra rights to Hungarians in Transcarpathia, only those rights they had
before," Szijjarto told Hungarian state media at a NATO summit in London. He alleged that
150,000 ethnic Hungarians living in the region have been "seriously violated" by
Ukraine.[.]
In February, Ukraine's parliament ratified amendments to the constitution which made
NATO membership a key foreign policy objective. However, a number of hurdles still remain
before its membership is likely to be seriously considered. European Commission President
Jean-Claude Juncker predicted in 2016 that it would be 20-25 years before Ukraine would be
able to join NATO and the EU.
I don't believe that the so called "Professor's View" is normative for the educated class of
Americans. It is the normative view of the Ivy League pseudoeducated individuals that have
been placed in leadership positions in the US Goverment and Politics but they are not
EDUCATED in any way. Karlan is almost certainly a Jew. She is without a doubt a whore who
will do anything for her John as directed by her pimp.
Being a brain dead feminist helps her
with that role in life. I had an ex wife who fought me post divorce for 10 years trying to
destroy me in any way she could. She finally stopped with the Breast Cancer she had for 7 of
those years finally killed her. I see the same psychotic, sociopathic and off scall
narcissitic behavior in every one of these women in politics and academics today. So don't
think that something will get better without a terminal solution.
Americans are entranced by the kayfabe (mock combat). Just as in wrestling it is designed to
look 'real' but just keeps people engrossed in the action, unable to think of what they are
NOT being told.
People must free themselves of partisan affiliations that are just levers used to
manipulate them.
The establishment uses Democracy Works! propaganda to give you a false sense of
power and security. But the people are an afterthought in US/Western politics. The
politicians and their Parties work for the money. Much of that money comes from AIPAC, MIC,
and other EMPIRE FIRST organizations that are leading us to WAR.
It's messy and inconvenient but power only responds to power.
The stoopid cult-thinking must stop. This is where it leads: Buffalo
Bishop Resigns Over Sex Abuse Cover-Up . Why do people cling to a corrupt Catholic
Church? It's NOT just a few bad apples!! The pedophilia and cover-ups have been
worldwide and reach into the highest levels of the Church.
This Buffalo Bishop, like dozens of other Bishops in the last decades, lied to cover for
pedophiles and then used the power of his position to remain in his position. His wasn't for
the children or any higher morality but for himself. He will get a nice, peaceful retirement
- paid for by the deluded Catholic flock.
In the meantime Trump is eliminating food stamps for some 700,000 recipients and the
Democrats are doing nothing about it.
The reason for that if very simple: the Democrats agree with Trump on this.It's the same question many ask when studying Roman History for the first time: where were
the legions when the Goths invaded? The answer is that the Goths were the legions, there was
no invasion.
The same logic applies to the Right-Left political spectrum in modern Western Democracies.
"Where are the lefties?" is the modern question the first worlders ask themselves since
2008.
--//--
As for the Pamela Karlan thing, it's an issue I've been commenting on here for some time
now, so I won't repeat everything.
I'll just say again that imbecilization is a completely normal historical phenomenon in
declining empires: the earlier example we have is the Christianization of the Roman Empire
after Marcus Aurelius' death. The rise of Christianity was the messenger of the Crisis of the
Third Century, the historic episode which ended the Roman Empire by giving birth to its
demented form after the Diocletian Reforms.
Empires tend to have a very plastic conception of truth, that is, they believe they can
fabricate reality for the simple reason they are geopolitically dominant.
It's easy to visualize this. The greatest philosopher of the end of the 18th Century and
beginning of the 19th Century was a German, not a British. While Hegel wrote his
proto-revolutionary works which would pave the way to Karl Marx, in UK we had the likes of
Mackinder and Mahan dominating British philosophical thinking. And even then they weren't the
dominant intellectual figures: the UK was the land of accountants and economists, not
philosophers. The reason for this is that neither Hegel nor Marx had any ships to do gunboat
diplomacy in Asia, as the British did.
Empires tend to think and rationalize the world in a much more plastic/practical way than
the periphery. As the old saying goes: the stronger side doesn't need to think before it
acts.
Scroll down the page @ Steven Cheung {VID} on Twitter to watch this exchange where the RATS
are told they are the ones who have abused power.
Professor Jonathan Turley, a lawyer's go-to-Constitutional Expert:
"The Record does not establish corruption in this case - no bribery, no extortion, no
obstruction of justice, no abuse of power."
Trump should include Prof. Turley on his legal team. The RATS have not thought this through to what will unfold in the Senate. A real court
trial; No hearsay and no! no! no! "I was made aware" And the Bidens, Schiff, and Pelosi under cross-examination. And the Whistleblower!!!
I used to think that stupid was a characteristic of the American right. It took Donald Trump
getting elected to see that stupid knows no political borders. Seriously. I thought that
education and progressive thinking also led to a clarity of thought. Boy, was I wrong. The
most pro-war people in the USA seem to be Democrats. Bizarro world.
To "...make sure Ukraine stays strong and fights the Russians so we don't have to fight them
here"
This predates 2003 and stems from the red menace days when it was the communist legions
would behave like a set of dominoes and eventually we (USA) would be fighting them in the
streets of New York etc. Thus it was imperative that they defeat the commies in French
Indo-China despite the fact that they could easily have simply bought the nation by
supporting Uncle Ho who had been working for the OSS during WW2. But no, they had to win
brownie points with the French by bankrolling their effort to retake the nation and when that
didn't work a little "false flag" event employed to keep the ball rolling. I use quotations
because while being false, the Tonkin Gulf event wasn't much of a flag.....
At any rate the fact that both Demublicans AND Republocrats are falling back on such
antiquated rhetoric is bitterly laughable! It can also be seen as an indicator of just how
dumbed down the USAn populace has become. As noted above article, how could anyone think that
the RF would plan much less attempt an attack on the continental US?! A closer look at recent
history has the US and it's poodles surrounding the RF with missile bases, sanctioning and
embargoing the fhaak out it, and generally trying to destroy the nation as a whole with
whatever clandestine methods are available. But hey, take a page from the book of Cheney:
deny everything and make counter accusations.....
thanks b... propaganda is the usa's education... see your breakdown of the nyt articles...
most people don't get this...
The military industrial complex is in the people of usa's interest.. they think they
benefit from the rayatheons, lockheed martins, boeings and etc - as they have relatives
working at these places... the usa is one sick puppy, and Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law
professor is just further proof of this... sorry if someone else said what i did, as i didn't
read the comments yet..
"Throughout her career, Karlan has been an advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court.[10] She
was mentioned as a potential candidate to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter when he
retired in 2009.[11]
Personal life
Karlan told Politico in 2009, "It's no secret at all that I'm counted among the LGBT
crowd".[12] She has described herself as an example of a "snarky, bisexual, Jewish
women".[13] Her partner is writer Viola Canales.[14]
she is not an American women apparently.. she is a Jewish women.. oh well, lol...
The fact that the "papers of record" have become mouthpieces for the CIA/deep state has
played a huge role in the brainwashing of academia and the rise of neoliberalism. The false
narratives these "trusted sources" of information have been serving up create a very real
Matrix, a false reality that is ingrained into those who rely upon them for their daily
"news". Karlan is merely repeating what she accepts as truth, garnered from the NY Times and
Wash Post, CNN, NPR, etc.
Believe me, even here in the red states, you won't find a hell of a lot of faculty members
at large universities who are Trump supporters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ
What I find absent in most discussions about impeachment of Trump is the 800 pound gorilla -
what will happen to the US if against all odds, Trump gets impeached. Could the US survive
that cataclysmic event or would it rip the empire apart?
What contingency plans does everybody make for that unlikely, but not impossible singularity?
"In the meantime Trump is eliminating food stamps for some 700,000 recipients and the
Democrats are doing nothing about it. Their majority in the House could have used the time it
spent on the impeachment circus to prevent that and other obscenities."
That's why it's called bread and circus. The loot and pillage party's two separate funding
arms get their funding and privilege from the same sociopath/psychopaths who operate the mass
murder for profit economy we now live in.
They will continue the slaughter until the enforcers within society finally understand
they work for criminally insane cultists who will never have enough money, power, and
prestige.
I see that distrust to everything that is good and decent is extended to law professors.
Stanford is a short (if sometimes slow) ride from Berkeley that has a more famous professor
in its own law school (Wiki):[you know
John Choon Yoo (born July 10, 1967)[4] is a Korean-American attorney, law professor,
former government official, and author. Yoo is currently the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of
Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.[1] Previously, he served as the
Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) of the Department
of Justice, during the George W. Bush administration.
He is best known for his opinions concerning the Geneva Conventions that attempted to
legitimize the Bush administration's War on Terror. He also authored the so-called Torture
Memos, which provided a legal rationale for so-called [you know what]
=====
First, they torture logic... The ignorants who could not tell tollens from a toilet brush
would not even know what to twist, hence the need for professors.
"The U.S. is itself not a democracy but a functional oligarchy as a major Harvard study
found:"
My only quibble with another great post is the assertion that the US is functional.
Functional would mean it had supportive infrastructure but instead we have homeless
shitting in the street because they are driven out of the parks to do so and they must be bad
people that don't deserve public toilets.
Functional would mean, as Jackrabbit linked to above, and a I i did a few hours ago in the
Weekly Open Thread, that there wouldn't be 117 sexually abusive Catholic priests in the
Buffalo NY area doing the same thing as Epstein was doing to his clients.
Functional would mean we would not have the blatant hypocrisy Chervus quoted from the
posting above
"To "...make sure Ukraine stays strong and fights the Russians so we don't have to fight them
here"
I agree with Chervus that this is same BS that got us the Iron Curtain with Russia after WWII
because they wanted Godless communism instead of global private finance. And also, as I
ranted recently in the Open Thread, this gave us the 1950's change to the US Motto to In God
We Trust which gets back to the control of the obfuscatory/hypocrisy narrative telling us
that the private finance cult are doing God's work and that "competition is good/sharing is
bad"
The US is dysfunctional on purpose to keep the masses under control and dumbed
down/brainwashed
Ha! More connections to Stanford:
"Ancient Logic: Forerunners of Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens". Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
BTW, it is totally lost on the entirety of Western establishment that you cannot make
Ukraine strong (wouldn't we all love to see strong Ukraine?) while wrecking its economy by
encouraging policies like spending 5% of GDP on the military, switching to more expensive energy sources, cutting itself from traditional markets and supplies, replacing with rather worthless
"cooperation" agreement with a trading block that is neither particularly interested in
trading with Ukraine (Ukraine strongest exports are in surplus within EU) nor inclined to
subsidize it (budgets are tights and plenty of recent EU members are in dire needs
already)
I think it's tragic that that creatures like Karlan are not simply seen as the blatant bigots
and Nazi's that they are. You have to be wearing a large set of blinkers not to be able to
see that.
Unfortunately this is endemic in the western world. 'Democracy' seems to consist of
dumbing down the population as much as possible, and telling them what they have to think so
the self-anointed leaders of society can have their way (both those in front, and behind the
scenes). I'm far from certain this is a recipe for success.
The biggest tragedy is that Americans seem to think that the only way to succeed is to
tear down any other country that isn't essentially a puppet government, necessarily defining
them as 'enemies', and therefore someone/thing that must be hated and destroyed, by any
means, fair or foul.
Russians and Chinese in particular, and BRICS/SCO in general, are showing the way. The
countries involved have very different political systems, but they understand that
co-operation is much more beneficial than constant conflict. Unless, of course, a quarter of
your government tax income is dedicated to supporting an amazingly corrupt
Military-Industrial-Intelligence Complex.
Trump supporters approve of cutting food stamps. The majority of Democratic Party politicians
approve of cutting food stamps. Both parties agree times are good and the future is rosy. The
only thing they disagree on is foreign policy. The guy who couldn't even win the election
(and merely fluked in on a technicality that undermines all progress since 1788,) refuses to
play by the rules on foreign policy. And he is not justified by success, not in any terms,
not in making peace, not in winning, not in anything. The only people who are upset about
impeaching Trump are Trump lovers and cranks who think being president is like being elected
God and no one but sinners can defy Him.
The Trump supporters were going to turn out for him anyway, barring an economic crisis
even they couldn't ignore. Impeachment has no downside so long as it is from the right, and
doesn't rile up the rich people. Except the rich donors are leaving the Democratic Party
anyway. The strategy for a nicey-nice campaign that leaves enough Trump voters soothed enough
to sit it out has one enormous defect: Trump was not elected by the people anyhow.
But the Democratic Party politicians are anti-Communist, which means pro-Fascist, so yes,
they do see this as (im)moral principles to die for, though they hope to politically kill for
it. Their problem is, Trump is also anti-Communist and pro-Fascist, which everyone knows,
which means Trump was merely his office for campaigning. That may be hypocritical and a
violation of campaign laws. But in the eyes even of the anti-Communist/pro-Fascist population
missiles for Ukrainian fascists with strings or without strings is merely a tactical
disagreement. Even worse, the president breaking laws is perceived as strong leadership,
smashing the machine, getting rid of those awful politicians and their oppressive
government.
This is a typical example of the stupidity and often dementia of most of the highly educated.
Especially those in academia, who exist in a funhouse hall of propagandist and ideological
mirrors. But it's true of the educated in the general. I personally know plenty of highly
educated people who make themselves more stupid and mentally ill by the day by uncritically
reading the NYT and watching CNN.
I don't know why anyone would expect anything different. All system schooling at whatever
level boils down to the same two goals:
Instill the basic literacy necessary for a given cog position within the hierarchy.
Instill obedience to authority, including indoctrination into its ideology.
From kindergarten to grad school these are the same; whether one's being trained to pump
gas or to assume a high position in the corporate world/government/academia these are the
same.
So it's no wonder that an elite Stanford law professor is in practice the exact same
stupid, ignorant, deranged yahoo as you could easily find in a trailer park, just with better
manners and diction.
"One must be seriously disturbed to believe such nonsense. How can it be that Karlan is
teaching at an academic level when she has such delusions?"
I assume this question was meant rhetorically. After all, Karlan's Russia comment would
receive enthusiastic thumbs up from at least Biden, Obama, W. Clinton, H. Clinton, Rubio,
Klobuchar, Pelosi, Warren, Graham, Buttigieg, Romney, the late McCain, Pompeo, Bolton,
Mattis...the list goes on and on.
For a related, institutionalized, revolting example packaging multiple instances of such
delusional thought, see "russias-dead-end-diplomacy-syria"
. Have a pail nearby to catch the spew.
"The guy who couldn't even win the election (and merely fluked in on a technicality that
undermines all progress since 1788,)"
I don't think you ever answered when I asked you last time: Are you saying you think Hillary was so stupid she didn't know about the electoral
college, and that it was electoral votes she had to fight for, not popular ones? Because if you're not saying that, then nothing is changed: Trump beat Hillary in the
electoral fight they were both trying to win. It's pure nonsense to babble about
"technicalities".
And if any significant Democrat faction was saying throughout 2016, and not just after the
election, that the election should NOT be about electoral votes, please direct me to where
and when they were saying that, because I don't recall ever hearing it. And I think the
reason I never heard it was because the Dems were so smugly sure of electoral college
victory. And if Hillary had won, we never would've heard a word from you or anyone else about
the electoral college.
it is totally lost on the entirety of Western establishment that you cannot make Ukraine
strong while wrecking its economy
It's even worse than that. The economy will never recover while oligarchs have a stranglehold
on economic activity and government. And USA's capitalist dementia ensures that will never
change. (The West as a whole is headed in the direction of unabashed oligarchic rule.)
Why would anyone invest in Ukraine? Sometimes I think Putin was happy for the Western coup to succeed and simply planned to
keep the best parts.
But do they really believe what they (the mid-level elites) say or is it all some kind of
theater of the increasingly absurd? I am never clear on who among the narrative managers is
sincere and who is simply acting sincere. Are people like this woman or the Bellingcat
narrative managers or any of their numerous colleagues in their mid-level narrative
management positions occupying their positions simply due to their acting abilities? They
seem to be both delusional and ill-informed. When these people get together at their
conferences and dinner parties, does the mask come off?
casey @31: When these people get together ... does the mask come off?
I doubt it. They have convinced themselves that they are right and/or are following the
wishes of people who are right-thinking. In USA, most people are brainwashed to assume that
people with lots of money are right-thinking (as in: they must be doing something
right!).
Upton Sinclair:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not
understanding it.
Upton Sinclair self-published a book in 1922 about education in America entitled Goose
Step . Predating the infamous era of the Nazi/Fascist Goose Stepping thugs then armies, I
read a preview and found an inexpensive copy. The subject as might be assumed was about the
use of school systems to indoctrinate young Americans at all educational levels and
nationwide to conform to the views of the rather few wealthy people who sat on interlocking
boards that controlled curriculum--sort of like the oligarchic control over media today.
And
as we've seen with the study of political-economy, the ability to erase rather recent
developments and personages and inserting false doctrines and their priests was done rather
easily and with little noted protest. And so it's gone on down through the decades until
today--just look at the War Criminals hired by Stanford and other universities for proof of
its being an ongoing problem.
That ideological blinders are omnipresent is easily proven by the various defense planning
documents referenced here over the last several years, all of which relate to the unilateral,
might makes right mindset that's one of the Evil Outlaw US Empire's longstanding traits that
predates the 20th Century. Too many will never learn humility and the reality accompanying it
until it's enforced. But there's a wiser group residing within the Empire, some of us present
at this bar ready to deal with the mess once humpty-dumpty falls from its perch upon which
it's currently tottering.
I just looked up Pamala Karlan. Apparently there is a story that when she was a baby she was
so ugly her parents had to put shutters on her pram.
She claims to have a partner? There's no accounting for taste I suppose but even for a U.S.
citizen there must be a red line. Somewhere? someone!
As to her intellectual prowess, in my limited understanding, intellect depends on the
platform it rests upon. Put a Jaguar engine into a Mobility scooter and see how well that
performs. Plenty of power but no means of utilising it.
Logical mechanisms such as law require as little emotion as possible. People like her just
bring the demise of a great nation into action sooner rather than later.
I suppose we should be grateful such fools consider Russia an adversary, it's makes
predicting what comes next much more clear and succinct action can be instigated.
Professor Pamela Karlan. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
@29 russ...steven is making himself look like a fool regularly with that crap.. oh well..
@36 really? yes, indeed.. same faulty logic one would expect from a stanford law prof.. as
@22 piotr rightly notes - john yoo, the freak who could make torture in abu graib okay is
another one cut from the very same cloth..
i see one of Pamela Karlans comments got the ire of melania trump.. article
here..
"The Constitution states that there can be no titles of nobility. So while the president
can name his son Barron, he can't MAKE him a baron." Pamela S. Karlan
"A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you
should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child
to do it." -- Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) December 4, 2019
Karlan apologized for her remark as the hearing continued late Wednesday. "It was wrong of
me to do that,'' she said, according to the Associated Press. "I do regret it."
Universally accepted fact among the devoted is that "America is fighting Russia in the
Ukraine", though there are exactly zero confirmed reports of Russian troops in the region in
the past five years.
Many of the dumbest people I met were university students or graduates. They are thought to
absorb information as given, reproduce once, forget. They are not trained to question
anything, they follow a narrative. Some even denounced everything they ever learned and
became a follower of some religion, which is just another narrative.
I remember one student dorm in particular. Someone came in and decided it was too warm.
Put the central heating thermostat on "arctic winter", opened all doors and windows while it
was freezing outside. Then someone else came in and decided it was cold, closed all doors and
windows, put the thermostat on "incinerate". Repeat 24/7. The few times I tried to explain
how a thermostat works, I felt like being rubbed out of existence.
Only one guy understood that you set a room thermostat at a comfortable level and it would
regulate to desired temperature. He was an alcoholic, always stoned up to his eyeballs, not a
student except for the 3 or 4 studies he briefly tried and failed, and had given up on life
in general. He was also the only one there who questioned things.
I've seen Jonathan Turley on TV a number of times. He always seemed to be a person of
integrity. One needs to add courage to the list after testifying against impeachment on the
presented "evidence". I will be very surprised to see him on PBS or CBS ever again. Their
news readers are nearly giddy with excitement about impeachment. They never consider what
could happen if Trump is convicted but refuses to leave the White House. Then what?
---------
The food stamp program changes will kill people. As intended. One of the most affected groups
will be people who are too sick or otherwise too impaired to work, and maybe unable to even
leave their home, but still can't get social support. The system says there is no problem
because desperate people can get a free meal on Thanksgiving and Christmas. For the other 363
days a year, go find a dumpster to dive in.
Almost all Social Security Disability applicants are denied on the initial application.
There are no interim payments or support of any kind. Many give up, as intended. The rest
file appeals and wait years for a hearing before an "administrative law judge", who is not a
"real" judge, but just some lawyer with fancy title.
ALJ decisions tend to be rather arbitrary, so a favorable decision depends on which ALJ
hears a case. Sure there are more levels to appeal, and many more years of no social support,
if an applicant can find a way to survive for years on zero income, all the while being sick
with probably no medical care.
Social Security and disability lawyers have colluded to keep lawyers in business. Social
Security requires the use of a standard contract that gives the lawyer a fixed percentage of
the retroactive benefits. "Retroactive benefits" are the regular monthly benefits that accrue
from the officially determined "date of disability". So if it takes three years to get
benefits, the lawyer gets a nice chunk of change for a few hours work writing a brief and
showing up for the hearing.
The lawyer who signed my contract did nothing to help my case, and he even hired someone
else to write the brief and attend the hearing. One wonders if ALJs get some benefit from
lawyers to encourage long wait times, since long wait times increase lawyer profits at zero
cost.
The US system really is that cruel and barbaric. It would be kinder to take us out back
and shoot us, but that's too obvious. Much better to let people die slowly in the shadows so
the rest of society doesn't have to see us.
And I'm one of the fortunates who managed to hang on, despite bankruptcy, a civil suit,
the disability benefits process (only took six years), and state attempts to revoke Medicaid,
all at the same time. I know it sounds melodramatic, made up, or at least exaggerated. That's
understandable, because it seems that way to me, too!
About 1000 people a week kill themselves in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
Does anyone wonder why, or even notice? The reason for many of these deaths is the lack of
social supports. In Uncle Sam Land, social apoptosis is a feature, not a bug.
Russ@29 forgot the comments where I've reviewed exactly how everybody rejected the Electoral
College, holding legitimacy came from winning the real election. Until Gore, every time the
EC violated the expectation that it was a technical way of recording the popular vote, there
was justified outrage. Bush's camp in 2000 had plans to contest an EC loss, until that shoe
turned out to be on the other foot. If Trump had won the popular vote and lost the Electoral
College, he would no more accept the results. Only liars take refuge in the simplistic
legalisms. And only Trump ass-lickers are so contemptible as to pretend Trump was the stable
genius who outplayed Clinton in the real game. Trump had no more idea how to win the EC
without winning the popular vote than anyone else. Further, by the witless pretended
principles of Russ' ilk, a presidential candidate who managed to win faithless electors who
ignored even their own states' pluralities* would still be the legitimate president! Every
single defender of Trump the one legitimate president is witless and worthless.
But very likely the real objection to the response is the insistence that Trump isn't
magically guaranteed re-election because...well, the real reason is slavish devotion to a God
named Trump. Even with the advantage of incumbency this time around, with even more support
from the wealthy (the people who have really turned away from the Democratic Party to favor
political gangsterism,) Trump is likely to lose the election again. If I were in Congress I
would offer a compromise, where the Republicans were assured Trump would not be investigated
any more, much less impeached, for abolition of the Electoral College. But I think Trump
would say no, because he knows deep down he's a loser.
*US politicians rarely win majorities of the electorate. Politicians of all stripes have
agreed that non-voting is always to be deemed as "Satisfied" with either choice instead of
"Alienated, with no choice." Decent people suspect otherwise.
@38 Karloff1 You can still Read the late John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of
American Education online. He did a great job highlighting the history and purpose of copying
the Prussian style of education to replace the one room school houses and instill the
"martial spirit" in the American public. I have to hand it to the Oligarchs of old too. They
were very effective in their implementation.
Karlan type of academics is scattered all over the US universities. They are the
Academia´s gatekeepers, watching over & "spotting" of our future leaders. the
majority of them are claptraps selling jingoism to our youth in order to fulfill the
Judeo-Zionist agenda.
John Taylor Gatto, former New York City and New York State teacher of the year, stated:
The truth is that schools don't really teach anything except how to obey orders; and
John Holt concluded, School is a place where children learn to be stupid . . . Children
come to school curious; within a few years most of that curiosity is dead, or at least
silent.
I recall when I was a student at the University of Technology, Sydney, way back in the
Mesozoic era (1980s), the economics dept there had a lecturer there with a Harvard University
background so the staff made him head of the department. Just because he had a Harvard
University PhD. He was hardly a great administrator and the subjects he taught (compared with
other lecturers' subjects) were much less structured. Of course this meant the courses he
taught were easier on students' time and energy, though if you made use of the opportunity a
less structured course gave, you could turn in an end-of-term essay with impressive research
equivalent to the level required of a post-grad.
The university also had an exchange program with the University of Oregon, and most of the
Oregon students who came to UTS (usually in their second or third year) found the UTS
coursework very heavy-going and difficult.
In those days, UTS was only supposed to be a second-tier university in Australia.
This hearing is a theatre performance (kabuki -- hey, I learned a new
word, thanks) and PK's lines are an invocation of the official US myth
(the shinning city on the hill, the exceptional, indispensible
nation). No one in the room took that seriously or literally
(especially PK herself) and IMHO these national myths are not really
anything to freak out about - every nation has got its myth, and this is
an arrogant one, but compared to a few others it's almost likeable.
Of course it is at odds with historical records and the reality, but
all of them are, because, frankly, the truth, being descendants of
genocidal, religious nutters and slavers, is apparently very
motivational -- in the KSA...
The RU/UK lines are slightly more worrisome, but that's just a
matching background for her story - the fluff. She doesn't have to
belive it - it's just a performance, an elegant one but meaningless in the end.
A lot of the visitors comment about the deep state, most of the time
mentioning three letter agencies. Here comes a piece about a four
letters one, acting more or less in the plain sight:
OIRA, E.O.
12866
A group of virtually anonymous, unaccountable people wields quite
considerable power over both legislative and executive. A very
interesting construction...
Posted by: nietzsche1510 | Dec 5 2019 21:03 utc | 65
You hit the nail on the head. Karlan's loyalty is to her tribe, not this nation. That's
the crux of almost every major problem and injustice we're suffering from in this country,
from private prisons to Wall Street looting to endless foreign wars to censorship. There is
one group of people behind it with a very bad track record in terms of how they treat their
host nations. I wonder when we will finally get our act together and become the 110th country
to expel them.
And Goldhoarder, while you may not mind how your posts look, you've managed to damage this
comment thread and until b deletes your poorly structured post, we all suffer for it.
@ Posted by: Lochearn | Dec 5 2019 21:51 utc | 72 who seems to disagree with my concept
"dysfunctional on purpose"
and wants to use decadence instead and wrote:
"
Surely there must be some functionality
to be able to keep the masses dumbed down/brainwashed; it implies some sort of thought out
strategy.
How do we get the same narrative trotted out in media in exactly the same format from LA to
Warsaw,
from Lima to Bangalore if it's all so dysfunctional?
"
I posit that strategy of "dysfunctional on purpose" is control of the narrative and
language and it is purposefully used.
Consider the current seeming understanding of the terms, socialism and capitalism by many
of your fellow barflies.
Many of our fellow barflies would have one believe that China is socialist and the West is
capitalist...exclusively.
I and a few others keep trying to point out that both China and the West are, to varying
degrees mixed economies,
including aspects of both socialism and capitalism
Consider the implicit definition of government if you will. Is government, as compared to
dictatorships, not explicitly socialistic?
Are not the provision of water, sewage treatment and in many case electricity explicitly
socialistic by definition?
Is it not dumbing down and brainwashing that many don't understand reality but spout the
words and concepts they are fed
by those in control of the narrative and media pushing it?
And, not to make too fine a point of it, does all of the West not live under the
dictatorship of global private finance at this time?
So how much more would I get ignored if I beat that drum as part of my comments here?
IF Trump is removed from office then the war on Lebanon and Iran would be
accelerated. Israel will likely go for all the marbles and annex the last remaining
Palestinian holdings. Some here believe this couldn't happen but we all live in bizarro world
now.
Also, don't expect the Electoral College to oust Pence after the general election since
he's more pro-war; even the electors from Democrat controlled states would support him. IMHO,
the US would continue on; business as usual.
However, if the Democrats are crazy enough to follow through, the Republican dominated
Senate would reject it. Basically a repeat of what happened to Clinton. In the end, nothing
changed.
""It was wrong of me to do that,'' she said, according to the Associated Press. "I do
regret it.""
Ya but . . .as Tucker Carlson spot-on reacted, that comment sure looked as though it had
been rehearsed in front of the bathroom mirror. It was sooooo lame!!! I mean, it was obvious
(on the video) that Karlan really thought she was (wait for it! It's on the way) landing a
very clever bon mot!
It is a small thing, yet it speaks volumes about the spirit of this clearly clueless human
being (and others of her ilk), and her handlers, who must have cleared this little gotcha for
prime time. Been up on the podium too long, bleating to students who can't/don't bleat back!
No common sense.
Never a connection with a child, I'll bet, or she could never have said such a thing.
Painful to look at the pinched little face, decent hairdo missing in action, with the rant
coming out of the tight little mouth. A pathetic individual.
Ditto Noah Feldman from the Felix Frankfurter Dept of the Harvard Law School: Pure
bloviation with skin like a baby's bottom. Better coiffed, actually, than Karlan. Quels
types!!!
My comment @ 67 was actually just to highlight the (most undeserved) reputations that
places like Harvard and Stanford have among certain faculties in Australian universities. In
those days Stanford, Harvard and MIT were the holiest of holy shrines to do business studies
/ economics degrees. Years later I read a book by someone who actually did do a Stanford MBA
and the scales fell from my eyes then. The work was similar to what I'd done as an
undergraduate (albeit collapsed in the space of 18 months; I had the luxury of doing
part-time and then going full-time as a student).
I should have added that the Harvard PhD guy who taught me comparative economics was a
lousy teacher as well as a lousy administrator. I visited his office once and it looked as if
a tornado had just hit it. To be fair though, he really wasn't cut out to be a lecturer, he
was much better at research and analysis.
Before he became a lecturer, he worked at the CIA as a researcher. He knew next to no
German (he was of Polish background) so he was assigned to the section to read East German
newspapers. A fellow he knew who could speak and read German but no Bulgarian was assigned to
the ... Bulgarian section. That experience must account for my lecturer's sloppy personal
style.
But now that you draw my attention to the link, yes you are right that the study was done
at Princeton University.
Why do you assume a technical illiterate could read those instructions? I can't even begin
to do anything with that. It is never simple enough for those who have not been
initiated.
HTML works by magic. Your instructions do not convince me otherwise.
Better solution is to forgo links altogether if not competent. Or spell out the link and
force the really interested to transcribe. Of course no one is going to go to effort of
spelling out a link as long as that one above. Which would be a good thing.
She's been gone some time now (she died in April 2018) but Karen Dawisha , a so-called expert on
Russian and post-Soviet politics who obtained a higher degree at the London School of
Economics, was another deluded academic twat who wrote the book "Putin's Kleptocracy: Who
Owns Russia?"
The 1-star, 2-star and 3-star reviews on Amazon.com of the book refer to the tabloid
quality of many of the claims in the book, poor sourcing, cherry-picking of facts and the
author's inability to write at a level that would attract a readership outside the academic
community.
The least we can say for her is that she is no longer in a position to, erm, "advise" the
US and UK governments on issues and help formulate policy that would backfire on Washington
and London anyway.
As the great wise man, Frank Zappa proclaimed about the USA: "Politics/government is the entertainment division of the Military-Industrial
Government." American politics makes much greater sense (and is a hell of a lot more entertaining) if
you understand this truism.
US Presidential Debates and impeachment hearings are a swell occasion for drinking
games. Every time a political hack, media shill, or academic invokes some variant of American
Exceptionalism, take a shot of your favorite alcoholic beverage. You will be drunk within half an hour--guaranteed!
I'd say unbelievable but I know that is only wishful thinking on my part. What's scary is
that these people populate the "educational" system which explains why we're as screwed as we
are.
"... When Bush and his allies used this rhetoric, they were trying to spin a war of aggression as an act of self-defense. Now it is part of an even more ludicrous effort to make supplying weapons and other military assistance to Ukraine seem as if it is vitally important to the U.S. Simply put, this is propaganda, and it isn't even very good propaganda at that. ..."
"... Obviously, we aren't going to be fighting the Russians "here" no matter what happens in this conflict. These are the sorts of irrational claims that we get after decades of irresponsible threat inflation and mistakenly assuming that every conflict in the world is somehow our business. ..."
Here is a congealing conventional wisdom around sending military assistance to Ukraine that
is as absurd as can be, and it cropped up again this morning:
"Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" was extremely stupid when
applied to terrorism. It is much more stupid when applied to Russia, and shows how
impoverished the FP thinking of even bright, engaged Americans is. My goodness.
It is discouraging to see that one of the dumbest talking points from the Bush era has
returned. "Fight them there" was always a silly justification for waging unnecessary wars in
other countries, and now it is being repurposed to justify the questionable policy of throwing
weapons at a conflict in Europe. When it was used in the context of Bush-era wars, it was an
attempt to make what were clearly wars of choice seem as though they were unavoidable. When a
government needs to defend a bad policy, it will usually claim that they have no choice but to
do what they are doing.
When Bush and his allies used this rhetoric, they were trying to spin a
war of aggression as an act of self-defense. Now it is part of an even more ludicrous effort to
make supplying weapons and other military assistance to Ukraine seem as if it is vitally
important to the U.S. Simply put, this is propaganda, and it isn't even very good propaganda at
that.
I have written many times why I think it is a mistake to arm Ukraine. It just encourages
escalation at worst and the prolongation of the conflict at best. Until recently, the arguments
in favor of doing this have not been very compelling, but at least they weren't quite so
mindless. Needless to say, Russia's conflict with Ukraine is a local one, and the U.S. doesn't
have much at stake in that conflict. Ukrainians aren't fighting Russia and its proxies on our
behalf or to prevent them from attacking someone else, but for the sake of their own country.
If Russia hawks insist on providing Ukraine with weapons and other assistance, they should at
least be able to acknowledge that this is a peripheral interest of the United States.
Exaggerating the importance of this policy to U.S. security just calls attention to how little
it matters to U.S. security.
Obviously, we aren't going to be fighting the Russians "here" no matter what happens in this
conflict. These are the sorts of irrational claims that we get after decades of irresponsible
threat inflation and mistakenly assuming that every conflict in the world is somehow our
business.
"... " Any president, any administration is justified in investigating corruption . There was serious evidence of real corruption concerning Hunter Biden. [He] was on the board of Burisma, the largest natural gas company in Ukraine. Do you know how much he was paid every month? $83,000 -- that's a million dollars a year," said Cruz - adding "The media ought to care if there is actual corruption ... Do you think Hunter Biden with zero experience justifies making ten times as much as the board member of Exxon Mobil? " ..."
"... Todd then asked Cruz: "Do you believe Ukraine meddled in the American election in 2016?" - to which Cruz replied "I do. And I think there is considerable evidence ." ..."
"... Todd then suggested that President Trump could have created "a false narrative" in order to hurt Cruz during the 2016 Republican primary - to which Cruz shot back: "Ha, ha, ha. Except that's not what happened. The president released the transcript of the phone call. You can read what was said in the phone call." ..."
"... "On the evidence, Russia clearly interfered in our election, but here's the game the media is playing because Russia interfered, the media pretends ..."
"... Media & Chuck Todd, having lied throughout the Russia "collusion" BS, now lie about Ukraine. And if Todd wants to be the mouthpiece for the Dems, then he should have the integrity to resign from the news business &push his propaganda as a paid DNC hack ..."
Resistance activist and NBC host Chuck Todd lost his cool on Sunday after Sen. Ted Cruz
(R-TX) said that Ukraine "blatantly interfered" in the 2016 US election.
Of note, less than three months before Donald Trump was elected, Ukrainian officials working
with a DNC operative leaked a " black
ledger " containing evidence of off-book payments to Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort -
leading to his disruptive ouster, while Ukraine's ambassador to the UK, Valeriy Chaly wrote in
an Op-Ed for
The Hill slamming Trump in the same month.
While Democrats have sought to ignore or downplay this as a 'debunked' theory, Republicans
aren't letting it go - nor are they giving the Bidens a pass for what looks like textbook
corruption while then-Vice President Joe Biden was in charge of the Obama administration's
Ukraine policy.
" Any president, any administration is justified in investigating corruption . There was
serious evidence of real corruption concerning Hunter Biden. [He] was on the board of Burisma,
the largest natural gas company in Ukraine. Do you know how much he was paid every month?
$83,000 -- that's a million dollars a year," said Cruz - adding "The media ought to care if
there is actual corruption ... Do you think Hunter Biden with zero experience justifies making
ten times as much as the board member of Exxon Mobil? "
Todd then asked Cruz: "Do you believe Ukraine meddled in the American election in 2016?" -
to which Cruz replied "I do. And I think there is considerable evidence ."
Todd then suggested that President Trump could have created "a false narrative" in order to
hurt Cruz during the 2016 Republican primary - to which Cruz shot back: "Ha, ha, ha. Except
that's not what happened. The president released the transcript of the phone call. You can read
what was said in the phone call."
"On the evidence, Russia clearly interfered in our election, but here's the game the media
is playing because Russia interfered, the media pretends
Media & Chuck Todd, having lied throughout the Russia "collusion" BS, now lie about Ukraine. And if Todd wants to be the mouthpiece for the Dems, then he should have the
integrity to resign from the news business &push his propaganda as a paid DNC hack
top 7 donors all obvious connections to global agenda.... and Ireland by association, but
curious who the corporatocracies are connected to Ireland -Usual suspects I presume ( with
"usual suspects" having a group of real actors in contrast to the poser JV team in
Eiremen
"... "Except that's not what happened," Cruz said. He went on to accuse "the media" of playing "a game" and "pretends" no country except Russia interfered in the election. When Cruz invoked an op-ed from former Ukrainian ambassador Valeriy Chaly as proof of their interference, Todd derided that equivalence by saying "you're saying a pick-pocket, which essentially is a Hill op-ed, compared to Bernie Madoff and Vladimir Putin . You are trying to make them both seem equal. I don't understand that." ..."
"... "I understand that you want to dismiss Ukrainian interference because A: they were trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, which is what the vast majority of the media wanted anyway. And B: it's inconvenient for the narrative." ..."
Senator Ted Cruz and NBC's Chuck Todd had an intense exchange on Meet the Press over
the media's role in fueling President Donald Trump's impeachment firestorm.
As Cruz defended Trump's dealings with Russia and Ukraine, he bashed House Democrats for the
"garbage" report they put out on Saturday to outline the legal argument for proceeding with
impeachment. This led to an initial flare-up where Todd and Cruz went back and forth about
whether Trump's conduct meets Constitutional standards for an impeachable misdemeanor.
Cruz segued the conversation toward Hunter Biden's controversial employment with Burisma,
saying "the media ought to care if there is actual corruption" regarding Joe Biden's son. Todd
countered by remarking that "the reason you know this information is the media reported it,"
and shortly after that, he asked Cruz "do you believe Ukraine meddled in the election in
2016?"
"I do," Cruz answered, "and I think there is considerable evidence."
... ... ...
"I appreciate you dragging up all that garbage, that's very kind of you," Cruz interjected
as Todd asked "Is it not possible that this president is capable of creating a false narrative
about somebody in order to help him politically?"
"Except that's not what happened," Cruz said. He went on to accuse "the media" of playing "a
game" and "pretends" no country except Russia interfered in the election. When Cruz invoked an
op-ed from former Ukrainian ambassador Valeriy Chaly as proof of their interference, Todd
derided that equivalence by saying "you're saying a pick-pocket, which essentially is a Hill
op-ed, compared to Bernie Madoff and Vladimir Putin . You are trying to make them both seem
equal. I don't understand that."
Cruz's retort:
"I understand that you want to dismiss Ukrainian interference because A: they were
trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, which is what the vast majority of the media wanted
anyway. And B: it's inconvenient for the narrative."
If this exchange wasn't a set-up then I'll eat my MAGA hat*.
This bubbling "fat guy" comes with FOX News talking points and Joe Biden mops the floor
with him. Not only denouncing the question, but insulting the questioner. I like the majestic
(IMO pre-arranged) touch: "let him talk". Oh so respectful - yet seconds later he insults the
questioner!! LOL.
Anyone that dares to ask about Hunter Biden after this will be dismissed by Biden who will
say that the question's been asked and answered and he's being hounded by Trump
partisans.
From page 12 of Martyanov's RRMA, " people such as Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, none of whom had spent a
day serving in cadre officer uniform "
Rumsfeld was in fact a Naval Aviator who flew ASW aircraft for a number of years and retired from the Navy Reserve as a full
Captain.
Rumsfeld was in fact a Naval Aviator who flew ASW aircraft for a number of years
A Tracker, in 1950s for a couple of years, while having a degree in Political Science. That sure qualifies him for making strategic
decisions, right? Especially in the 21st century. Well, we all saw results, didn't we?
@Jim Christian Jim, a lot of truth in what you say. But especially this:
As for the military? A reflection of our society. When I went into the Navy in 1975, it was Stars and Stripes and we served
in large part for Mom, Apple Pie and Chevrolet.
Here is a quote from one of Russian undercover intelligence assets which was outed when Anna Chapman was outed. Unlike her,
however, this guy was a real deal. Here is what he had to say recently about US:
What is THEIR weakness? As enemies these guys are mediocrities, second rate. They overate. Their previous generation was
stronger. They respected us, we respected them. We don't respect these ones,they didn't deserve it. They can bully, as for
the real fight–we'll see about that They are enraged that soon they will have to live within their means.They forgot how to
do so long time ago. That is why they want to solve a problem with us now, while others are still afraid of them.
I remember 70s and 80s clearly, being myself a Cold Warrior, these were different times. many different people. Today, as you
say, I see decay everywhere in everything, the country (the US) was literally robbed, people blinded and all for a reasons of
bottom line in "business" and for Israel's, Saudi and corporate interests. The America I encountered in 1990s is gone.
So a republican staffer, a neocon without any diplomatic experience was the NSC senior director of European and Russian
affairs, the successor of Fiona Hill.
Washington
-- A top National Security Council official who listened to President Trump's July call with the
president of Ukraine told lawmakers he "promptly" told White House lawyers he was concerned details of the call would
become public, but did not think "anything illegal was discussed" during the conversation.
Tim Morrison, the outgoing senior director of European and Russian affairs at the National Security Council and a
deputy assistant to the president, is testifying before committees leading the
impeachment inquiry
on Capitol Hill on Thursday. He has emerged as a central witness to the events at the center
of the inquiry, particularly the administration's policy toward Ukraine.
CBS News learned the substance of his opening statement to the committees, which ran six pages and appears below.
Morrison said the summary released by the White House of the call between Mr. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky accurately reflects his memory and understanding of the call, but he said he had three concerns in the event
the summary became public.
"[F]irst, how it would play out in Washington's polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the
bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the
Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship," Morrison, who was in the Situation Room for the call, told
lawmakers. "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed."
However, he also corroborated a central allegation in the Democratic case against the president: that a U.S.
ambassador told a high-ranking Ukrainian official that the release of military aid was contingent on an investigation
into the Bidens.
Tim Morrison arrives for a deposition at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on October 31,
2019.
SAUL LOEB / AF
Morrison said his predecessor, Fiona Hill, told him about "concerns about two Ukraine processes that were
occurring": one led by traditional U.S. diplomatic entities, and one led by the U.S. Ambassador the E.U. Gordon
Sondland and Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. He said Hill told him about their efforts to get Ukraine
to investigate Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that had employed Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe
Biden's son.
"At the time, I did not know what Burisma was or what the investigation entailed," Morrison said. "After the
meeting with Dr. Hill, I googled Burisma and learned that it was a Ukrainian energy company and that Hunter Biden was
on its board."
Morrison said he spoke frequently with Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in the embassy in Kiev. Taylor
testified before the committees
last week and described his misgivings about efforts to pressure Ukraine
to open investigations into the president's rivals. Morrison, in his statement, confirmed the substance of Taylor's
account, but said he remembered two details differently.
Taylor testified that Morrison told him Sondland had demanded the Ukrainian president announce an investigation
into Burisma, while Morrison said he remembered Sondland saying an announcement by the country's top prosecutor would
suffice. Taylor also indicated Morrison met with the Ukrainian national security adviser in his hotel room, while
Morrison said it was in the hotel's business center.
Morrison said he learned about a delay in military aid to Ukraine shortly after assuming his post, and was tasked
with coordinating with various agencies to demonstrate why the aid was needed.
"I was confident that our national security principals -- the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, and the head of the National Security Council -- could convince President Trump to
release the aid," he said.
Morrison testified he had "no reason to believe" the Ukrainians knew of a delay in military aid until August 28,
and said he was unaware the aid may have been tied to the demand for an investigation into Burisma until he spoke to
Sondland on September 1.
Morrison arrived on Capitol Hill before 8 a.m. Thursday for his deposition after Democrats issued a subpoena for
his testimony. A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee chairman declined to comment on his opening statement.
Morrison appeared on the same day the House
approved a resolution
greenlighting the rules for impeachment proceedings moving forward.
On Wednesday, officials said Morrison would be leaving his White House post. He said in his statement he has yet
to submit his resignation "because I do not want anyone to think there is a connection between my testimony today and
my impending departure."
"I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump Administration to accomplish," he said.
Read Morrison's full statement
Opening Statement of Timothy Morrison
Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and
the House Committee on Oversight and Reform
October 31, 2019
Chairman Schiff and Members of the Committees, I appear today under subpoena to answer your questions about my
time as Senior Director for European Affairs at the White House and the National Security Council ("NSC"). I will
give you the most complete information I can, consistent with my obligations to the President and the protection of
classified information. I do not know who the whistleblower is, nor do I intend to speculate as to who it may be.
Before joining the NSC in 2018, I spent 17 years as a Republican staffer, serving in a variety of roles in both
houses of Congress. My last position was Policy Director for the then-Majority Staff of the House Armed Services
Committee.
I. The Role of the National Security Council
From July 9, 2018 to July 15, 2019, I served as a Special Assistant to the President for National Security and as
the NSC Senior Director for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Biodefense. In that role, I had limited exposure to
Ukraine, focusing primarily on foreign military sales and arms control. On July 15, 2019, I became Deputy Assistant
to the President for National Security. In this role, I serve as the lead interagency coordinator for national
security issues involving Europe and Russia.
It is important to start with the role of the NSC. Since its creation by Congress in 1947, the NSC has
appropriately evolved in shape and size to suit the needs of the President and the National Security Advisor it
serves at the time. But its mission and core function has fundamentally remained the same: to coordinate across
departments and agencies of the Executive Branch to ensure the President has the policy options he needs to
accomplish his objectives and to see that his decisions are implemented. The NSC staff does not make policy. NSC
staff are most effective when we are neutral arbiters, helping the relevant Executive Branch agencies develop options
for the President and implement his direction.
In my current position, I understood our primary U.S. policy objective in Ukraine was to take advantage of the
once-in-a-generation opportunity that resulted from the election of President Zelensky and the clear majority he had
gained in the Ukrainian Rada to see real anti-corruption reform take root.
The Administration's policy was that
the best way for the United States to show its support for President Zelensky's reform efforts was to make sure the
United States' longstanding bipartisan commitment to strengthen Ukraine's security remained unaltered, it is easy to
forget here in Washington, but impossible in Kyiv, that Ukraine is still under armed assault by Russia, a
nuclear-armed state.
We also tend to forget that the United States had helped convince Ukraine to give up Soviet
nuclear weapons in 1994. United States security sector assistance (from the Departments of Defense and State) is,
therefore, essential to Ukraine. Also essential is a strong and positive relationship with Ukraine at the highest
levels of our respective governments.
In my role as Senior Director for European Affairs, I reported directly to former Deputy National Security
Advisor, Dr. Charles Kupperman, and former National Security Advisor, Ambassador John Bolton. I kept them fully
informed on matters that I believed merited their awareness or when I felt I needed some direction. During the time
relevant to this inquiry, I never briefed the President or Vice President on matters related to Ukrainian security.
It was my job to coordinate with the U.S. Embassy Chief of Mission to Ukraine William Taylor, Special Representative
for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker, and other interagency stakeholders in the Departments of Defense and State of
Ukrainian matters.
My primary responsibility has been to ensure federal agencies had consistent messaging and policy guidance on
national security issues involving European and Russian affairs. As Dr. Fiona Hill and I prepared for me to succeed
her, one of the areas we discussed was Ukraine. In that discussion, she informed me of her concerns about two Ukraine
processes that were occurring: the normal interagency process led by the NSC with the typical department and agency
participation and a separate process that involved chiefly the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union. Dr. Hill told
me that Ambassador Sondland and President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, were trying to get President
Zelensky to reopen Ukrainian investigations into Burisma. At the time, I did not know what Burisma was or what the
investigation entailed. After the meeting with Dr. Hill, I googled Burisma and learned that it was a Ukrainian energy
company and that Hunter Biden was on its board. I also did not understand why Ambassador Sondland would be involved
in Ukraine policy, often without the involvement of our duly-appointed Chief of Mission, Ambassador Bill Taylor.
My most frequent conversations were with Ambassador Taylor because he was the U.S. Chief of Mission in Ukraine and
I was his chief conduit for information related to White House deliberations, including security sector assistance
and potential head-of-state meetings. This is a normal part of the coordination process.
II. Review of Open Source Documents in Preparation for Testimony
In preparation for my appearance today, I reviewed the statement Ambassador Taylor provided this inquiry on
October 22, 2019. I can confirm that the substance of his statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is
accurate. My recollections differ on two of the details, however. I have a slightly different recollection of my
September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland. On page 10 of Ambassador Taylor's statement, he recounts a
conversation I relayed to him regarding Ambassador Sondland's conversation with Ukrainian Presidential Advisor Yermak.
Ambassador Taylor wrote: "Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until
President Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation." My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland's
proposal to Mr. Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general -- not President Zelensky -- would
commit to pursue the Burisma investigation. I also would like to clarify that I did not meet with the Ukrainian
National Security Advisor in his hotel room, as Ambassador Taylor indicated on page 11 of his statement. Instead, an
NSC aide and I met with Mr. Danyliuk in the hotel's business center.
I also reviewed the Memorandum of Conversation ("MemCont') of the July 25 phone call that was released by the
White House. I listened to the call as it occurred from the Situation Room. To the best of my recollection, the
MemCon accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call. I also recall that I did not see anyone from the
NSC Legal Advisor's Office in the room during the call. After the call, I promptly asked the NSC Legal Advisor and
his Deputy to review it. I had three concerns about a potential leak of the MemCon: first, how it would play out in
Washington's polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners
currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine
relationship. I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.
III. White House Hold on Security Sector Assistance
I was not aware that the White House was holding up the security sector assistance passed by Congress until my
superior, Dr. Charles Kupperman, told me soon after I succeeded Dr. Hill. I was aware that the President thought
Ukraine had a corruption problem, as did many others familiar with Ukraine. I was also aware that the President
believed that Europe did not contribute enough assistance to Ukraine. I was directed by Dr. Kupperman to coordinate
with the interagency stakeholders to put together a policy process to demonstrate that the interagency supported
security sector assistance to Ukraine. I was confident that our national security principals -- the Secretaries of State
and Defense, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the head of the National Security Council -- could
convince President Trump to release the aid because President Zelensky and the reform-oriented Rada were genuinely
invested in their anti-corruption agenda.
Ambassador Taylor and I were concerned that the longer the money was withheld, the more questions the Zelensky
administration would ask about the U.S. commitment to Ukraine. Our initial hope was that the money would be released
before the hold became public because we did not want the newly constituted Ukrainian government to question U.S.
support.
I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the review until August 28, 2019. Ambassador
Taylor and I had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector assistance might be conditioned on a
public statement reopening the Burisma investigation until my September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland.
Even then I hoped that Ambassador Sondland's strategy was exclusively his own and would not be considered by leaders
in the Administration and Congress, who understood the strategic importance of Ukraine to our national security.
I am pleased our process gave the President the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector
assistance. My regret is that Ukraine ever learned of the review and that, with this impeachment inquiry, Ukraine has
become subsumed in the U.S. political process.
IV. Conclusion
After 19 years of government service, I have decided to leave the NSC. I have not submitted a formal resignation
at this time because I do not want anyone to think there is a connection between my testimony today and my impending
departure. I plan to finalize my transition from the NSC after my testimony is complete.
During my time in public service, I have worked with some of the smartest and most self-sacrificing people in this
country. Serving at the White House in this time of unprecedented global change has been the opportunity of a
lifetime. I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump Administration to accomplish.
Well, spending 5% of GDP on military and lowering further the standard of living of population will definitely increase the
security of the US MIC. Not so much the security of Ukraine.
Attributed to Mark Twain. Perhaps the learned professor Karlan may affirm: "Never argue with
stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
I cannot understand how any Democrat who is interested in winning in 2020 can think that
Biden is their best candidate. Similarly, I do not understand how any neoliberal can think
that backing Biden will save their positions in the party apparatus. If Biden is nominated
and is badly beaten, the dinosaurs now running the party will not be able to simultaneously
hold off the prog left while also holding the party together. But they seem bent on repeating
the same mistake the GOP made in 2012 with Romney.
If Biden had a better answer - or any answer - regarding Hunter, that would be one thing.
Like Kamala Harris's inability to respond to attacks on her Weed-For-Me-But-Not-For-Thee
stance, the media shield surrounding Borg-ists does not help them when they are unable to
avoid questions about actually existing reality.
Questions about his crackhead son is an obvious trigger, and all Biden is doing is
telegraphing this opening to Trump. The President, who never got the memo that the job of
conservatives is to lose gracefully and repeatedly so long as the tax cuts flowed, will not
shrink from using this the way a loser like Romney would.
My guess is Democrats know they can't win in 2020, so they will sacrifice their most
expendable and/or most annoying.
Biden earned this 2020 shot by sheer longevity in the system, but since he will be a 2020
loser, why not put him in this unenviable position as the DNC nominee. John McCain served a
similar purpose in 2008 - when no GOP had a chance after GW Bush.
No one wanted the job, so falling on his sword with some sense of duty John McCain stood
up as best he could. He goosed the entire operation with his addition of Sarah Palin which
opened up new legions of GOP voters.
And exposed the hypocrisy of the Left at the same time - no one was more anti-women than
the Democrats who attacked both Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin with unrestrained venom.
Someone should be taking Joe Biden's car keys away not trying to give him an important
government position. His mental acuity was never above average seems to have degraded
significantly. Pity the corrupt DNC can not allow the likes of Gabbard or Yang to shine more
brightly.
You expose the most obvious flaw in Schiff's impeachment crusade. Trump did not need any
"dirt" on Biden in order to win 2020. Biden will dig his own 6 feet under abode on his own,
if he makes it to the DNC nomination.
In fact, Trump would have gone out of his way to make sure Biden was the DNC pick. Which
is why this entire impeachment charade continues to get no traction. It simply does not sound
in fact. Regardless of the trumped up charges we are now being exposed to.
The more realistic picture is Trump sweeping the path in front of Biden, with a broom like
in a curling match, making sure Biden gets the DNC nod.
"... Today USA even is no more an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything negotiated by a rival spider. ..."
US political "elites" are generally appallingly incompetent in matters of war and are
"educated" mostly through Hollywood and Clansiesque "literature". I am not even sure that
they comprehend what Congressional Research Service prepares for them as compressed
briefings. Neocon wing of US political elite is simply mentally inadequate.
Very true, especially the part about "Hollywood and Clansiesque 'literature.'" I used to
read Clancy's books and, while entertaining, in retrospect they appear ridiculous, even
childish. But they probably capture the popular notion of American military invincibility
better than any other.
Most of Hollywood's output is garbage anyway, and its grasp of real war and military
matters appears to be that of a not so precocious third grader.
Katyn, whoever did it, was much before Cold War and before even first relatively small
nuclear blast.
And if you want to go that far – why not remember crisis over West Berlin, where
tank armees were watching one another, but no one pulled trigger?
Afghanistan was attacking one's own ally. Same as Prague 1968 and Hungary 1956.
If you want to compare – that is like USA invading Panama to remove their no longer
reliable puppet Norriega.
Did American attack on their own Panama risk USSR going ballistic? Hardly so. There was no Soviet invasion into Pakistan nor there was Chinese/American invasion into
India.
And looking away from purely military events, there was no attempt to arrest the whole
embassy stuff them, neither in Moscow nor in DC. No killing Soviet ambassadors in NATO states
during official events.
Those dirty games had red lines, both sides maintained. Today? Today USA even is no more
an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution
any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything
negotiated by a rival spider.
> deploying conventional anti-ballistic missile defenses around their most important
cities.
No, by then effective treaty both USSR and USA had only ONE region they were allowed to
protect.
Those were some nuclear launchpads in USA i guess, and one single city (Moscow) in USSR. No
more.
> deterrence [did not] worked > See the last phrase in bullet 2.
You suppose USSR killed itself trying to keep deterrence working.
That does not show it did not work, already.
That shows it worked so well (at least from Soviet perspective) that they gambled all they
had on the futile effort of keeping that deterrence working into the future.
Calling Trump 'Putin's boy' brings up coup tactics used by Birchers when Truman fired
MacArthur!
Brookings tools (Mr. Vindman (I have silver leaves Vindman does not fit) , Fiona Hill,
Holmes eavesdropping....) pleading to Schiff that Trump ain't their kind of 'Murekan empire
builder.
Making up "charges", hearsay evidence, hiding DNC US #resistance corruption, despise the
constitution, hide behind it and patriotism...... define democracy and who is 'patriotic'.
All the trappings of Mao and Hitler before they took over.
"...Making up 'charges', hearsay evidence, hiding DNC US #resistance corruption, despise the
constitution, hide behind it and patriotism...... define democracy and who is 'patriotic'.
All the trappings of Mao and Hitler before they took over."
[Funny (NOT) that they say the same thing about Trump. Your adversaries and yourself would
all make better lampshades or bars of soap than you do citizens.
Democracy has never been more than an illusion, sometimes just an allusion, particularly
though in modern republican times. Leaders have all too rarely been patriotic aside from
maybe George Washington, who largely despised the representative government that he had made.
TJ did not exactly fall in love with the US Congress either. In these times the political
class and their pet sycophants are more idiotic than patriotic.]
One bone: the coup #resistance despises the "office of the president" more than they (swamp
trolls like Schiff's tool Vindman) disdain deplorables and the US constitution.
It is a constitutional thingie in my view going back to the Henry Luce media and
Birchers/McCarthy (the ragings over "who lost Chiang's fiefdom in China?") going after anyone
who they described wrongfully in most cases as "subversives".
I believe that Washington was like Ike as to taking up the executive office.
"Eric Foner" in an effort to unearth this buried history
Calls Congressional Reconstruction
A second founding of the Republic
Reconstruction like the New Deal
Ended by producing its opposite
[ Please be careful in spelling names, and set down where the specific reference is. This
will be important, if a reference is set down. Also, further explanation when possible would
be helpful. ]
I doubt that it was imagination that characterized Joe McCarthy's behavior, but with friend
kurt then imagination appears to be in full blossom. Joe McCarthy was just an opportunistic
scoundrel crassly impersonating a concerned patriot as a pure political convenience for
attacking the left in general with specific intentions on casting a specter of fear over all
New Deal loyalists. He weaponized socialist sympathizers against FDR's legacy. Remember that
it was socialist sentiments that gave rise to FDR and his New Deal. It seemed only fair to
Joe that those same sentiments be used to cover FDR in his grave.
"... It may be as simple as Trump does not really know what he's doing. He doesn't seem to understand the complexity and dynamics of foreign policy. The way he handled Israel is an example as well as some of the bombs he ordered dropped on Afghanistan and Syria. Was he behind that or was someone else? ..."
"... After Bolton came onboard, and then Eliot Abrams, the 24/7 Russia-gate suddenly stopped. That was also around the time USA was fomenting a Venezuelan coup. Was obvious that Russia-Gate was designed to control Trump. ..."
"... The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington, elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the abomination. ..."
"... If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see. Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar. ..."
@Z-man I
wasn't sure how to characterize McMaster and Kelly. My sense was that they represented the
foreign policy establishment consensus, ergo neocon by default.
I share your optimism about Trump -- because it's the only strand of hope out there, and
his enemies are so impeccably loathsome -- but am fully prepared to be proved wrong.
"How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it
was the doing and legacy of the neocon John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security
adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate such
appointees."
It started before Bolton came on board.
Believe Trump when he says "Loyalty to me first". And that begins with his son in law
Jared .his former personal attorney Jason Greenblatt .his former bankruptcy attorney David
Friedman and his largest donor Sheldon Adelson .
Trump is too stupid to see that his Zios have no loyalty to him. Trump doesn't appoint anyone, doesn't even know anyone to appoint to national security or
foreign policy. He never had any associations or confidents in his business life in NY except
the above Jews .
Ask yourself how a 29 year old Jewish boy (now gone) with zero experience got brought onto
the WH NSC. He was recommended by Gen. Flynn who did it as a favor to Zio Frank Gaffney of
Iraq fame, and Jared because he was a friend of Jared and Gaffney was a friend Ezra's family.
..getting the picture?
All Trumps appointments look like a chain letter started by Kushner and his Zio
connections.
It may be as simple as Trump does not really know what he's doing. He doesn't seem to
understand the complexity and dynamics of foreign policy. The way he handled Israel is an
example as well as some of the bombs he ordered dropped on Afghanistan and Syria. Was he
behind that or was someone else?
He's a walking contradiction.
After Bolton came onboard, and then Eliot Abrams, the 24/7 Russia-gate suddenly stopped.
That was also around the time USA was fomenting a Venezuelan coup. Was obvious that
Russia-Gate was designed to control Trump.
There was a lull in the attacks on Trump between the time they stopped the 24/7
Russia-gate garbage and start of Impeachment inquiry.
He did something else to tick them all off, so now impeachment is on front burner.
In the days of Kissinger, Baker, et al the Imperial Staff were well coached in the
Calculus of Power, knew the limits to Empire and thrived within them. Since the end of
history, and the apparent end of limits, policy makers had no more need of realists and their
confusing calculations and analyses.
The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about
creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll
act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of
their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington,
elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in
zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in
a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the
abomination.
In the second term watch out Trump is not as dumb as they think
I too believe he isn't dumb, but the real question is whether he's playing the fool in
furtherance of a plan, or whether it's just who he is and his successes are accidental.
The Deep State's (aka: PFPE's) ongoing behaviour indicates that Trump's using buffoonery
to work a plan that's anathema to their created realities, and their increasing shrillness
indicates it's working. At every turn, he's managed to make unavailable the resources their
reality called for. From the M.E., to the Ukraine to N. Korea to Venezuela, things just
aren't working the way they're supposed to. In fact, they're invariably working out in a way
that exposes the Deep State's ineptitude and malevolence, and maximizes its
embarrassment.
If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see.
Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised
to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see
if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar.
Decades old rhetorical question and answer-the indolent, indoctrinated and illiterate masses
who only care about the Super Bowl and other sports,Disneyland and burgers. Twelve per cent of
Americans have never heard of the Vice President Mike Pence - that is 30,870,000 American
adults.
It is the same people who have been making it since the creation of central banks in
America (all three of them).
Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there
been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a
handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country,
they will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They
will not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war.
– John Turner, 1922
What coup? There have been loads of offenses, mostly to the liberal sense of decorum and
mildly to the republican notion of fair play. Orange is the new black.
"The story that has emerged in the impeachment hearings is one of extortion and bribery."
Ralph Nader and conservative constitutional scholar Bruce Fein have put together a
succinct series of audio topics on these and other good articles of impeachment, some which
are probably much more serious but would have also applied to most other recent
presidents.
It comes to mind that since most of Ralph and Bruce's articles equally apply to previous
Democratic presidents, and expose institutional disfunction among all the branches, that
Leadership may be pursuing this rather narrow inquiry to avoid some kind of self
incrimination unpleasantness.
Yes, the reason Democrats haven't gone after Trump for his more obvious forms of criminality
is most likely that they are guilty of the same forms of corruption.
Has anyone checked out what O'Bomber has been up to lately. It turns out that he's been
cashing out (no quid pro quo there!) And he's been hobnobbing with the wealthy folks who own
the Democratic Party and in his spare time he's been criticizing the Left!
"Equipped with fame, wealth, and a vast reservoir of residual goodwill Obama now has more
power to do good in an hour than most of us do in a lifetime. The demands of etiquette and
propriety notwithstanding, he no longer has intransigent Blue Dog senators to appease, donors
to placate, or personal electoral considerations to keep him up at night. When he speaks or
acts, we can be reasonably certain he does so out of sincere choice and that the substance of
his words and actions reflect the real Barack Obama and how he honestly sees the world.
It therefore tells us a great deal that, given the latitude, resources, and moral authority
with which to influence events, Obama has spent his post-presidency cozying up to the global
elite and delivering vapid speeches to corporate interests in exchange for unthinkable sums
of money.
Though often remaining out of the spotlight, he has periodically appeared next to various
CEOs at events whose descriptions might be read as cutting satire targeting the hollowness of
business culture if they weren't all-too real. As the world teeters on the brink of
ecological disaster, he recently cited an increase in America's output of oil under his
administration as a laudable achievement.
When Obama has spoken about or intervened in politics, it's most often been to bolster the
neoliberal center-right or attack and undermine the Left." https://jacobinmag.com/2019/11/obama-socialism
But to EMichael and his ilk, it was all Republicans' fault that O'bombers didn't get much
done O'Bomber's eye on his personal prize--his post-presidential earning potential--never
figured in!!!
Stephen Cohen (one of the few pundits who actually knows something about Russia:)
"Almost daily for three years, Democrats and their media have told us very bad things
about Donald Trump's life, character, and presidency. Some of them are true. But in the
process, we have also learned some lamentable, even alarming, things about the Democratic
Party establishment, including self-professed liberals. Consider the following:
The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia
attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an
"attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. But there was no "attack"
in 2016, only, as I have previously explained, ritualistic "meddling" of the kind that both
Russia and America have undertaken in the other's elections for decades. Little can be more
phobic than the allegation or belief that one has been "attacked by a hostile" entity. And
yet this myth and its false narrative persist in the Democratic Party's discourse,
campaigning, and fund-raising.
We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under President
Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National
Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy
and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this operation
"Intelgate," and it has since been well documented by other writers, including Lee Smith in
his new book. Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain leading, and equally
Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed such transgressions.
This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will leave power, but
these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain.
We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be
fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream media --
leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to cover and
report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of Russiagate
allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The New York
Times seem eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and his
appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's critics
accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and
the Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert
Mueller report.
And we have learned, or should have learned, that for all the talk by Democrats about
Trump as a danger to US national security, it is their Russiagate allegations that truly
endanger it. Consider two examples. Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can elude US
missile-defense systems, make new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative and
urgent. If only for the sake of his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so.But even if he
is able to, will Trump be entrusted enough to conduct negotiations as successfully as did his
predecessors in the White House, given the "Putin puppet" and "Kremlin stooge" accusations
still being directed at him?" https://www.thenation.com/article/inconvenient-truths-2/
The Russia thingie/falsehoods are part of corrupt demrats assault on the US constitution.
They are even now predicting their loss in 2020 due to "interference" and people wanting to
know how corrupt the DNC [front running] select has been!
Demrat allies in the shadow revolving door government of neocon humbug factories are
denouncing Trump for his ignoring their war mongering imperial objects.
[Adding assault to injury? The US Constitution was damning enough on its own. What are
they thinking inside the deep state apparatus? Don't they know that power and privilege is
reserved for holders of wealth by the US Constitution? Who do they think that they are really
working for?]
Friend ilsm may be less nuts than it appears, but friend ilsm is not less incomprehensible
than it appears. Would it be out of place to thank you for ilsm's sake?
Our two-party system was largely useless after FDR, but our two-party system has been
largely destructive since 1968. Let me know if anything really changes.
It isn't our two party system - it is one of the two parties contained within. The "both
sides" are bad is both demonstrably not accurate (with some exceptions that prove the rule)
and requires ignoring the shattered norms of the last 10 years that came from only one side.
Mitch McConnell is the most dangerous person in America. Trump and Pence are just useful
idiots. But Trump is also corrupt and dangerous because he doesn't believe he is constrained
by anything. And Mitch keeps proving him right.
The cause goes back as far as Truman with roots all the way back to our nation's founding on
the shoulders of slaves and a trail of tears, but "the shattered norms of the last 10 years
that came from only one side" were the inevitable effect of a failed political system. When
the US government has no obvious external enemies and imminent threats then it must
manufacture them from within to maintain a meaningful commanding presence. Otherwise the
government would be tasked with solving our nation's social and economic problems, which
would be both costly and far too complicated for simple self-absorbed minds.
I disagree. What the problem is now is that non-whites and women have taken some power - and
in fact may be able to displace the white christian patriarchy (actually, I think as long as
we can hang onto a free and fair democracy this is inevitable) and the white christian
patriarchy is trying to rule from the minority via fascism and authoritarianism.
I could almost understand this obsession had you never left Indiana, presumably Indianapolis
or somewhere similar, but unlikely Gary. There is greater diversity in the US than just what
you have seen. Every picture tells a story, and it is a different story for each.
Overall the common ground that moves everyone everywhere is money, which in some cases is
just a proxy for power and in other cases is a means to material satisfaction. If one already
has power, then purchase can be had in reverse, money for power instead of power for money.
This is a great explaination of why we need 1. independent regulatory agencies with power, 2.
white collar crime enforcement 3. rule of law and most of all 4. an independent judiciary
that is not overrun by ideologues and theocrats who ignore the first amendment wholesale.
It would have been nice if Obama has demonstrated his concern for the rule of law by frog
marching banksters to Rikers, closing Guantanamo, and prosecuting CIA torturers.
But kurt is only concerned with the rule of law when his party is not in power typical
partisan hack.
I have been to every state except Alaska and have lived in the North East, Southwest,
Midwest, South and California. My comment was about power structures - and the patriarchy of
white supremacy and christianity. I am well aware of the diversity. Heck - I even lived next
to the Great Checkerboard for 3 summers.
"... Just war theory and military ethics crumble to dust on the battle field. We rarely fight because it is right, but rather because in some context it seemed necessary at the time. After 9/11 there was an imperative that the US military wage an extended war against any and every group of Muslims that defied US global hegemony in any way. ..."
The average demorat, aside from worshipping Ba'al and hating the constitution, is depraved,
been such since crooked Hillary forgot that the neocon, empire spreading, war mongering
liberals living on the coasts do not run the world.
"...the neocon, empire spreading, war mongering liberals living on the coasts do not run the
world."
[Who says that they do not? Certainly, it is close enough to that for government work.
Besides, in the end corporations and the interests of the donor class dictate the rules of
engagement for both illiberal and unconservative politicians. How the dogs of politics fight
over scraps thrown out for them should be of less interest to the wage class than who is
throwing out the scraps to them.]
Of course a former Air Force military hardware procurements officer likely knows no more
about present day life among the wage class than a banker. That would be like thinking that a
kid raised in poverty by the welfare state knew how to farm. Still, it is possible for either
one to be haunted by guilt late in life.
You are bound with your adversaries in ways known only to God, not a religious testimonial
but merely a proxy for the abstraction of omniscience. Some things can be seen as clear as
day and remain a complete mystery, to me at least.
At the very least Trump is guilty of being Trump. So, if you believe the charges against
Trump are Trumped up, then what else would you expect?
Just war theory and military ethics crumble to dust on the battle field. We rarely
fight because it is right, but rather because in some context it seemed necessary at the
time. After 9/11 there was an imperative that the US military wage an extended war against
any and every group of Muslims that defied US global hegemony in any way.
The US Constitution was written and then rewritten repeatedly in blood going all the way
back to Apr 19, 1775. That is what it means to be an American, son, my Cherokee ancestors
notwithstanding.
"... This is just low level Soviet-style propaganda: "Beacon of democracy" and "Hope of all progressive mankind" cliché. My impression is that the train left the station long ago, especially as for democracy. Probably in 1963. The reality is a nasty struggle of corrupt political clans. Which involves intelligence agencies dirty tricks. BTW, how do you like that fact that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in intelligence agencies' cheerleading squad? ..."
"... And both Corporate Dems and opposing them Republican are afraid to discuss the real issues facing the country, such as loss of manufacturing, loss of good middle class jobs (fake labor statistics covers the fact the most new jobs are temps/contractors and McJobs), rampant militarism with Afghan war lasting decades, neocon dominance in foreign policy which led to increase of country debt to level that might soon be unsustainable. ..."
"... Both enjoy impeachment Kabuki theater. With Trump probably enjoying this theatre the most: if they just censure him, he wins, if charges go to Senate, he wins big. ..."
From the founding of this country, the power of the president was understood to have
limits. Indeed, the Founders would never have written an impeachment clause into the
Constitution if they did not foresee scenarios where their descendants might need to remove
an elected president before the end of his term in order to protect the American people and
the nation.
The question before the country now is whether President Trump's misconduct is severe
enough that Congress should exercise that impeachment power, less than a year before the 2020
election. The results of the House Intelligence Committee inquiry, released to the public on
Tuesday, make clear that the answer is an urgent yes. Not only has the president abused his
power by trying to extort a foreign country to meddle in US politics, but he also has
endangered the integrity of the election itself. He has also obstructed the congressional
investigation into his conduct, a precedent that will lead to a permanent diminution of
congressional power if allowed to stand.
The evidence that Trump is a threat to the constitutional system is more than sufficient,
and a slate of legal scholars who testified on Wednesday made clear that Trump's actions are
just the sort of presidential behavior the Founders had in mind when they devised the
recourse of impeachment. The decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to proceed with drafting
articles of impeachment is warranted.
Much of the information in the Intelligence Committee report, which was based on witness
interviews, documents, telephone records, and public statements by administration officials,
was already known to the public. The cohesive narrative that emerges, though, is worse than
the sum of its parts. This year, the president and subordinates acting at his behest
repeatedly tried to pressure a foreign country, Ukraine, into taking steps to help the
president's reelection. That was, by itself, an outrageous betrayal: In his dealings with
foreign states, the president has an obligation to represent America's interests, not his
own.
But the president also betrayed the US taxpayer to advance that corrupt agenda. In order
to pressure Ukraine into acceding to his request, Trump's administration held up $391 million
in aid allocated by Congress. In other words, he demanded a bribe in the form of political
favors in exchange for an official act -- the textbook definition of corruption. The fact
that the money was ultimately paid, after a whistle-blower complained, is immaterial: The act
of withholding taxpayer money to support a personal political goal was an impermissible abuse
of the president's power.
Withholding the money also sabotaged American foreign policy. The United States provides
military aid to Ukraine to protect the country from Russian aggression. Ensuring that fragile
young democracy does not fall under Moscow's sway is a key US policy goal, and one that the
president put at risk for his personal benefit. He has shown the world that he is willing to
corrupt the American policy agenda for purposes of political gain, which will cast suspicion
on the motivations of the United States abroad if Congress does not act.
To top off his misconduct, after Congress got wind of the scheme and started the
impeachment inquiry, the Trump administration refused to comply with subpoenas, instructed
witnesses not to testify, and intimidated witnesses who did. That ought to form the basis of
an article of impeachment. When the president obstructs justice and fails to respect the
power of Congress, it strikes at the heart of the separation of powers and will hobble future
oversight of presidents of all parties.
Impeachment does not require a crime. The Constitution entrusts Congress with the
impeachment power in order to protect Americans from a president who is betraying their
interests. And it is very much in Americans' interests to maintain checks and balances in the
federal government; to have a foreign policy that the world can trust is based on our
national interest instead of the president's personal needs; to control federal spending
through their elected representatives; to vote in fair elections untainted by foreign
interference. For generations, Americans have enjoyed those privileges. What's at stake now
is whether we will keep them. The facts show that the president has threatened this country's
core values and the integrity of our democracy. Congress now has a duty to future generations
to impeach him.
How can Trump have sabotaged American foreign policy, when he has full responsibility and
authority to set it?
IMO this impeachment is partly about Trump personally asking a foreign country for help
against a domestic political opponent. But it is mostly about geopolitics and the national
security bureaucracy's need for US world domination.
Just listen to the impeachment testimony--most of it is whining about Trump's failure to
follow the 'interagency' policies of the deep state.
Stalin would approve that. And if so, what is the difference between impeachment and a
show trial, Moscow trials style? The majority can eliminate political rivals, if it wishes
so, right? This was how Bolsheviks were thinking in 30th. Of course, those backward Soviets used "British spy" charge instead modern, sophisticated
"Putin's stooge" charge, but still ;-)
The facts show that the president has threatened this country's core values and the integrity
of our democracy.
This is just low level Soviet-style propaganda: "Beacon of democracy" and "Hope of all
progressive mankind" cliché. My impression is that the train left the station long ago, especially as for democracy.
Probably in 1963. The reality is a nasty struggle of corrupt political clans. Which involves intelligence
agencies dirty tricks. BTW, how do you like that fact that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in
intelligence agencies' cheerleading squad?
In short Boston Globe editors do not want that their audience understand the situation, in
which the county have found itself. They just want to brainwash this audience (with impunity)
And both Corporate Dems and opposing them Republican are afraid to discuss the real issues
facing the country, such as loss of manufacturing, loss of good middle class jobs (fake labor
statistics covers the fact the most new jobs are temps/contractors and McJobs), rampant
militarism with Afghan war lasting decades, neocon dominance in foreign policy which led to
increase of country debt to level that might soon be unsustainable.
Both enjoy impeachment Kabuki theater. With Trump probably enjoying this theatre the most:
if they just censure him, he wins, if charges go to Senate, he wins big.
Can you imagine result for Corporate Dems of Schiff (with his contacts with Ciaramella ) ,
or Hunter Biden (who was just a mule to get money to Biden's family for his father illegal
lobbing) testifying in Senate under oath.
The truth is that they are all criminals (with many being war criminals.) So Beria
statement "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime" is fully applicable. That really is
something that has survived the Soviet Union and has arrived in the good old USA.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made no secret of her desire to pass the
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement by the end of the year
Meanwhile, a top priority for labor has been sitting quietly on Pelosi's desk and, unlike
USMCA, already commands enough support to get it over the House finish line. The Protecting
the Right to Organize Act would be the most comprehensive rewrite of U.S. labor law in
decades. It would eliminate right-to-work laws, impose new penalties on employers who
retaliate against union organizing, crack down on worker misclassification, and establish new
rules so that employers cannot delay negotiating collective bargaining contracts." https://theintercept.com/2019/12/02/nancy-pelosi-usmca-pro-act-unions/
Echoes of 2009, when Pelosi refused to pass union card check, when it had already passed
the House in 2007? The difference? In 2007 Bush would have vetoes. In 2009, Democrats had the
votes and a Democratic president, so they chose to ignore their campaign promise.
'Senate Intel Committee Chairman @SenatorBurr: "Every
elected official in the Ukraine was for Hillary Clinton. Is that very different than the
Russians being for Donald Trump?"
"You considered Russia meddling with just the preference they had before you knew the rest
of it. Apply the same standard to Ukraine. The President can say that they meddled because they
had a preference, the elected officials, that's not the current people."
Q: Is there any evidence that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election? BURR: I don't think
there's any question that elected officials in Ukraine had a favorite in the election.
Q: Would you consider that meddling? BURR: I mean, you'll have to define meddling, but that
was something that was publicly out there.'
The interview concluded with a long passage in which Burr does some tap-dancing that would
have shamed the Nicholas Brothers.
And the interview itself is even more preposterous given the news that the very committee
that Burr chairs already has dismissed the whole Ukrainian fantasy has groundless....
Even Burr now is parroting the absurd notion that a preference for Hillary Rodham Clinton on
the part of the Ukrainian leadership in 2016 -- a preference they shared with practically every
other government on the planet, then and now -- is somehow mysteriously equivalent to the
Russian ratfcking. They're all lost now, amazingly so. It will confound future historians, who
will wander through whatever's left, kicking the rubble ahead of them and wondering how
everybody had been so easily turned."
"... Such awareness of Manafort's plans could have been obtained either through FBI surveillance , which began in 2014 and ended in early 2016, or through information provided by Manafort associates, for example, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik , who worked for Manafort and was a FBI and Department of State asset, not a Russian agent as later painted by the Mueller investigation. ..."
"... According to White House visitor logs , on January 19, 2016, Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting of FBI, Department of Justice and Department of State personnel, which had two main objectives: ..."
December 2015 was a pivotal month in many respects...
During the first week of December 2015, Donald Trump began to establish a substantial
lead over his
Republican primary opponents.
Vice President Joseph Biden traveled to Ukraine to announce, on
December 7th, a $190 million program to "fight corruption in law enforcement and reform the
justice sector," but behind the scenes explicitly linked a $1 billion loan guarantee to the
firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who had been investigating the energy company
Burisma, which employed Biden's son Hunter.
On December 9, 2015, the reported whistleblower Eric Ciaramella held a meeting in Room 236
of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the
Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center, which was 59%- funded by Barack Obama's State Department
and the International Renaissance Foundation, a George Soros organization.
Also attending that meeting was Catherine Newcombe, attorney in the Criminal Division,
Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, with the U.S. Department of Justice, where,
among other duties, she oversaw the Department's legal assistance programs to Ukraine.
By December 2015, Paul Manafort was undoubtedly considering approaching the Trump campaign
to rejuvenate his U.S. political bona fides and mitigate the legal and financial difficulties he was
experiencing at the time.
From the beginning of his association with the Trump campaign, Roger Stone, a long-time
Manafort partner, made a strong case to Trump to bring in
Manafort, who would officially connect to the campaign
immediately after the February 1, 2016 Iowa caucuses.
Based on events occurring during the same period, were Obama Deep State operatives aware of
Manafort's intent and already intending to use his past questionable practices and links to
Russia against Trump?
Such awareness of Manafort's plans could have been obtained either through FBI surveillance , which began
in 2014 and ended in early 2016, or through information provided by Manafort associates, for
example, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik , who worked for
Manafort and was a FBI and Department of State asset, not a Russian agent as later painted by
the Mueller investigation.
According to White House
visitor logs , on January 19, 2016, Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting of FBI, Department of
Justice and Department of State personnel, which had two main objectives:
To coerce the Ukrainians to drop the Burisma probe , which involved Vice President Joseph
Biden's son Hunter, and allow the FBI to take it over the investigation.
To reopen a closed 2014 FBI investigation that focused heavily on GOP lobbyist Paul
Manafort , whose firm long had been tied to Trump through his partner and Trump pal, Roger
Stone.
That is, contain the investigation of Biden's son and ramp up the investigation of Paul
Manafort.
Again, according to White House
logs , the attendees at the January 19, 2016 meeting in Room 230A of the Eisenhower
Executive Office Building were:
Eric Ciaramella - National Security Council Director for Ukraine
Liz Zentos - National Security Council Director for Eastern Europe
David G. Sakvarelidze - Deputy General Prosecutor of Ukraine
Nazar A. Kholodnitsky, Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor
Catherine L. Newcombe - attorney in the Criminal Division, Office of Overseas
Prosecutorial Development, with the U.S. Department of Justice
Svitlana V. Pardus – Operations, Department of Justice, U.S. Embassy, Ukraine.
Artem S. Sytnyk - Director of the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine
Andriy G. Telizhenko, political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington DC
Jeffrey W. Cole - Resident Legal Advisor at U.S. Embassy Ukraine, presumed to be FBI
Just two weeks after that meeting, on February 2, 2016, according to White
House logs , Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting in Room 374 of the Eisenhower Executive
Office, which seems to be a planning session to re-open an investigation of Paul Manafort
(Note: one of the crimes of which Manafort was accused was money laundering, an area covered by
the Department of the Treasury). The attendees were:
Jose Borrayo - Acting Section Chief, Office of Special Measures, U.S. Department of the
Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Julia Friedlander - Senior Policy Advisor for Europe, Office of Terrorist Financing and
Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Michael Lieberman - Deputy Assistant Secretary, Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes,
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Scott Rembrandt - Anti-Money Laundering Task Force, Assistant Director/Director, Office
of Strategic Policy, Department of the Treasury
Justin Rowland - Special Agent (financial crimes), Federal Bureau of Investigation
It appears that Paul Manafort became a vehicle by which the Obama Deep State operatives
could link Trump to nefarious activities involving Russians, which eventually evolved into the
Trump-Russia collusion hoax.
Remember, the key claim of the follow-up Steele dossier, the centerpiece of the Mueller
investigation, was that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was the focal point of a
"well-developed conspiracy between them [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership."
Nellie Ohr, Fusion GPS employee and wife of Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr, not
only worked with Christopher Steele on the so-called Trump dossier, but, in May 2016, was the
conduit of information to her husband and two Department of Justice prosecutors of the
existence of the "black ledger" documents that contributed to Manafort's prosecution.
Bruce Ohr and Steele attempted to get dirt on Manafort from a Russian oligarch, Oleg
Deripaska, efforts that eventually led to a September 2016 meeting in which the FBI asked
Deripaska if he could provide information to prove that Manafort was helping Trump collude with
Russia.
The surveillance and entrapment attempts of Paul Manafort, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos
and others were designed to collect evidence about Trump
without formally documenting that Trump was the target.
After the election, to cover their tracks, James Comey, representing the FBI and the
Department of Justice, misleadingly told Trump that the investigation was about
Russia and a few stray people in his campaign, but they assured him he personally was not under
investigation.
They lied.
Donald Trump always was, and still is, the target of the Deep State , the left-wing media
and their Democrat Party collaborators.
"... We have become the shining city on a hill. We have become the nation that leads the world in understanding what democracy is. And one of the things we understand most profoundly is it’s not a real democracy, it’s not a mature democracy, if the party in power uses the criminal process to go after its enemies. And I think you heard testimony — the Intelligence Committee heard testimony about how it isn’t just our national interest in protecting our own elections. It’s not just our national interest in making sure that the Ukraine remains strong and on the front line so they fight the Russians there and we don’t have to fight them here, but it’s also our national interest in promoting democracy worldwide. ..."
"... This was not the second coming of the Wolfowitz-Cheney-Bolton brigade. This was Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor and Democrat called by her party to testify in this week’s House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing. ..."
"... Well sir, I’m old enough to remember 2002, when the Bush administration and its allies built a case for the Iraq War, using the often-heard line, “We fight the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” Seriously, young folks, look it up online. ..."
"... And now comes Prof. Karlan, using the same rhetoric to characterize the conflict between the US and Russia in Ukraine. She was there to talk about the legal aspects of impeachment, but she bizarrely tipped her hand by trashing Trump because he failed to play his part as a warmonger ..."
"... I'd highly recommend the films "Ukraine on Fire" and "Revealing Ukraine" (available on Amazon Prime w/o extra rental $) for a good basic primer on the Ukraine over the last 15 years, particularly of US interference and malfeasance in promoting the coup in 2014. And if anyone "interfered" in the 2016 election it wasn't Russia, but the Ukraine, particularly its very pro-Hilary President Poroshenko (illegitimate though he was and remains after the unconstitutional US-backed coup in against Yanukovich in 2014). ..."
"... I'm halfway cheering for Russia in their conflict with Ukraine. That's Russia's sphere of influence, Ukraine has no business in the EU or in NATO. Any sane American government would be courting Russia in the new Cold War ..."
"... Instead we pulled all of the former European countries in the USSR into our sphere of influence. The whole conflict was completely avoidable and is 100% due to America's and Western Europe's dumb actions since the fall of the USSR. ..."
In the Year of Our Lord 2019, sixteen years after this nation launched the catastrophic Iraq War, the following words were
spoken on Capitol Hill this week:
We have become the shining city on a hill. We have become the nation that leads the world in understanding what democracy
is. And one of the things we understand most profoundly is it’s not a real democracy, it’s not a mature democracy, if the party
in power uses the criminal process to go after its enemies. And I think you heard testimony — the Intelligence Committee heard
testimony about how it isn’t just our national interest in protecting our own elections. It’s not just our national interest
in making sure that the Ukraine remains strong and on the front line so they fight the Russians there and we don’t have to
fight them here, but it’s also our national interest in promoting democracy worldwide.
This was not the second coming of the Wolfowitz-Cheney-Bolton brigade. This was Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law professor and
Democrat called by her party to testify in this week’s House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing.
Well sir, I’m old enough to remember 2002, when the Bush administration and its allies built a case for the Iraq War, using
the often-heard line, “We fight the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” Seriously, young folks, look it
up online.
And I’m old enough to remember these lines from President Bush’s second inaugural address, in 2005:
There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants,
and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the
success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every
man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven
and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master,
and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement
of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security, and the calling of our time.
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every
nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
That didn’t work out too well for us, for Iraq, or for the Middle East.
And now comes Prof. Karlan, using the same rhetoric to characterize the conflict between the US and Russia in Ukraine.
She was there to talk about the legal aspects of impeachment, but she bizarrely tipped her hand by trashing Trump because he failed
to play his part as a warmongerre a> •
9 hours ago • edited
The American elites didn't learn a damn thing from Iraq
On the contrary. They learned that, via deceptive rhetoric and on false pretenses, they could easily manoeuver the U.S.
into fighting a war on behalf of another nation's interests rather than its own, and face no repercussions for committing such
treason, no matter how many lives it costs and how much it impoverishes the U.S. (to say nothing of what bloodshed and chaos
it will cause in the targeted nation -- because after all, destabilization is the point).
I'd highly recommend the films "Ukraine on Fire" and "Revealing Ukraine" (available on Amazon Prime w/o extra rental $) for
a good basic primer on the Ukraine over the last 15 years, particularly of US interference and malfeasance in promoting the
coup in 2014. And if anyone "interfered" in the 2016 election it wasn't Russia, but the Ukraine, particularly its very pro-Hilary
President Poroshenko (illegitimate though he was and remains after the unconstitutional US-backed coup in against Yanukovich
in 2014).
NATO should have been moth-balled c. 1992. Instead it is hell-bent on aggressive expansion and antagonizing Russia, for
no reason (other than to line the pockets of corrupt US and other officials, "business-men" i.e. oligarchs, etc.).
I'm halfway cheering for Russia in their conflict with Ukraine. That's Russia's sphere of influence, Ukraine has no business
in the EU or in NATO. Any sane American government would be courting Russia in the new Cold War that's obviously coming with
The Chinese Communist Party.
Instead we pulled all of the former European countries in the USSR into our sphere of influence.
The whole conflict was completely avoidable and is 100% due to America's and Western Europe's dumb actions since the fall of
the USSR.
Exiting the news conference as she was addressed, Pelosi turned around, walked up to the
journalist -- James Rosen of Sinclair Broadcast Group -- and proceeded to wag her finger with
scorn.
"As a Catholic, I resent you using the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me,"
she said. "Don't mess with me when it comes to words like that."
To Republicans eager to paint Democrats as out-of-control partisans, the forceful rebuttal
was a sign of the speaker losing her grip.
"It's caused them to lose sight of why they got the majority," House Minority Whip Steve
Scalise (R-La.) said of impeachment and Pelosi's outburst. "I think things are starting to
unravel."
... ... ...
Indeed, Pelosi also has cast the constitutional clash in terms of defending
an ally against Russia, calling the concerns raised by the whistleblower complaint the "aha
moment" and repeating a phrase that she used in challenging Trump face-to-face at the White
House in October.
"All roads lead to Putin," she told reporters.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former CIA officer who was among the "national security
freshmen" who pushed Pelosi toward supporting an impeachment inquiry, praised her handling of
the process. From the beginning, she said, she asked Pelosi to ensure that the investigation
was done in a strategic, efficient and serious manner, and she said Pelosi has followed
through.
"... For one the Ukraine is not fighting "the Russians". The Kiev government is fighting against east-Ukrainians who disagree with the Nazi controlled regime which the U.S. installed after it instigated the unconstitutional Maidan coup. Russia supplies the east-Ukrainians and there were a few Russian volunteers fighting on their side but no Russian military units entered the Ukraine. ..."
The Delusions Of The Impeachment Witnesses Point To A Larger ProblemMischi ,
Dec 5 2019 15:45 utc |
1
During yesterday's impeachment hearing at the House House Judiciary Committee one of the
Democrats witnesses made some rather crazy statements. Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law
professor, first proved to adhere to
neo-conservative delusions about the U.S. role in the world:
America is not just 'the last best hope,' as Mr. Jefferies said, but it's also the shining
city on a hill. We can't be the shining city on a hill and promote democracy around the
world if we're not promoting it here at home.
As people in Bolivia and elsewhere can attest the United States does not promote
democracy. It promotes rightwing regimes and rogue capitalism. The U.S. is itself
not a democracy but a functional oligarchy as a major Harvard study found:
Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial
independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based
interest groups have little or no independent influence.
But worse than Karlan's pseudo-patriotic propaganda claptrap were her remarks on the Ukraine
and Russia:
This is not just about our national interests to protect elections or make sure Ukraine
stays strong and fights the Russians so we don't have to fight them here , but it's in our
national interest to promote democracy worldwide.
That was not an joke. From the video it certainly seems that
the woman believes that nonsense.
For one the Ukraine is not fighting "the Russians". The Kiev government is fighting
against east-Ukrainians who disagree with the Nazi controlled regime which the U.S. installed after it
instigated the unconstitutional Maidan coup. Russia supplies the east-Ukrainians and there
were a few Russian volunteers fighting on their side but no Russian military units entered
the Ukraine.
But aside from that how can anyone truly believe that the Ukraine "fights the Russians so
we don't have to fight them here"?
Is Russia on the verge of invading the United States? Where? How? And most importantly:
What for?
How would that be in Russia's interest?
One must be seriously disturbed to believe such nonsense. How can it be that Karlan is
teaching at an academic level when she has such delusions?
And how is it in U.S. interest to give the Ukraine U.S. taxpayer money to buy U.S.
weapons? The sole motive behind that idea was
greed and corruption , not national interest:
[U.S. special envoy to Ukraine] Volker started his job at the State Department in 2017 in
an unusual part-time arrangement that allowed him to continue consulting at BGR, a powerful
lobbying firm that represents Ukraine and the U.S.-based defense firm Raytheon. During his
tenure, Volker advocated for the United States to send Raytheon-manufactured antitank
Javelin missiles to Ukraine -- a decision that made Raytheon millions of dollars.
The missiles are
useless in the conflict . They are
kept near the western border of Ukraine under U.S. control. The U.S. fears that Russia
would hit back elsewhere should the Javelin reach the frontline in the east and get used
against the east-Ukrainians. That Trump shortly held back on some of the money that would
have allowed the Ukrainians to buy more of those missiles thus surely made no difference.
To claim that it hurt U.S. national interests is nonsense.
It is really no wonder that U.S. foreign policy continuously produces chaos when its
practitioners get taught by people like Karlan. In the Middle East as well as elsewhere
Russian foreign policy runs circles around U.S. attempts to control the outcome. One reason
it can do that is the serious lack of knowledge and realism in U.S. foreign policy thinking.
It is itself the outcome of an educational crisis. U.S. 'political science' studies implement
a mindset that is unable to objectively recognize the facts and fails to respond to them with
realistic concepts.
The Democrats are doing themselves no favor by producing delusional and partisan witnesses
who repeat Reaganesque claptrap. They only prove that the whole affair is just an unserious
show trial.
In the meantime Trump is
eliminating food stamps for some 700,000 recipients and the Democrats are doing nothing
about it. Their majority in the House could have used the time it spent on the impeachment
circus to prevent that and other obscenities.
Do the Democrats really believe that their voters will not notice this?
Posted by b on December 5, 2019 at 15:40 UTC |
Permalink
never underestimate the stupidity of people. Even professors.
This is the woman that Common Dreams describes as a leading legal scholar.
And maybe she is, it would certainly help explain the current state of the US Judiciary and
the legal system, which reflects internally the utter contempt for law and custom which
characterises US behaviour in international affairs.
The same bs argument about "not fighting the Russians here" was used a couple of weeks ago by
another witness, Tim Morrison. This shows you that the hysteria is bipartisan...
There is a large cohort of Americans who believe every word the professor spoke. Whatever you
and I may think about it the professor's view of the world is normative for the educated
class in America.
Regarding those food stamps, it is actually just a small rule change lowering the
unemployment rate to 6% (from 10%) above which a state can waive the existing work
requirement for single, non-disabled recipients aged 18-49. States can still also waive it if
they deem that job availability is low.
Budapest has signaled that it will not support Ukraine's bid to join NATO until Kiev
reverses a law that places language restrictions on ethnic Hungarians and other minorities
living in the country.
Legislation that limits the use of Hungarian, Russian, Romanian, and other minority
languages in Ukraine must be repealed before Hungary backs Ukraine's NATO membership,
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said on Wednesday.
"We ask for no extra rights to Hungarians in Transcarpathia, only those rights they had
before," Szijjarto told Hungarian state media at a NATO summit in London. He alleged that
150,000 ethnic Hungarians living in the region have been "seriously violated" by
Ukraine.[.]
In February, Ukraine's parliament ratified amendments to the constitution which made
NATO membership a key foreign policy objective. However, a number of hurdles still remain
before its membership is likely to be seriously considered. European Commission President
Jean-Claude Juncker predicted in 2016 that it would be 20-25 years before Ukraine would be
able to join NATO and the EU.
I don't believe that the so called "Professor's View" is normative for the educated class of
Americans. It is the normative view of the Ivy League pseudoeducated individuals that have
been placed in leadership positions in the US Goverment and Politics but they are not
EDUCATED in any way. Karlan is almost certainly a Jew. She is without a doubt a whore who
will do anything for her John as directed by her pimp. Being a brain dead feminist helps her
with that role in life. I had an ex wife who fought me post divorce for 10 years trying to
destroy me in any way she could. She finally stopped with the Breast Cancer she had for 7 of
those years finally killed her. I see the same psychotic, sociopathic and off scall
narcissitic behavior in every one of these women in politics and academics today. So don't
think that something will get better without a terminal solution.
Americans are entranced by the kayfabe (mock combat). Just as in wrestling it is designed to
look 'real' but just keeps people engrossed in the action, unable to think of what they are
NOT being told.
People must free themselves of partisan affiliations that are just levers used to
manipulate them.
The establishment uses Democracy Works! propaganda to give you a false sense of
power and security. But the people are an afterthought in US/Western politics. The
politicians and their Parties work for the money. Much of that money comes from AIPAC, MIC,
and other EMPIRE FIRST organizations that are leading us to WAR.
It's messy and inconvenient but power only responds to power.
The stoopid cult-thinking must stop. This is where it leads: Buffalo
Bishop Resigns Over Sex Abuse Cover-Up . Why do people cling to a corrupt Catholic
Church? It's NOT just a few bad apples!! The pedophilia and cover-ups have been
worldwide and reach into the highest levels of the Church.
This Buffalo Bishop, like dozens of other Bishops in the last decades, lied to cover for
pedophiles and then used the power of his position to remain in his position. His wasn't for
the children or any higher morality but for himself. He will get a nice, peaceful retirement
- paid for by the deluded Catholic flock.
In the meantime Trump is eliminating food stamps for some 700,000 recipients and the
Democrats are doing nothing about it.
The reason for that if very simple: the Democrats agree with Trump on this.
It's the same question many ask when studying Roman History for the first time: where were
the legions when the Goths invaded? The answer is that the Goths were the legions, there was
no invasion.
The same logic applies to the Right-Left political spectrum in modern Western Democracies.
"Where are the lefties?" is the modern question the first worlders ask themselves since
2008.
--//--
As for the Pamela Karlan thing, it's an issue I've been commenting on here for some time
now, so I won't repeat everything.
I'll just say again that imbecilization is a completely normal historical phenomenon in
declining empires: the earlier example we have is the Christianization of the Roman Empire
after Marcus Aurelius' death. The rise of Christianity was the messenger of the Crisis of the
Third Century, the historic episode which ended the Roman Empire by giving birth to its
demented form after the Diocletian Reforms.
Empires tend to have a very plastic conception of truth, that is, they believe they can
fabricate reality for the simple reason they are geopolitically dominant.
It's easy to visualize this. The greatest philosopher of the end of the 18th Century and
beginning of the 19th Century was a German, not a British. While Hegel wrote his
proto-revolutionary works which would pave the way to Karl Marx, in UK we had the likes of
Mackinder and Mahan dominating British philosophical thinking. And even then they weren't the
dominant intellectual figures: the UK was the land of accountants and economists, not
philosophers. The reason for this is that neither Hegel nor Marx had any ships to do gunboat
diplomacy in Asia, as the British did.
Empires tend to think and rationalize the world in a much more plastic/practical way than
the periphery. As the old saying goes: the stronger side doesn't need to think before it
acts.
Scroll down the page @ Steven Cheung {VID} on Twitter to watch this exchange where the RATS
are told they are the ones who have abused power.
Professor Jonathan Turley, a lawyer's go-to-Constitutional Expert:
"The Record does not establish corruption in this case - no bribery, no extortion, no
obstruction of justice, no abuse of power."
Trump should include Prof. Turley on his legal team.
The RATS have not thought this through to what will unfold in the Senate. A real court
trial; No hearsay and no! no! no! "I was made aware"
And the Bidens, Schiff, and Pelosi under cross-examination. And the Whistleblower!!!
I used to think that stupid was a characteristic of the American right. It took Donald Trump
getting elected to see that stupid knows no political borders. Seriously. I thought that
education and progressive thinking also led to a clarity of thought. Boy, was I wrong. The
most pro-war people in the USA seem to be Democrats. Bizarro world.
To "...make sure Ukraine stays strong and fights the Russians so we don't have to fight them
here"
This predates 2003 and stems from the red menace days when it was the communist legions
would behave like a set of dominoes and eventually we (USA) would be fighting them in the
streets of New York etc. Thus it was imperative that they defeat the commies in French
Indo-China despite the fact that they could easily have simply bought the nation by
supporting Uncle Ho who had been working for the OSS during WW2. But no, they had to win
brownie points with the French by bankrolling their effort to retake the nation and when that
didn't work a little "false flag" event employed to keep the ball rolling. I use quotations
because while being false, the Tonkin Gulf event wasn't much of a flag.....
At any rate the fact that both Demublicans AND Republocrats are falling back on such
antiquated rhetoric is bitterly laughable! It can also be seen as an indicator of just how
dumbed down the USAn populace has become. As noted above article, how could anyone think that
the RF would plan much less attempt an attack on the continental US?! A closer look at recent
history has the US and it's poodles surrounding the RF with missile bases, sanctioning and
embargoing the fhaak out it, and generally trying to destroy the nation as a whole with
whatever clandestine methods are available. But hey ,take a page from the book of Cheney:
deny everything and make counter accusations.....
thanks b... propaganda is the usa's education... see your breakdown of the nyt articles...
most people don't get this...
the military industrial complex is in the people of usa's interest.. they think they
benefit from the rayatheons, lockheed martins, boeings and etc - as they have relatives
working at these places... the usa is one sick puppy, and Pamela Karlan, a Stanford law
professor is just further proof of this... sorry if someone else said what i did, as i didn't
read the comments yet..
"Throughout her career, Karlan has been an advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court.[10] She
was mentioned as a potential candidate to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter when he
retired in 2009.[11]
Personal life
Karlan told Politico in 2009, "It's no secret at all that I'm counted among the LGBT
crowd".[12] She has described herself as an example of a "snarky, bisexual, Jewish
women".[13] Her partner is writer Viola Canales.[14]
she is not an american women apparently.. she is a jewish women.. oh well, lol...
The fact that the "papers of record" have become mouthpieces for the CIA/deep state has
played a huge role in the brainwashing of academia and the rise of neoliberalism. The false
narratives these "trusted sources" of information have been serving up create a very real
Matrix, a false reality that is ingrained into those who rely upon them for their daily
"news". Karlan is merely repeating what she accepts as truth, garnered from the NY Times and
Wash Post, CNN, NPR, etc.
Believe me, even here in the red states, you won't find a hell of a lot of faculty members
at large universities who are Trump supporters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ
What I find absent in most discussions about impeachment of Trump is the 800 pound gorilla -
what will happen to the US if against all odds, Trump gets impeached. Could the US survive
that cataclysmic event or would it rip the empire apart?
What contingency plans does everybody make for that unlikely, but not impossible singularity?
"In the meantime Trump is eliminating food stamps for some 700,000 recipients and the
Democrats are doing nothing about it. Their majority in the House could have used the time it
spent on the impeachment circus to prevent that and other obscenities."
That's why it's called bread and circus. The loot and pillage party's two separate funding
arms get their funding and privilege from the same sociopath/psychopaths who operate the mass
murder for profit economy we now live in.
They will continue the slaughter until the enforcers within society finally understand
they work for criminally insane cultists who will never have enough money, power, and
prestige.
I see that distrust to everything that is good and decent is extended to law professors.
Stanford is a short (if sometimes slow) ride from Berkeley that has a more famous professor
in its own law school (Wiki):[you know
John Choon Yoo (born July 10, 1967)[4] is a Korean-American attorney, law professor,
former government official, and author. Yoo is currently the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of
Law at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.[1] Previously, he served as the
Deputy Assistant U.S. Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) of the Department
of Justice, during the George W. Bush administration.
He is best known for his opinions concerning the Geneva Conventions that attempted to
legitimize the Bush administration's War on Terror. He also authored the so-called Torture
Memos, which provided a legal rationale for so-called [you know what]
=====
First, they torture logic... The ignorants who could not tell tollens from a toilet brush
would not even know what to twist, hence the need for professors.
@ b who wrote
"
The U.S. is itself not a democracy but a functional oligarchy as a major Harvard study
found:
"
My only quibble with another great post is the assertion that the US is functional.
Functional would mean it had supportive infrastructure but instead we have homeless
shitting in the street because they are driven out of the parks to do so and they must be bad
people that don't deserve public toilets.
Functional would mean, as Jackrabbit linked to above, and a I i did a few hours ago in the
Weekly Open Thread, that there wouldn't be 117 sexually abusive Catholic priests in the
Buffalo NY area doing the same thing as Epstein was doing to his clients.
Functional would mean we would not have the blatant hypocrisy Chervus quoted from the
posting above
"
To "...make sure Ukraine stays strong and fights the Russians so we don't have to fight them
here"
"
I agree with Chervus that this is same BS that got us the Iron Curtain with Russia after WWII
because they wanted Godless communism instead of global private finance. And also, as I
ranted recently in the Open Thread, this gave us the 1950's change to the US Motto to In God
We Trust which gets back to the control of the obfuscatory/hypocrisy narrative telling us
that the private finance cult are doing God's work and that "competition is good/sharing is
bad"
The US is dysfunctional on purpose to keep the masses under control and dumbed
down/brainwashed
Ha! More connections to Stanford:
"Ancient Logic: Forerunners of Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens". Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.
BTW, it is totally lost on the entirety of Western establishment that you cannot make
Ukraine strong (wouldn't we all love to see strong Ukraine?) while wrecking its economy by
encouraging policies like
spending 5% of GDP on the military
switching to more expensive energy sources
cutting itself from traditional markets and supplies, replacing with rather worthless
"cooperation" agreement with a trading block that is neither particularly interested in
trading with Ukraine (Ukraine strongest exports are in surplus within EU) nor inclined to
subsidize it (budgets are tights and plenty of recent EU members are in dire needs
already)
I think it's tragic that that creatures like Karlan are not simply seen as the blatant bigots
and Nazi's that they are. You have to be wearing a large set of blinkers not to be able to
see that.
Unfortunately this is endemic in the western world. 'Democracy' seems to consist of
dumbing down the population as much as possible, and telling them what they have to think so
the self-anointed leaders of society can have their way (both those in front, and behind the
scenes).
I'm far from certain this is a recipe for success.
The biggest tragedy is that Americans seem to think that the only way to succeed is to
tear down any other country that isn't essentially a puppet government, necessarily defining
them as 'enemies', and therefore someone/thing that must be hated and destroyed, by any
means, fair or foul.
Russians and Chinese in particular, and BRICS/SCO in general, are showing the way. The
countries involved have very different political systems, but they understand that
co-operation is much more beneficial than constant conflict. Unless, of course, a quarter of
your government tax income is dedicated to supporting an amazingly corrupt
Military-Industrial-Intelligence Complex.
Trump supporters approve of cutting food stamps. The majority of Democratic Party politicians
approve of cutting food stamps. Both parties agree times are good and the future is rosy. The
only thing they disagree on is foreign policy. The guy who couldn't even win the election
(and merely fluked in on a technicality that undermines all progress since 1788,) refuses to
play by the rules on foreign policy. And he is not justified by success, not in any terms,
not in making peace, not in winning, not in anything. The only people who are upset about
impeaching Trump are Trump lovers and cranks who think being president is like being elected
God and no one but sinners can defy Him.
The Trump supporters were going to turn out for him anyway, barring an economic crisis
even they couldn't ignore. Impeachment has no downside so long as it is from the right, and
doesn't rile up the rich people. Except the rich donors are leaving the Democratic Party
anyway. The strategy for a nicey-nice campaign that leaves enough Trump voters soothed enough
to sit it out has one enormous defect: Trump was not elected by the people anyhow.
But the Democratic Party politicians are anti-Communist, which means pro-Fascist, so yes,
they do see this as (im)moral principles to die for, though they hope to politically kill for
it. Their problem is, Trump is also anti-Communist and pro-Fascist, which everyone knows,
which means Trump was merely his office for campaigning. That may be hypocritical and a
violation of campaign laws. But in the eyes even of the anti-Communist/pro-Fascist population
missiles for Ukrainian fascists with strings or without strings is merely a tactical
disagreement. Even worse, the president breaking laws is perceived as strong leadership,
smashing the machine, getting rid of those awful politicians and their oppressive
government.
This is a typical example of the stupidity and often dementia of most of the highly educated.
Especially those in academia, who exist in a funhouse hall of propagandist and ideological
mirrors. But it's true of the educated in the general. I personally know plenty of highly
educated people who make themselves more stupid and mentally ill by the day by uncritically
reading the NYT and watching CNN.
I don't know why anyone would expect anything different. All system schooling at whatever
level boils down to the same two goals:
1. Instill the basic literacy necessary for a given cog position within the hierarchy.
2. Instill obedience to authority, including indoctrination into its ideology.
From kindergarten to grad school these are the same; whether one's being trained to pump
gas or to assume a high position in the corporate world/government/academia these are the
same.
So it's no wonder that an elite Stanford law professor is in practice the exact same
stupid, ignorant, deranged yahoo as you could easily find in a trailer park, just with better
manners and diction.
"One must be seriously disturbed to believe such nonsense. How can it be that Karlan is
teaching at an academic level when she has such delusions?"
I assume this question was meant rhetorically. After all, Karlan's Russia comment would
receive enthusiastic thumbs up from at least Biden, Obama, W. Clinton, H. Clinton, Rubio,
Klobuchar, Pelosi, Warren, Graham, Buttigieg, Romney, the late McCain, Pompeo, Bolton,
Mattis...the list goes on and on.
For a related, institutionalized, revolting example packaging multiple instances of such
delusional thought, see "russias-dead-end-diplomacy-syria"
. Have a pail nearby to catch the spew.
"The guy who couldn't even win the election (and merely fluked in on a technicality that
undermines all progress since 1788,)"
I don't think you ever answered when I asked you last time:
Are you saying you think Hillary was so stupid she didn't know about the electoral
college, and that it was electoral votes she had to fight for, not popular ones?
Because if you're not saying that, then nothing is changed: Trump beat Hillary in the
electoral fight they were both trying to win. It's pure nonsense to babble about
"technicalities".
And if any significant Democrat faction was saying thruout 2016, and not just after the
election, that the election should NOT be about electoral votes, please direct me to where
and when they were saying that, because I don't recall ever hearing it. And I think the
reason I never heard it was because the Dems were so smugly sure of electoral college
victory. And if Hillary had won, we never would've heard a word from you or anyone else about
the electoral college.
it is totally lost on the entirety of Western establishment that you cannot make Ukraine
strong while wrecking its economy
It's even worse than that. The economy will never recover while oligarchs have a stranglehold
on economic activity and government. And USA's capitalist dementia ensures that will never
change. (The West as a whole is headed in the direction of unabashed oligarchic rule.)
Why would anyone invest in Ukraine?
Sometimes I think Putin was happy for the Western coup to succeed and simply planned to
keep the best parts.
But do they really believe what they (the mid-level elites) say or is it all some kind of
theater of the increasingly absurd? I am never clear on who among the narrative managers is
sincere and who is simply acting sincere. Are people like this woman or the Bellingcat
narrative managers or any of their numerous colleagues in their mid-level narrative
management positions occupying their positions simply due to their acting abilities? They
seem to be both delusional and ill-informed. When these people get together at their
conferences and dinner parties, does the mask come off?
casey @31: When these people get together ... does the mask come off?
I doubt it. They have convinced themselves that they are right and/or are following the
wishes of people who are right-thinking. In USA, most people are brainwashed to assume that
people with lots of money are right-thinking (as in: they must be doing something
right!).
Upton Sinclair:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not
understanding it.
Are you saying you think Hillary was so stupid she didn't know about the electoral
college, and that it was electoral votes she had to fight for, not popular ones
no, i think what he's saying is that if Cinderella had had a better sense of timing, she
would have made it home before her carriage turned back into a pumpkin.
Upton Sinclair self-published a book in 1922 about education in America entitled Goose
Step . Predating the infamous era of the Nazi/Fascist Goose Stepping thugs then armies, I
read a preview and found an inexpensive copy. The subject as might be assumed was about the
use of school systems to indoctrinate young Americans at all educational levels and
nationwide to conform to the views of the rather few wealthy people who sat on interlocking
boards that controlled curriculum--sort of like the oligarchic control over media today. And
as we've seen with the study of political-economy, the ability to erase rather recent
developments and personages and inserting false doctrines and their priests was done rather
easily and with little noted protest. And so it's gone on down through the decades until
today--just look at the War Criminals hired by Stanford and other universities for proof of
its being an ongoing problem.
That ideological blinders are omnipresent is easily proven by the various defense planning
documents referenced here over the last several years, all of which relate to the unilateral,
might makes right mindset that's one of the Evil Outlaw US Empire's longstanding traits that
predates the 20th Century. Too many will never learn humility and the reality accompanying it
until it's enforced. But there's a wiser group residing within the Empire, some of us present
at this bar ready to deal with the mess once humpty-dumpty falls from its perch upon which
it's currently tottering.
I 'freely' admit I simply have no idea what people mean when they urgently bleat words
like that at me.
To me, freedom applies to an action. You are free to do this, or you are free to do that.
Which is, of course, actions that are constrained or allowed by various laws passed by local,
state, federal and/or international entities. I would suppose that the amount of freedom you
have depends on haw many laws have been passed in your own country to criminalize various
activities.
Has anyone done such an analysis, to define which countries have limited their citizens
behaviour? Simplistically, which countries have written the most laws?
I'll be willing to bet they are the 'democracies' that are most bellicose about protecting
'freedoms'. Let's face facts, politicians just love to keep passing laws, otherwise they have
no reason to exist. I unreasonably think there should be another superior law, that any
government should only be able to have so many laws. If they want to have yet another one,
take some other law away. Otherwise 'freedoms' are just being chipped away at,
constantly.
'Freedom', as a thing unto and onto itself, seems a completely meaningless concept. I keep
wondering why politicians aren't asked what they are talking about when they roar about
'freedom' as a general term.
Trump takes it hard when he suffers criticism and mockery by his peers. He would take it
pretty hard to get fired from his job too. But after the stages of grief, he might be pretty
happy to get of DC and just live as happy a life as he can until he dies.
Perhaps, in her native language of various clicks and hisses, her statements made perfect
sense. The failing could be that her perfectly reasonable argument could not be correctly
translated into human speech.
I just looked up Pamala Karlan. Apparently there is a story that when she was a baby she was
so ugly her parents had to put shutters on her pram.
She claims to have a partner? There's no accounting for taste I suppose but even for a U.S.
citizen there must be a red line. Somewhere? someone!
As to her intellectual prowess, in my limited understanding, intellect depends on the
platform it rests upon. Put a Jaguar engine into a Mobility scooter and see how well that
performs. Plenty of power but no means of utilising it.
Logical mechanisms such as law require as little emotion as possible. People like her just
bring the demise of a great nation into action sooner rather than later.
I suppose we should be grateful such fools consider Russia an adversary, it's makes
predicting what comes next much more clear and succinct action can be instigated.
Professor Pamela Karlan. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
@29 russ...steven is making himself look like a fool regularly with that crap.. oh well..
@36 really? yes, indeed.. same faulty logic one would expect from a stanford law prof.. as
@22 piotr rightly notes - john yoo, the freak who could make torture in abu graib okay is
another one cut from the very same cloth..
i see one of Pamela Karlans comments got the ire of melania trump.. article
here..
"The Constitution states that there can be no titles of nobility. So while the president
can name his son Barron, he can't MAKE him a baron." Pamela S. Karlan
"A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you
should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child
to do it." -- Melania Trump (@FLOTUS) December 4, 2019
Karlan apologized for her remark as the hearing continued late Wednesday. "It was wrong of
me to do that,'' she said, according to the Associated Press. "I do regret it."
Universally accepted fact among the devoted is that "America is fighting Russia in the
Ukraine", though there are exactly zero confirmed reports of Russian troops in the region in
the past five years.
Many of the dumbest people I met were university students or graduates. They are thought to
absorb information as given, reproduce once, forget. They are not trained to question
anything, they follow a narrative. Some even denounced everything they ever learned and
became a follower of some religion, which is just another narrative.
I remember one student dorm in particular. Someone came in and decided it was too warm.
Put the central heating thermostat on "arctic winter", opened all doors and windows while it
was freezing outside. Then someone else came in and decided it was cold, closed all doors and
windows, put the thermostat on "incinerate". Repeat 24/7. The few times I tried to explain
how a thermostat works, I felt like being rubbed out of existence.
Only one guy understood that you set a room thermostat at a comfortable level and it would
regulate to desired temperature. He was an alcoholic, always stoned up to his eyeballs, not a
student except for the 3 or 4 studies he briefly tried and failed, and had given up on life
in general. He was also the only one there who questioned things.
If this exchange wasn't a set-up then I'll eat my MAGA hat*.
This bubbling "fat guy" comes with FOX News talking points and Joe Biden mops the floor
with him. Not only denouncing the question, but insulting the questioner. I like the majestic
(IMO pre-arranged) touch: "let him talk". Oh so respectiful - yet seconds later he insults
the questioner!! LOL.
Anyone that dares to ask about Hunter Biden after this will be dismissed by Biden who will
say that the question's been asked and answered and he's being hounded by Trump
partisans.
I think that getting into looks etc. is self-trolling. PK looks like a typical lady of her
age, and commendably, she seems not to gain weight. Kind of reminds me something I found
looking for a snide quote:
...and what a nice girl will you find her!
She can pass for forty three
In the dusk, with the light behind her!
I was actually looking for the source of "love can snare you with a single hair",giving
romantic chances to those of us who can count scalp hair with a single hand.
I've seen Jonathan Turley on TV a number of times. He always seemed to be a person of
integrity. One needs to add courage to the list after testifying against impeachment on the
presented "evidence". I will be very surprised to see him on PBS or CBS ever again. Their
news readers are nearly giddy with excitement about impeachment. They never consider what
could happen if Trump is convicted but refuses to leave the White House. Then what?
---------
The food stamp program changes will kill people. As intended. One of the most affected groups
will be people who are too sick or otherwise too impaired to work, and maybe unable to even
leave their home, but still can't get social support. The system says there is no problem
because desperate people can get a free meal on Thanksgiving and Christmas. For the other 363
days a year, go find a dumpster to dive in.
Almost all Social Security Disability applicants are denied on the initial application.
There are no interim payments or support of any kind. Many give up, as intended. The rest
file appeals and wait years for a hearing before an "administrative law judge", who is not a
"real" judge, but just some lawyer with fancy title.
ALJ decisions tend to be rather arbitrary, so a favorable decision depends on which ALJ
hears a case. Sure there are more levels to appeal, and many more years of no social support,
if an applicant can find a way to survive for years on zero income, all the while being sick
with probably no medical care.
Social Security and disability lawyers have colluded to keep lawyers in business. Social
Security requires the use of a standard contract that gives the lawyer a fixed percentage of
the retroactive benefits. "Retroactive benefits" are the regular monthly benefits that accrue
from the officially determined "date of disability". So if it takes three years to get
benefits, the lawyer gets a nice chunk of change for a few hours work writing a brief and
showing up for the hearing.
The lawyer who signed my contract did nothing to help my case, and he even hired someone
else to write the brief and attend the hearing. One wonders if ALJs get some benefit from
lawyers to encourage long wait times, since long wait times increase lawyer profits at zero
cost.
The US system really is that cruel and barbaric. It would be kinder to take us out back
and shoot us, but that's too obvious. Much better to let people die slowly in the shadows so
the rest of society doesn't have to see us.
And I'm one of the fortunates who managed to hang on, despite bankruptcy, a civil suit,
the disability benefits process (only took six years), and state attempts to revoke Medicaid,
all at the same time. I know it sounds melodramatic, made up, or at least exaggerated. That's
understandable, because it seems that way to me, too!
About 1000 people a week kill themselves in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
Does anyone wonder why, or even notice? The reason for many of these deaths is the lack of
social supports. In Uncle Sam Land, social apoptosis is a feature, not a bug.
>What does 'Freedom' mean?
> Posted by: Ant. | Dec 5 2019 18:32 utc | 39
In Uncle Sam Land, "freedom" has two meanings. Rich people are free to do as they like.
The rest of us are free to live under a bridge and starve.
We do have one right: The Right To Obey.
The whole society is organized around obedience, and the purpose of public education is to
make sure every one obeys. Modern schools are more accurately called "day prisons", with all
the cameras, metal detectors, armed police, isolation rooms, etc. I wonder how many people
realize that "lockdown" is straight out of the criminal prison system, and is now a regular
occurrence for little kids.
Russ@29 forgot the comments where I've reviewed exactly how everybody rejected the Electoral
College, holding legitimacy came from winning the real election. Until Gore, every time the
EC violated the expectation that it was a technical way of recording the popular vote, there
was justified outrage. Bush's camp in 2000 had plans to contest an EC loss, until that shoe
turned out to be on the other foot. If Trump had won the popular vote and lost the Electoral
College, he would no more accept the results. Only liars take refuge in the simplistic
legalisms. And only Trump ass-lickers are so contemptible as to pretend Trump was the stable
genius who outplayed Clinton in the real game. Trump had no more idea how to win the EC
without winning the popular vote than anyone else. Further, by the witless pretended
principles of Russ' ilk, a presidential candidate who managed to win faithless electors who
ignored even their own states' pluralities* would still be the legitimate president! Every
single defender of Trump the one legitimate president is witless and worthless.
But very likely the real objection to the response is the insistence that Trump isn't
magically guaranteed re-election because...well, the real reason is slavish devotion to a God
named Trump. Even with the advantage of incumbency this time around, with even more support
from the wealthy (the people who have really turned away from the Democratic Party to favor
political gangsterism,) Trump is likely to lose the election again. If I were in Congress I
would offer a compromise, where the Republicans were assured Trump would not be investigated
any more, much less impeached, for abolition of the Electoral College. But I think Trump
would say no, because he knows deep down he's a loser.
*US politicians rarely win majorities of the electorate. Politicians of all stripes have
agreed that non-voting is always to be deemed as "Satisfied" with either choice instead of
"Alienated, with no choice." Decent people suspect otherwise.
@38 Karloff1 You can still Read the late John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of
American Education online. He did a great job highlighting the history and purpose of copying
the Prussian style of education to replace the one room school houses and instill the
"martial spirit" in the American public. I have to hand it to the Oligarchs of old too. They
were very effective in their implementation.
Karlan type of academics is scattered all over the US universities.they are the
Academia´s gatekeepers, watching over & "spotting" of our future leaders. the
majority of them are claptraps selling jingoism to our youth in order to fulfill the
Judeo-Zionist agenda.
John Taylor Gatto, former New York City and New York State teacher of the year, stated:
The truth is that schools don't really teach anything except how to obey orders; and
John Holt concluded, School is a place where children learn to be stupid . . . Children
come to school curious; within a few years most of that curiosity is dead, or at least
silent.
For best results, take it to a dictionary; not a dinky one, but a respected, college-level
one that includes data on from what the word derives, i.e. its original meaning by whomever
coined the term.
Whatever the results, you are thereby benefited.
At an informal roundtable gathering [at a library Senior Center] the word "education" was
questioned and utter blather and mystery and weird interpretations were spouted. Finally
someone got out a dictionary and, in short, read the original sense as "to lead out" and it
was left to each individual to fill-in the blank "lead-out from what?", or "What do you want
be lead-out of?". Calm ensued.
@61 trailer trash.. i read gattos book - Dumbing Us Down...good book! a friend of mine turned
me onto it.. it was the reason he raised his 2 sons outside the school system for the most
part.. his wife is a university prof and went along with it..
@goldhoarder #58: You really have to spend 10–15 minutes and learn the basics of
HTML. It's not that hard. Also, make sure to click the "Preview" button before you click the
the "Post" button.
I have noticed the following: all the Tribe´s spawns speak the same language, I mean
all the instruments of their orchestra are tuned to play the same script.
I recall when I was a student at the University of Technology, Sydney, way back in the
Mesozoic era (1980s), the economics dept there had a lecturer there with a Harvard University
background so the staff made him head of the department. Just because he had a Harvard
University PhD. He was hardly a great administrator and the subjects he taught (compared with
other lecturers' subjects) were much less structured. Of course this meant the courses he
taught were easier on students' time and energy, though if you made use of the opportunity a
less structured course gave, you could turn in an end-of-term essay with impressive research
equivalent to the level required of a post-grad.
The university also had an exchange program with the University of Oregon, and most of the
Oregon students who came to UTS (usually in their second or third year) found the UTS
coursework very heavy-going and difficult.
In those days, UTS was only supposed to be a second-tier university in Australia.
This hearing is a theatre performance (kabuki -- hey, I learned a new
word, thanks) and PK's lines are an invocation of the official US myth
(the shinning city on the hill, the exceptional, indispensible
nation). No one in the room took that seriously or literally
(especially PK herself) and IMHO these national myths are not really
anything to freak out about - every nation has got its myth, and this is
an arrogant one, but compared to a few others it's almost likeable.
Of course it is at odds with historical records and the reality, but
all of them are, because, frankly, the truth, being descendants of
genocidal, religious nutters and slavers, is apparently very
motivational -- in the KSA...
The RU/UK lines are slightly more worrisome, but that's just a
matching background for her story - the fluff. She doesn't have to
belive it - it's just a performance, an elegant one but meaningless in the end.
A lot of the visitors comment about the deep state, most of the time
mentioning three letter agencies. Here comes a piece about a four
letters one, acting more or less in the plain sight: OIRA, E.O.
12866
A group of virtually anonymous, unaccountable people wields quite
considerable power over both legislative and executive. A very
interesting construction...
John was a wonderful man. He passed away last year.
@S 64
"You really have to spend" No. I don't have to. I don't care if you are happy with how I
post.
"The US is dysfunctional on purpose to keep the masses under control and dumbed
down/brainwashed."
This is an interesting statement which seems like a contradiction but is it? Surely there
must be some functionality
to be able to keep the masses dumbed down/brainwashed; it implies some sort of thought out
strategy.
How do we get the same narrative trotted out in media in exactly the same format from LA to
Warsaw,
from Lima to Bangalore if it's all so dysfunctional? Maybe decadence is preferable to
dysfunctional
as it implies a level of corruption which is typical of late empires.
But there's a deeper level to the comment. Netflix now gives us some great series on true
crime
where police behaviour is scrutinized in depth. We see cops plant evidence and set up
victims
for easy prosecution. In other words the cops are portrayed as dysfunctional and corrupt.
Yeah, right. That makes us feel better. It also makes us feel that unlike drama we can
make
our own minds up about who is guilty and who is not. How delightfully postmodern.
The system has become so brazen that it can show us truths which sort of reinforce its
very self.
When it sets up false flags it can even give us clues and stuff to work on to the extent
that
every "terrorist" event that happens is considered by some people as a false flag
when it may not be and everyone who supposedly died has not died when the reality
is there is a mix – some events are false flags some aren't; in some false flag
events
people are killed; in others maybe not.
Posted by: nietzsche1510 | Dec 5 2019 21:03 utc | 65
You hit the nail on the head. Karlan's loyalty is to her tribe, not this nation. That's
the crux of almost every major problem and injustice we're suffering from in this country,
from private prisons to Wall Street looting to endless foreign wars to censorship. There is
one group of people behind it with a very bad track record in terms of how they treat their
host nations. I wonder when we will finally get our act together and become the 110th country
to expel them.
And Goldhoarder, while you may not mind how your posts look, you've managed to damage this
comment thread and until b deletes your poorly structured post, we all suffer for it.
@ Posted by: Lochearn | Dec 5 2019 21:51 utc | 72 who seems to disagree with my concept
"dysfunctional on purpose"
and wants to use decadence instead and wrote:
"
Surely there must be some functionality
to be able to keep the masses dumbed down/brainwashed; it implies some sort of thought out
strategy.
How do we get the same narrative trotted out in media in exactly the same format from LA to
Warsaw,
from Lima to Bangalore if it's all so dysfunctional?
"
I posit that strategy of "dysfunctional on purpose" is control of the narrative and
language and it is purposefully used.
Consider the current seeming understanding of the terms, socialism and capitalism by many
of your fellow barflies.
Many of our fellow barflies would have one believe that China is socialist and the West is
capitalist...exclusively.
I and a few others keep trying to point out that both China and the West are, to varying
degrees mixed economies,
including aspects of both socialism and capitalism
Consider the implicit definition of government if you will. Is government, as compared to
dictatorships, not explicitly socialistic?
Are not the provision of water, sewage treatment and in many case electricity explicitly
socialistic by definition?
Is it not dumbing down and brainwashing that many don't understand reality but spout the
words and concepts they are fed
by those in control of the narrative and media pushing it?
And, not to make too fine a point of it, does all of the West not live under the
dictatorship of global private finance at this time?
So how much more would I get ignored if I beat that drum as part of my comments here?
@ Posted by: Lochearn | Dec 5 2019 22:41 utc | 75 who writes that I did not consider their
complete comment
I did focus on the "dysfunctional on purpose" versus the state of decadence you thought
was more apt.
You wrote
"
The system has become so brazen that it can show us truths which sort of reinforce its very
self.
"
I see this as purposeful again and not a sign of decadence...they are normalizing
perfidy..and it is working, unfortunately to their advantage.
Please explain further how I have misrepresented your comment, if indeed I have.
IF Trump is removed from office then the war on Lebanon and Iran would be
accelerated. Israel will likely go for all the marbles and annex the last remaining
Palestinian holdings. Some here believe this couldn't happen but we all live in bizarro world
now.
Also, don't expect the Electoral College to oust Pence after the general election since
he's more pro-war; even the electors from Democrat controlled states would support him. IMHO,
the US would continue on; business as usual.
However, if the Democrats are crazy enough to follow through, the Republican dominated
Senate would reject it. Basically a repeat of what happened to Clinton. In the end, nothing
changed.
""It was wrong of me to do that,'' she said, according to the Associated Press. "I do
regret it.""
Ya but . . .as Tucker Carlson spot-on reacted, that comment sure looked as though it had
been rehearsed in front of the bathroom mirror. It was sooooo lame!!! I mean, it was obvious
(on the video) that Karlan really thought she was (wait for it! It's on the way) landing a
very clever bon mot!
It is a small thing, yet it speaks volumes about the spirit of this clearly clueless human
being (and others of her ilk), and her handlers, who must have cleared this little gotcha for
prime time. Been up on the podium too long, bleating to students who can't/don't bleat back!
No common sense.
Never a connection with a child, I'll bet, or she could never have said such a thing.
Painful to look at the pinched little face, decent hairdo missing in action, with the rant
coming out of the tight little mouth. A pathetic individual.
Ditto Noah Feldman from the Felix Frankfurter Dept of the Harvard Law School: Pure
bloviation with skin like a baby's bottom. Better coiffed, actually, than Karlan. Quels
types!!!
@goldhoarder #71: You may not realize it, but in some browsers your comment #58 stretches the
page so wide that it makes it very hard to read. This happened because you have used HTML
link tags incorrectly or have posted a very long link without wrapping it in HTML link tags (
<a></a> ). Hence my suggestion to you to learn the basics of how HTML tags
work. Your reply makes you look disrespectful of other posters. Nothing to be proud of,
really. Here's how to post links properly:
1. Type <a href=""></a> . That's "less than" character, then letter
"a", then space, then word "href", then "equals" character, then two straight quotes, then
"greater than" character, then "less than" character, then forward slash character, then
letter "a", then "greater than" character.
2. Place your cursor between the two straight quotes and insert your link, like so: <a
href="https://www.craigmurray.org.uk"></a> .
3. Place your cursor between >< characters and insert the title of your link,
like so: <a href="https://www.craigmurray.org.uk">Craig Murray's blog</a>
.
Alternatively:
1. Copy the example provided above the comment input text field, on the right, under the
heading "Allowed HTML Tags": <A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/">Headline (not the
URL)</A> .
2. Replace example link http://www.aclu.org/ with your link.
3. Replace example link title Headline (not the URL) with your link title.
@ Posted by: Lochearn | Dec 5 2019 22:56 utc | 77 who seems to be accusing me of racism when
I have consistently challenged others here to prove
that those that own global private finance are jewish
I suggest you go to a comment I just added to the latest Open Thread and go to the link
provided
Perhaps you will learn something and stop misunderstanding my purpose here..I hope so
My comment @ 67 was actually just to highlight the (most undeserved) reputations that
places like Harvard and Stanford have among certain faculties in Australian universities. In
those days Stanford, Harvard and MIT were the holiest of holy shrines to do business studies
/ economics degrees. Years later I read a book by someone who actually did do a Stanford MBA
and the scales fell from my eyes then. The work was similar to what I'd done as an
undergraduate (albeit collapsed in the space of 18 months; I had the luxury of doing
part-time and then going full-time as a student).
I should have added that the Harvard PhD guy who taught me comparative economics was a
lousy teacher as well as a lousy administrator. I visited his office once and it looked as if
a tornado had just hit it. To be fair though, he really wasn't cut out to be a lecturer, he
was much better at research and analysis.
Before he became a lecturer, he worked at the CIA as a researcher. He knew next to no
German (he was of Polish background) so he was assigned to the section to read East German
newspapers. A fellow he knew who could speak and read German but no Bulgarian was assigned to
the ... Bulgarian section. That experience must account for my lecturer's sloppy personal
style.
But now that you draw my attention to the link, yes you are right that the study was done
at Princeton University.
Nice, some asocial nutty or gal has messed up the thread again! It's now unreadable. Was that
the intention of the nut job?
b., can't you keep these irritating readers off the range.
@Formerly T-Bear #70: Please don't swear. Goldhoarder may not realize he/she is breaking the
page layout -- the issue only shows up in some browsers. I assume you are using
Safari. If yes, then you can fix the problem yourself:
1. Create a new file in TextEdit and copy/paste the following line into it:
div.comments-body, div.comment-content { word-break: break-word; }
2. Save the file in your Documents folder under the name custom.css
3. Open Safari > Preferences menu item, click Advanced tab, click Style
sheet: drop-down menu, select Other menu item and choose your custom.css
file in the file picker.
This will solve the problem once and for all.
The line makes long links and other unbrekable character strings in comments breakable,
preventing them from ruining pages.
Propagandists are rarely smarter than the group they are trying to influence. Most Propaganda
is about reinforcing groupthink and pulling it in a desired direction. But the influencers
are with one leg inside the bubble. They are more pushing the bubble from the inside than
pulling from the outside.
Regrets, these incidents keep happening and vast pixels expended trying to make right
without effect.
No, I am on Yandex, had changed just because Safari did the same.
My computer programming days used machines containing ferrite cores strung on wires.
Old dogs and new tricks are formula for disaster, given failing eyesight and Benign
Idiopathic Tremor.
And not a teenager in sight to supervise the errors.
The irascibility intended to get the attention of irresponsible rascal, as in training a
stubborn Missouri Mule story.
Am trusting b to delete entry. Don't go snowflake about sharp language, that is its utility
to get attention
and awake the inattentive to their deeds.
Thank you again for trying to right this problem. I cannot see how breaking a link can be
accomplished without
undoing the link's function by inserting extraneous line breaking symbols into it and
disrupting the continuity a
link requires. I notice a '?' as well as '-' break links with minimal page expansion. Am
interested in the mechanics.
Again Thanks!
Why do you assume a technical illiterate could read those instructions? I can't even begin
to do anything with that. It is never simple enough for those who have not been
initiated.
HTML works by magic. Your instructions do not convince me otherwise.
Better solution is to forgo links altogether if not competent. Or spell out the link and
force the really interested to transcribe. Of course no one is going to go to effort of
spelling out a link as long as that one above. Which would be a good thing.
She's been gone some time now (she died in April 2018) but Karen Dawisha , a so-called expert on
Russian and post-Soviet politics who obtained a higher degree at the London School of
Economics, was another deluded academic twat who wrote the book "Putin's Kleptocracy: Who
Owns Russia?"
The 1-star, 2-star and 3-star reviews on Amazon.com of the book refer to the tabloid
quality of many of the claims in the book, poor sourcing, cherry-picking of facts and the
author's inability to write at a level that would attract a readership outside the academic
community.
The least we can say for her is that she is no longer in a position to, erm, "advise" the
US and UK governments on issues and help formulate policy that would backfire on Washington
and London anyway.
@ Posted by: Walter | Dec 6 2019 0:30 utc | 92 who continues to suggest the tinyurl
alternative
The problem with tinyurls is that when you mouse over the link you cannot see where it
will take you.
This means that some bad person could provide one here and send you to a web site that would
compromise your computer
If folks want to provide links here they should know what they are doing and/or use proper
HTML formatting
And if they screw up I would appreciate if they take responsibility for doing so and stop
linking or otherwise
limit their linking to minimize these sort of page formatting issues....please and thank
you
I think I was wrong about this. The ZH article has a link that doesn't have good
audio.
After hearing the whole audio, it sounds genuine.
Biden lost his cool and was insulting. Not sure that it matters to the Democratic faithful
though. Many will see the farmer as a Republican proxy and will view the interaction as
Biden's being up to taking on Trump.
Piotr #49
"I think that getting into looks etc. is self-trolling. PK looks like a typical lady of her
age, and commendably, she seems not to gain weight. "
In general I would agree with you.
("Commendably she seems not to gain weight" is kind of patronizing. She might for all you
know be anorectic. Or bulimic. You wouldn't happen to be a male, would you???)
Actually, most people do wear their character on their faces---seeing them "live" is far
more revealing than in a still. And most people also read faces and hear speech, and their
intuition, honed over decades of adulthood, sends them a gut feeling.
Regarding Karlan, I had the same gut feeling/response as Tucker Carlson. what a pinched,
sad little face, producing the the bombastic, self-righteous noises about patriotism and the
unacceptable joke about Barron Trump.
I wish you had explained to this depth previously. I had not realized that defect, or
"vulnerability", and I thank you kindly. You are clearly correct. One assumes of others what
one knows about one's own character...this, as you have pointed out, makes a tendency to
false assumptions - and makes for a fissure in forum such as this... I was wrong. The TURL
method does have merit in other contexts though; in cryptography, specifically steganography,
I think - but that's opinion. Not deep crypto, just one step past stupid.
I shall be obliged to forgo Patric Fermor's walking stories and toying with translation -
in favor of study of what you have provided as tutorial.
" previous page As the great wise man, Frank Zappa proclaimed about the USA:
"Politics/government is the entertainment division of the Military-Industrial
Government."
American politics makes much greater sense (and is a hell of a lot more entertaining) if
you understand this truism.
US Presidential Debates and impeachment hearings are a swell occasion for drinking
games.
Every time a political hack, media shill, or academic invokes some variant of American
Exceptionalism, take a shot of your favorite alcoholic beverage.
You will be drunk within half an hour--guaranteed!
I'd say unbelievable but I know that is only wishful thinking on my part. What's scary is
that these people populate the "educational" system which explains why we're as screwed as we
are.
for better or worse, the community at moa is a long running one with regular posters who do
pick up on the character of others if they stick around long enough.. people do read into
people and act accordingly.. thus S's helpful posts are a sign of a thoughtful person..maybe
S will change and behave differently in another post, but all things being equal i will
willing read a post by S, but i will ignore posts by those who decide to swear at S! if they
apologize, i will revise my viewpoint..
@ 79 really? yes, i think her line on trumps son was a rehearsed one... she wasn't really
thinking in any of it, other then for the effect... but her bullshite that b directly
addressed really speaks to how braindead or brainwashed so called educated people - profs at
whatever usa institution - really are.. i don't care how she looks.. it is irrelevant.. it is
what she has to say that epitomizes the stupidity epidemic in the usa leaders.. i can only
hope some of the ordinary people are not as brainwashed and have less exposure to
publications like the nyt, or if they have the exposure, they also have some critical
thinking abilities... the verdict is not good given her comments!!! forget about how she
looks.. it is immaterial as i see it..
also - learning how t correctly use the html tags is not that hard.. people are reading
this page in different mediums and so it appears differently depending on the browser and
format one uses..
"Do the Democrats really believe that their voters will not notice this?"
I think, b, that this merely points out to anyone who cares to think deeply on the
subject, that the voters don't matter - I submit that they don't matter to either party, and
haven't since electronic machines for entering votes and counting them have been in
effect.
What still does matter, however, is the appearance of credible voting procedures -
more of a surface situation than anything approaching reality. The meme being 'if it can be
done it will be done'.
So, as we approach times of importance such as election day, what must happen is a very
'close' election, so that the losers won't feel too aggrieved because after all they did
nearly win. It was a contest. Somehow, last time around things went awry.
Whether that was because H's actual vote count was so awful it took all they could do to get
her the popular vote, and that wasn't enough. Or maybe somebody was supposed to keep an eye
on the Trump score but they dozed off. So a few messy issues there, but ...
So you care that Trump eliminated food stamps for 700,000 people? Yet, this whole article is
about trashing the impeachment, yes, the same impeachment meant to take down a corrupt
bastard who has nothing better to do than mess with people on FOOD STAMPS and sign collective
punishment sanctions against millions of people in other countries and protect and arm the
butcher monarch who provoked famine in Yemen amongst other shet Trump's pulled.
The best and truest line in that hearing came precisely from Pamela Karlan: "The
Constitution states that there can be no titles of nobility. So while the president can name
his son Barron, he can't MAKE him a baron." Hello--smackdown!
(So he'll never be KING!😂)
Try and prove to me that pompous asshat Trump didn't have royal snobbery in mind when he
came up with that name? Too bad his grandfather, who was a draft dodger minus the bone spurs
excuse, was in the brothel business and that the pussy-grabbing apple of a son Donald didn't
fall far from the tree then rolling straight into the gutter.
Trump can cover his toilet in gold and name his kid after the title baron , but
the only royal that'll appear in Trump's legacy is ROYAL pain in the ass !
I am 200% for the impeachment if only to make Trump suffer the bitter HUMILIATION he so
deserves and fears.
Actually he deserves a cell next to one of his jailbird buddies, but impeachment is a good
start on the way down...straight to HELL, I hope!
A lot of people sold their soul for Trump. Hope he takes them along with him on the ride
down.
Lets give the Dims a chance-- Donald is dumb enough to give the Repugs a hard on--
Let's let the Dims grow this disaster a bit higher.
Pepsi, Pepsi Lite
What I find absent in most discussions about impeachment of Trump is the 800 pound
gorilla - what will happen to the US if against all odds, Trump gets impeached. Could the US
survive that cataclysmic event or would it rip the empire apart? What contingency plans does
everybody make for that unlikely, but not impossible singularity?
Pence becomes President and Nicky Haley become VP, the Republicans get wiped out in the
next election cycle and the US spills its blood in Iran for that very fiendish nation in that
region driving the bus behind the scenes.
That would be my guess along with another guess, the US populace is so tired of war they
will tear the nation apart if they do not get their payoff of free everything. I do believe
the democrats will continue to deliver for the war party and not the people when and if they
get complete control again. The Trumpers will be very angry as well. A toxic brew of
fulminating discontent.
It is a sick ugly mish mash of candidates with the war party working hard to keep one weak
nobody off the stage that offers up some slight chance of stirring up some discontent of
their policies. It shows that they greatly fear even a small challenge because they know it
will not take much to rip their policies to shreds.
I have tutored other MoA barflies in my "easy" method of creating proper HTML links and if
you know basic copy/paste capabilities and use of a text editor you can learn as well.
If interested, please contact me through the web sight linked by my moniker and at the
bottom of each page of the web site is an email link to me.
there's not "one group of people" behind everything wrong with this country. i keep seeing
this anti jewish bias lately. israel has way too much influence, but that is not the be all
and end all of problems in this country, or the most important one. you want to blame a group
of people, blame billionaires.
This whole "impeachment theater" is a propaganda showcase to convince the American people
that it's "enemies", like Russia, need to be opposed. If it were really about DJT's
transgressions, it would showcase the real issues like "obstruction", and "emoluments'
violations, not the "Russia did it" BS. Besides, its clear, the KSA and Israel, not to
mention other nations, also bought ads on Facebook during the election season.
There's big money in confrontation, peace isn't profitable.
Big $ can buy any number of political "hacks", and they populate both sides of the
aisle..
Well we just saw the foreign policy of Russia&allies "run circles" around Uncle Sam in
Bolivia--oh wait... So a bit less triumphalism please. Ms. Karlan doesn't teach her students
dispassionate, objective analysis; she indoctrinates them in exceptionalist entitlement and
messianic zeal. The potency of that mindset is perpetually underestimated, including by
Morales, who allowed compromised, flipped generals to run his army. Now he's reduced to
dreaming of a glorious comeback far, far away from power.
Only those sharing the Imperial hive mind need apply for US Govt jobs. It's the same it's
ever been under Trump; he just seems "exceptionally" poorly attuned as to which of his
appointees is only waiting for an opportune moment to shiv him--because he's incompetent. I
really don't think it's any more complicated than this.
This problem with messing up the width of the page has been ongoing and very hassle-some The
truth is, it is unreasonable to expect your average commenter to understand the intricacies
of html.It is undue hardship to have to take a crash course in html just to contribute to
this blog. The problem lies with b and his platform.
And maybe if people didn't read this blog and make comments for a week or two, b might take a
hint and get his shit together and fix the technical issue herein.I mean, can you imagine a
business running like this? The technical guy would be replaced.
...." the intricacies of html".... really? stick to reading cartoons or cnn/fox then... moa
is above your pay grade or you are brain dead.. probably the later..
Stevie, you were so busy with personal insults you forgot to give the links I asked for.
Links to where anyone ever proclaimed any of that. Like I said, I never heard a single
Hillarybot say so until after the election, and I won't believe any ever did till I see
proof.
And if the electoral college really is so odious to your Democrats, why didn't they
abolish it when they had effective one-party rule in 2009? Just one of so, so many questions
about the Democrats which 2009 answered once and for all.
As for Trump defenders, I don't know what they say. I of course reject every elite across
the board and despise the office of president as such, because such power, as well as the
process required to get there, would automatically turn anyone into an arch-criminal in the
unlikely event they weren't already one in the first place. But we see the pathetic
contortions of Dembots like you.
Yes, yes, you're "not a Dembot", sure you're not. It's just that, like with a few other
not-a-Dembots at this site, everything you say somehow mysteriously ends up implicitly
supporting the Democrats. Just a crazy coincidence I guess. Or maybe not: "the people who
have really turned away from the Democratic Party to favor political gangsterism."
You say the Democratic Party isn't political gangsterism every bit as much as the
Republicans? Gentlemen, we have a Dembot.
So you start out concern-trolling about food stamps and how everyone's being so
superficial in talking only about impeachment, then rush immediately to make your entire
comment another TDS rant about impeachment, culminating with:
"I am 200% for the impeachment if only to make Trump suffer the bitter HUMILIATION he so
deserves and fears."
Well, at least you stopped pretending to be anything but a TDS-riddled Dembot.
As for food stamps, threatening them is a culture war thing Republicans (and many Democrats)
like to engage in. But since from the point of view of the system food stamps are really
laundered corporate welfare for the food manufacturers and agribusiness, I doubt they'll be
going anywhere soon.
The fact that they help lots of people is, from the system's POV, purely a side
effect.
As for the hyperlink crisis, I admit I don't see what's so hard about learning one small
piece of HTML (especially since it's described right there in the comment form), but then
I've been using it for many years.
But I'll repeat one helpful hint someone once posted here - if your link has dashes in it,
it won't break the screen. Otherwise it might.
@117 Russ
You should check what they're putting in your porridge. You're seeing Dembots everywhere.
Unlike Nancy Pelosi, I'm proud to say I hate Trump. You like Vampyr Giuliani, Pompeo,
Lindsey Graham, Adelson, Nunes, loudmouth Jordan, wise guy Goetz...etc? These are some of the
most rabid defenders of Trump. You must like sewer rats, too!
By the way, TDS, stands for Trump Delusion Syndrome and you got it bad.
@12 Ma Laoshi
It's the same it's ever been under Trump; he just seems "exceptionally" poorly attuned
It's the same on steriods.
Trump is extremely manipulative, devious and preys on and exploits every weakness, so
anyone smarter than him will immediately recognize these traits and naturally protect
themseleves. He invites treachery, because he is not a good person. He's driven solely by an
insatiable ego. You forget that his mentor was Roy Cohn. His problem is that he's
self-absorbed and obsessed with his image and distracted with all the tweeting and watching
t.v. in between doing his hair, tanning, golf and official duties. Melania doesn't figure;
they have separate rooms. So not only does he invite treachery but he gives it time and
space. Thank goodness for that!
"... I was shocked and disappointed that the three "constitutional scholars" called by the Democratic majority were shrill, angry, exaggerated and thoroughly partisan. Their job was not to discuss the evidence against President Trump, but to provide the panel and the American people with clear and dispassionate insight into the minds of the Founders, the history of the three previous impeachment proceedings and how it applies to the current matter. ..."
"... In contrast, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, at least grasped the danger of partisan hijacking. With no small bit of humor, he noted the angry mood that has infected the nation, joking that even his dog is angry. He focused on the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, arguing it was the closest parallel to the present situation with Donald Trump--precisely because of the heavy partisanship in the current situation. ..."
"... The Founders did not contemplate nor provide for this post WWII expansion of the unelected and equally unresponsive fourth branch of government. We can thank JFK for weaponizing them once he granted government employees the right to unionize. And that is what we saw on display yesterday- weaponized government workers versus the rest of us. ..."
"... Let us recall that during the Cold War, in fact from 1920 to 1991 , Ukraine was part of the USSR. Did this fact damage U.S. national security or the U.S. national interest? Not to any significant degree, as betoken by the fact that the U.S. is widely acknowledged to have won the Cold War, as betoken by the breakup of the USSR. ..."
Having spent most of Wednesday listening to the "scholars" testifying about the Constitutional
standards for impeachment, I came away more convinced than ever that Alexander Hamilton was
absolutely right when he warned in Federalist Papers 65 of the danger of the matter of
impeachment of a President becoming hostage to partisan passions.
Hamilton wrote:
"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired
than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction
are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from
the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar
propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the
society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the
passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or
inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions,
and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on
the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be
regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of
innocence or guilt.
"The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and
existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves.
The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of
periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most
conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the
tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be
expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of
scrutiny."
Hamilton was primarily discussing the role of the Senate as the impartial jury hearing
evidence of impeachable crimes following the passage of articles of impeachment by the House of
Representatives. But the fundamental issue of partisan fury is really what is at stake.
I expected partisan fury from the Democratic and Republican members of the House Judiciary
Committee, but I was shocked and disappointed that the three "constitutional scholars" called
by the Democratic majority were shrill, angry, exaggerated and thoroughly partisan. Their job
was not to discuss the evidence against President Trump, but to provide the panel and the
American people with clear and dispassionate insight into the minds of the Founders, the
history of the three previous impeachment proceedings and how it applies to the current
matter.
I was most shocked by the shrill and anger from Dr. Karlan of Stanford, who is clearly an
accomplished legal scholar, but let her partisan passions color her presentation in a way that
only contributed to the sense that the critical issue of presidential impeachment has been
thoroughly hijacked--as Hamilton warned--by partisanship, factionalism and ulterior
motives.
In contrast, Jonathan Turley of George Washington University, at least grasped the danger of
partisan hijacking. With no small bit of humor, he noted the angry mood that has infected the
nation, joking that even his dog is angry. He focused on the impeachment of President Andrew
Johnson, arguing it was the closest parallel to the present situation with Donald
Trump--precisely because of the heavy partisanship in the current situation.
Turley also expressed alarm at the speed with which the impeachment has been carried out and
at the lack of consideration of exculpatory evidence. In his tone, he brought a degree of
serious scholarship to an otherwise kangaroo process. And to make matters clear, he told the
panel that he did not support President Trump, did not vote for him, and is not himself caught
up in the passions of partisanship on either side of the aisle. A President should not be
impeached over an abrasive personality and a tendency to punch back first and ask questions
later. If that was the standard, Donald Trump would be guilty as charged.
The denigrating of the impeachment process into a partisan circus is not what the Founders
intended. Hamilton spoke clearly but the Democrats and their constitutional scholars were tone
deaf. Very disappointing for our nation.
Hamilton was perhaps the greatest genius America has produced, with the possible exception of
Ben Franklin. They would both be shocked and appalled by these partisan "scholars". Good God,
the level of intelligence in this nation has fallen precipitously since those days. Almost as
much as our morals.
Open hearings allow all of us to make up our own minds- about both content and delivery. This
was a major fail yesterday. Turley has been warning about the expansive growth of the
unelected fourth branch of government even during the Obama era when he was testifying
against activist interpretation of express Obamacare terminology.
The Founders did not contemplate nor provide for this post WWII expansion of the unelected
and equally unresponsive fourth branch of government. We can thank JFK for weaponizing them
once he granted government employees the right to unionize. And that is what we saw on
display yesterday- weaponized government workers versus the rest of us.
Where do we go next is the only discussion worthy of having. We should by now have moved
well beyond shock and alarm. How do we limit and diminish a weaponized, unelected government
workforce, who can over turn every single fundamental precept of our constitutional framework
of governance. Suggestions please - we are at a critical juncture.
Action plan: Identify and defang. What say you, Professor Turley?
1. Col. Lang wrote an excellent post on
'Who "debunked" the Biden conspiracy theories?' .
I would like to suggest a companion post on 'Who defines "the national interests of the
United States" '.
Motivation: Per the number one story of the 2019-12-04 NYT ,
House Democrats on Tuesday (12-03) asserted that
President Trump abused his power
by pressuring Ukraine to help him in the 2020 presidential election,
releasing an impeachment report that found
the president "placed his own personal and political interests above the national interests of the United States ."
Leaving aside the obvious politics of this, I repeat the question in the title
of my suggested post.
The assumption of Dems and most of the MSM seems to be that Ukraine is somehow "vital to the
U.S. national security".
Really?
Let us recall that during the Cold War, in fact from 1920 to
1991 , Ukraine was part of the USSR.
Did this fact damage U.S. national security or the U.S. national interest?
Not to any significant degree, as betoken by the fact that the U.S. is widely acknowledged to
have won the Cold War, as betoken by the breakup of the USSR.
So if Ukraine was not essential to U.S. national security when the USSR was a very real and
potent threat,
why is Ukraine now considered, by so many of the ersatz "elite", now "vital to U.S. ..."?
I think that is a question worth justifying and asking.
2. Over and over again, we are told that the request for investigations of Ukraine are
purely "for Trump's personal political gain".
Again, really?
Again, citing Col. Lang's excellent post
'Who "debunked" the Biden conspiracy theories?' ,
there are plenty of questions about the U.S./Ukraine connection, and related events in
Ukraine, that deserve to be asked and answered.
And not just by the MSM, that has made it more than clear that they are only interested in,
and willing to, give one side of the story vis-a-vis Ukraine.
C.f. John Solomon's columns, where he has pointed out many issues warranting
investigation,
also the issues Rudy Giuliani keeps raising.
Here is a suggestion:
The left in America has a policy of floating public petitions on various issues, inviting
Americans to "sign up" to endorse their favorite points of view.
I think it would be good if a petition could be floated
That would make it clear that Trump's request for investigations was not just
"for his personal political gain",
but something many Americans desire, but that the MSM and Dems have stonewalled,
calling such concerns "debunked conspiracy theories."
There aren't enough flags in the world for Nancy Pelosi to surround herself with that can
mask the blatant tyranny of her majority's actions in the House of Representatives. I've
never witnessed so much intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and destruction of democracy as I
have since the POTUS' stunning victory in 2016. Leftists point to Clinton's popular vote lead
in that election, ignoring that Trump shrewdly campaigned with the Constitutional reality in
mind of the role the Electoral College plays in the outcome.
Democrats are driving us perilously close towards another civil war, which leads me to
take back everything I ever said about gun control. I would've never dreamed before now that
there could come a time when we'd have to take up arms against tyranny in the United States.
Tragically, it just may come to that before too long if the corruption, unfairness and abuse
continues.
I disagree. I believe Dr. Karlan of Stanford and the other two professors, Noah Feldman of
Harvard and Michael Gerhardt The University of North Carolina School of Law, have done a
great service to the Republic. To wit:
1. They have shown that all three, but especially Dr. Karlan, are, due to their temperament,
completely unqualified to be elevated to the Federal Judiciary - at any level.
2. They have shown that Academia, espeically as represented by professors from two elite,
private, tax exempt institutions, are peopled by individuals who are both vicious and highly
partisan.
3. That these bastions of alleged elite and principled thought, which consume billions in
direct and indirect federal subsidies, are both lead by and produce second rate leaders
fosued upon conformity to ideology. They are unconcerned with things such as economic
influences on political events nor conditions of US citizens in our federal republic. They
show more admiration of the conduct of foreign affairs by an institutional bureaucracy loyal
to itself and it's interpretation of the Constitution than they do to the powers
specificly granted to the elected President therein.
These are great services from the Triumvirate of Academia, for they show that we can
safely cut these elite instituion subsidies by the billions; that degrees given by these
instituions are of dubious value; and that firms hiring employees educated there my bring the
closed minded partisianship and all that entails into the workplace. So thank you Dr. Kaplan,
Mr. Feldman and Mr. Gerhadt. You have all done us all a great service.
To Donald J. Trump I reccomned you call Betsy Devos and tell her to double down
immediately. Then you need to direct every agency to audit every grant given to every one of
these universities to see that they are actually following the law. Since, unlike aid to
Ukriane, these dispursements of the taxpayer's money DO come with strings attached.
"This is not just about our national interests to protect elections or make sure Ukraine
stays strong and fights the Russians so we don't have to fight them here"
smart but not wise
I first became aware of Karlan during Bush v. Gore.
She clerked for Justice Blackmun, who said she wrote the dissent for him in Bowers v,
Hardwick. That dissent eventually became law when Bowers was overruled in Lawrence v.
Texas.
Karlan told Politico in 2009: "It's no secret at all that I'm counted among the LGBT
crowd". She has described herself as an example of a "snarky, bisexual, Jewish women".
I have a question for those knowledgeable about Constitutional law.
If the president is impeached would he be able to use all the facilities of the executive
branch to aid in his defence? For example, to use the FBI or Justice dept to investigate his
accusers. On the one hand it seems to me that this could be allowed as being a defence of the
office of the presidency; on the other hand I could see where it would be considered as using
his office for personal "gain".
If this question has been answered in another post I apologize.
There must be something else going on between now and Christmas for the Democrats to be in
such a rush to Impeach the President with no fact based witnesses within their case. Whatever
it may be it must be a doozy. Listening to legal scholars yesterday left me thinking, Wow,
now I know what the Salem Witch Trials were like with 3/4 stating hang him in many ways and
1/4 offering reasonable advice as he believed there was no case but maybe there will be if
they try harder. So it's off to the Senate and that is not a slam dunk.
Keyboard shortcuts are available for common actions and site navigation. View Keyboard
Shortcuts Dismiss this message <form
action="https://mobile.twitter.com/i/nojs_router?path=%2Faaronjmate%2Fstatus%2F1202373882960908293"
method="POST"> <input type="hidden" value="b77697e7b8df64a2ce365eddf3ceca8fc9328dc7"
name="authenticity_token"> <div> <span></span> <p>We've detected
that JavaScript is disabled in your browser. Would you like to proceed to legacy
Twitter?</p> <p><button type="submit">Yes</button></p>
</div> </form> Skip to content
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location,
from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your
Tweet location history. Learn more
Turn on Not now
Close Your lists Close Create a new list
Under 100 characters, optional
Save list Close Close Copy link to Tweet
Close Embed this TweetEmbed this Video
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server. Try again?
Close Log in to Twitter
· Forgot password? Don't have an account? Sign up " Close Sign up for TwitterNot on Twitter?
Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.Sign up Have an account? Log in " Close Two-way (sending and receiving) short
codes:
This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what
matters to you. Tweets not working for you?
Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account. Say a
lot with a little
When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart -- it lets the person who wrote it know you
shared the love. Spread the word
The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the
icon to send it instantly. Join the conversation
Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and
jump right in. Learn the latest
Get instant insight into what people are talking about now. Get more of what you
love
Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about. Find what's
happening
See the latest conversations about any topic instantly. Never miss a Moment
Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold. Back Next Next Tweet from
user
Aaron Maté 3:47 PM - 4 Dec 2019
Thanks to Pamela Karlan for so aptly capturing Democratic elites' delusional, Reaganite,
jingoistic Cold Warrior mindset in your claim that we need to arm Ukraine "so they fight the
Russians there and we don't have to fight them here" & we remain "that shining city on
the hill." pic.twitter.com/C78aNThnUk
Aaron Maté 7:46 PM - 4 Dec 2019
Rep. @davidcicilline tells Cold War Chris @chrislhayes that Trump "was really
compromising [US] national security" by briefly holding military aid to Ukraine -- aka "the
tip of the spear" against Russia. So did Obama compromise national security when he refused
to send it at all? pic.twitter.com/b7eAT90hvu
Aaron Maté 7:50 PM - 4 Dec 2019
Every Democratic lawmaker & pundit making this Cold Warrior claim should be asked this
very simple Q: how does (briefly) not sending weapons to Ukraine compromise US national
security? And when Obama refused to send them in his 2nd term, did he compromise US national
security?
3:55 PM - 4 Dec 2019
This is an excellent example of how liberals are okay with supporting neo-Nazi
governments.
Ringuette 5:16 PM - 4 Dec 2019
Christ. You have no real sense of what you are defending, do you? The liberals you malign
are fighting the actual neo-nazis and white supremacists in the Republican Party. In the
United States. Right now.
4:32 PM - 4 Dec 2019
Aren't there a lot of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis? And is it possible arming them might be
something that in retrospect seems like a regrettable choice?
Muscovy Beast 5:23 PM - 5 Dec 2019
Correct. The only person who was seriously covering it, before it even entered US news
cycles, was Robert Parry from Consortium, who, unfortunately, passed away. He was right about
all of it (& was still dismissed). Articles are likely still up. Western coup.
The Democrats seem clueless about what's going on in Ukraine and they don't care, which
makes me angry. They present themselves as the good guys while they vote for military
spending & aid instead of supporting peace.
Ian Wilkie 3:53 PM - 4 Dec 2019
I've said it before but I'll say it again: Demohawks are the worst kind of hawks.
Principally because very few of them have served in the military. My Unit's life expectancy
in the Fulda Gap was 72 hours. No US military should be based in Ukraine. Not a US ally. Not
even close.
john barnett 4:31 PM - 4 Dec 2019
Americans seem to only be able to think of anything in terms of a good guy vs a bad guy.
while Russia is worse, there are no good guys in Ukraine either. we have no legitimate
interest in entangling ourselves in such a cesspool of corruption as Ukraine.
Donald Martell 3:49 PM - 4 Dec 2019
Jesus christ these people have no idea what they're doing
Phil 4:10 PM - 4 Dec 2019
The Kissinger approach to foreign policy is pretty much this: power must always act
regardless of objective, because by creating chaos the powerful remain in power while
everyone else scrambles to survive.
Oh yes. Why create new propaganda tropes when the old ones still work so well...
Barnaby Tudbubble 3:51 PM - 4 Dec 2019
"promoting democracy worldwide" & "if we look hypocritical" as they embrace coups
everywhere. these people are sickening
Ludmilla 4:46 PM - 4 Dec 2019
I had to turn it off, coul dnot stand her voice and her pronunciation. So annoying...
Todd Appel 4:34 PM - 4 Dec 2019
Stanford Law Professor?. Just sickening
Janet Weil 9:46 PM - 4 Dec 2019
There's one even more sickening at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall (Law School): John "Torture
Memo" Yoo. @codepink protested him there for years.
Daniel 4:03 PM - 4 Dec 2019
Dem leadership today is a hideous beast Who are they expecting this to appeal to?
Embarrassing
Phil 4:09 PM - 4 Dec 2019
billionaires who profit from a world in tatters: that's who they always try to appeal
to.
Emma 4:01 PM - 4 Dec 2019
So what's she saying is we like to use poor countries to do our fighting for us so we (us
clever Law Professors) can stay comfortably safe in our ivory towers. She seems nice..
Phil 4:13 PM - 4 Dec 2019
I'm pretty sure she also thinks law books are used to hit people over the head, not to be
read to see if the law is being used as it was written.
Putin Peace (and Potatoes) 5:19 PM - 4 Dec 2019
She was over the top. And I heard she is their new hero. Scary.
Lisa Mojica 5:35 PM - 4 Dec 2019
Continuing to normalize rehabilitate the security state.
benji_schoendorff 3:59 PM - 4 Dec 2019
The level of Imperial delusion is off the charts with this one. Sadly she's unlikely to be
an outlier
Do Not Forget 3:57 PM - 4 Dec 2019
"City on a hill" John Winthrop, "A Model of Christian Charity," 1635; "In 1636, the Pequot
War exploded. The Europeans massacred the Native Americans, including women and children.
These terror tactics shocked the First Nation people."
I half think this whole farce is about reinforcing the false narrative of Russiagate re.
Russian perfidy. Just an exercise in further conditioning the public. The level of delusion
re. the order and nature of events in Ukraine is staggering.
"... Karlan's emphatic doomsday warning produced stunned reaction online, with conservative journalist Jack Posobiec describing the moment as one in which the respected professor went "full neocon." ..."
"... For most level-headed experts, it would be difficult to imagine a scenario in which Americans would need to be 'fighting the Russians' on US soil, regardless of US policy in Ukraine -- but perhaps Karlan just took 'Red Dawn', a 1980s Soviet-invasion movie, a bit too seriously. ..."
"... "No wonder Russia is leary of the US -- this is what is being taught to our children," ..."
"... "Hey, the '80s called and wants its foreign policy back or something," ..."
"... the professor accused Trump of "violating his oath" to defend the Constitution and sacrificing the national interest "for his own private ends" in his communications with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, around which the impeachment hearings are centered. ..."
Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan raised eyebrows online for suggesting during
congressional impeachment hearings that the US must keep Ukraine strong "so they fight the
Russians there and we don't have to fight them here." Yes, you read that right. It seems in
Karlan's mind, all that's stopping "the Russians" from invading the US is the Ukrainian
army, which must be kept strong to stave off the ultimate disaster. The law professor made the
baffling comment during the House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing on Wednesday.
Karlan's emphatic doomsday warning produced stunned reaction online, with conservative
journalist Jack Posobiec describing the moment as one in which the respected professor went "full neocon."
Professor Karlan just went full neocon and said we need to arm Ukraine to fight the
Russians there so we don't have to fight them here. Yes, really. pic.twitter.com/jeMPXgP7kf
"The students who are paying through the nose at Stanford are really not getting value
for money," added author and commentator George Szamuely, referring to Karlan's teaching
role at the prestigious university. "Anyone else would be laughed out of the pub," for making such a statement, Szamuely
continued.
The statement is so cretinous that one can safely say that only a Stanford law professor
could utter it. Anyone else would be laughed out of the pub.
For most level-headed experts, it would be difficult to imagine a scenario in which
Americans would need to be 'fighting the Russians' on US soil, regardless of US policy in
Ukraine -- but perhaps Karlan just took 'Red Dawn', a 1980s Soviet-invasion movie, a bit too
seriously.
Some on Twitter also wondered where Karlan had been when the
Obama administration was denying military aid to Ukraine -- particularly as she herself worked
at the Justice Department during his presidency.
"No wonder Russia is leary of the US -- this is what is being taught to our
children," another person said .
"Hey, the '80s called and wants its foreign policy back or something,"wrote
another.
During her testimony, the professor accused Trump of "violating his oath" to defend
the Constitution and sacrificing the national interest "for his own private ends" in his
communications with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, around which the impeachment
hearings are centered.
Carlson mocked her testimony and found some old footage of her pushing the lie of "white
male privilege" all the way back in 2006.
"We have to seize back the high ground on patriotism and love of our country because we have
more reason than they do to love America," Karlan says in the clip. "The rich, pampered
prodigal sanctimonious incurious white, straight sons of the powerful do pretty well everywhere
in the world and they always have."
"This lady needs a shrink," Carlson joked. "'The sons of the powerful?' Really? You are a
law professor at Stanford and you are lecturing other people how they are powerful? Right."
During her testimony, Karlan also regurgitated old neocon talking points insisting we need
to arm the Ukrainians "so we can fight the Russians there and we don't have to fight them
here."
"And I think in the Intelligence Committee you heard testimony that it isn't just our
national interest in protecting our national elections, it isn't just our national interest to
make sure that the Ukraine remains strong and on the front lines so we can fight the Russians
there and we don't have to fight them here," Karlan said.
Karlan also made a very stupid joke about Barron Trump, got scolded by Melania Trump and
chose to come out and apologize:
"... There is no longer any doubt. The people who are not elected and don't represent the American people are lunatics. Look at the hubris on display here with Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan. ..."
"... With these low grade sub-standard people like Karlan it really is time to drain the swamp but make certain the drain isn't plugged. Keep in mind too that this impeachment movement against President Trump is being led by Jewish participants including Kaplan who is Jewish. ..."
"... This would make sense considering American Jewish oligarchs are working with Ukrainian Jewish oligarchs. It is pathological as to just how much Jews hate Russia. ..."
There is no longer any doubt. The people who are not elected and don't
represent the American people are lunatics. Look at the hubris on display here with Stanford
law professor Pamela Karlan.
Is it any wonder that today in America
universitystudents are confused and compromised . It is probably true to a certain extent that
what Kaplan is saying in public is probably to degrade President Trump on Ukraine, however, the
Russians are paying very close attention.
These are the kind of "low-intellect dinosaurs" behind U.S. foreign policy calling
themselves "professors" who are responsible for "educating" American youth.
With these low grade sub-standard people like Karlan it really is time to drain the swamp
but make certain the drain isn't plugged. Keep in mind too that this impeachment movement
against President Trump is being led
by Jewish participants including Kaplan who is Jewish.
This would make sense considering American Jewish oligarchs are working with Ukrainian
Jewish oligarchs. It is pathological as to just how much Jews hate Russia.
"... A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have kept the allegations alive. ..."
"... The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today, Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even an Obama aide termed it , will remain. ..."
"... Listen to the podcast here ..."
"... War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate ..."
"... The John Batchelor Show ..."
"... Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument. The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline! ..."
"... You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills. ..."
"... It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision. They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy. ..."
"... CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it. ..."
"... We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths. If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or intelligence, so we should stop paying them. ..."
"... Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise. ..."
"... Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep "in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards. ..."
"... Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes likes it or not, except as . ..."
"... Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to conclude that he's fully on board. ..."
"... There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it, not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe propaganda value. ..."
"... In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination ..."
"... Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie enemies. It makes it ' real '. The ' heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches, etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice. ..."
"... To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens. In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security 'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world. (Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.) ..."
"... or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow continue to believe his campaign rhetoric? ..."
"... The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid. ..."
"... "TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ". Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ? ..."
"... Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics, and that's through America's brutal empire abroad. ..."
"... Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference, except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things. ..."
President Trump campaigned and was elected on an anti-neocon platform: he promised to reduce direct US involvement in areas where,
he believed, America had no vital strategic interest, including in Ukraine. He also promised a new détente ("cooperation") with Moscow.
And yet, as we have learned from their recent congressional testimony, key members of his own National Security Council did not
share his views and indeed were opposed to them. Certainly, this was true of Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Both of them
seemed prepared for a highly risky confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, though whether retroactively because of Moscow's 2014
annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
Similarly, Trump was slow in withdrawing Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer appointed by President Obama as ambassador
to Kiev, who had made clear, despite her official position in Kiev, that she did not share the new American president's thinking
about Ukraine or Russia. In short, the president was surrounded in his own administration, even in the White House, by opponents
of his foreign policy and presumably not only in regard to Ukraine.
How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it was the doing and legacy of the neocon
John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate
such appointees.
A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the
Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained
a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have
kept the allegations alive.
The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy
establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today,
Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views
of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave
power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even
an Obama aide termed it , will remain.
Listen to the podcast
here . Stephen F. Cohen Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. ANationcontributing editor, his most recent book,War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available
in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host ofThe John Batchelor Show, now in their sixth
year, are available at www.thenation.com .
because of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
In an otherwise decent overview, this sticks out like a sore thumb. It would be helpful to stop using the word annexation.
While correct in a technical sense – that Crimea was added to the Russian Federation – the word comes with all kinds of connotations,
that imply illegality and or force. Given Crimea was given special status when gifted to Ukraine for administration by the USSR,
one could just as easily apply "annexation" of Crimea to Ukraine. After Ukraine voted to "leave" the USSR, Crimea voted to join
Ukraine. Obviously the "Ukrainian" vote did not include Crimea. Even after voting to join Ukraine, Crimea had special status within
Ukraine, and was semi autonomous. If you can vote to join, you can vote to leave. Either you have the right to self determination,
or you don't.
This is what is so infuriating, Stephen! These silent coups of the executive branch have been taking place for my entire life!
Both parties are guilty of refusing to appoint cabinet members that the elected presidents would have chosen for themselves, because
both parties are more interested in making the president of the opposing party look bad, make him ineffective, and incapable of
carrying out policies that he was elected to carry out. That is the very definition of treason!
Things are a disaster. The JCPOA is at the heart of the issue and Trump and his advisors stubborn refusal to capitulate on
this issue very well may cause Trump to lose the 2020 election. Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the
DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument.
The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline!
The anti-Iranian fever has created so much havoc not only with Iran, but with every country on earth other than Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE. Germany announced that it is seeking to unite with Russia, not only for Gazprom, but is now considering purchasing
defense systems from Russia, and Germany is dictating EU policy, by and large. Germany has said that Europe must be able to defend
itself independent of America and is requesting an EU military and Italy is on board with this idea, seeking to create jobs and
weapons for its economy and defense.
The EU is fed up with the economic sanctions placed on countries that the U.S. has black-listed, particularly Russia and Iran,
and China as well for Huwaei 5G.
Nobody in their right mind could ever claim this to be the free market capitalism that Larry Kudlow espouses!
You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed
novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens
that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills.
It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this
blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura
Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision.
They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy.
CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them guilty
of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
It is a political game between to competing kleptocratic cults. The DNC and RNC are whores and will do what ever their donors
tell them to do. That is also treason. This country is just a total wasteland.
Everyone has pledged allegiance to fraud.
Too big to fail, like the Titanic and the Hindenberg.
We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or
intelligence, so we should stop paying them.
Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering
Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise.
What kind of stupid question is this? You mean you don't know or asking us for confirmation? If you really don't know then why
are you writing an article about it? If you do know then why are you asking the UNZ readers?
Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is,
as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to
the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep
"in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards.
It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
That's ok but it's a bit unfair to Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths After all most of the country is Hedonistic as hell,
it sells commercials or wtf. Satanic is philosophical and way over the heads of these clowns, though if the be a Satan, then they
are in the plan for sure, and right on the mark. As for psychopaths, those are criminals who are insane, but they can have remorse
and be their own worst enemies, often they just go off and go psycho and bad things happen, but can be unplanned off the wall
stuff, not diabolic.
Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's
are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as
kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes
likes it or not, except as .
So, once upon a time, a people got so hedonistic and they didn't watch the game and theier leaders were low quality
(especially religeous/morals ) and long story short Satan unleashed the Socio's , Things seem to be heading disastrously,
so will bit coin save the day? Green nudeal?
While massive attention is directed towards Russia and the Ukraine, the majority of the public are shown the slight of hand
and their attention is never brought near to the real perpetrators of subverting American and British foreign policy.
Doesn't matter if he's surrounded. A president CAN make foreign policy, and a president CAN fire people who disagree with his
policy. Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy
for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to
conclude that he's fully on board.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them
guilty of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
--
first off the supreme law of the land maybe the Constitution and to oppose it may be Treason, but the Law that is supreme to the
Law of the land is Human rights law.. it is far superior to, and it is the TLD of all laws of the land of all of the Nation States
that mankind has allowed the greedy among its masses, to impose.
There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it,
not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender
of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual
promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe
propaganda value.
If you note the USA constitution has seven articles..
Article 1 is about 525 elected members of congress and their very limited powers to control
foreign activities. Each qualified to vote member of the governed (a citizen so to speak) is allowed to
vote for only 3 of the 525 persons. so basically there is no real national election anywhere .
Article II grants the electoral college the power to appoint two persons full control of the assets,
resources and manpower of America to conquer the entire world or to make peace in the entire world.
Either way: the governed are not allowed to vote for either; the EC vote determines the P or VP.
Article III allows the Article II person to appoint yes men to the judiciary
Where exist the power of the governed to deny USA governors the ability to the use the powers the constitution claims
the governors are to have, against the governed? <==No where I can find? Theoretically, the governed are protected from abuse
for as long as it takes to conduct due process?
One person, the Article II person, is basically the king when in comes to constitutional authority to establish, conduct,
prosecute or defend USA involvement in foreign affairs.
No where does the constitution of the USA deny its President the use of American resources or USA military power, to
make and use diplomat appointments, or to use the USA to use the wealth of America and the hegemonic powers of the USA to make
a private or public profit in a foreign land. <= d/n matter if the profit is personal to the President or if it assigned by appointment
(like the feudal powers granted by the feudal kings to the feudal lords) to corporate feudal lords or oligarch personal interest.
AFAICT, the president can USE the USA to conduct war, invade or otherwise infringe on, even destroy, the territory, or a
private or public interest, within a foreign sovereign more or less at will. So if the President wants to command a private
or secret Army like the CIA, he can as far as I can tell, obviously this president does, because he could with his pen alone shut
it down.
Seems to me the "NO" from Wilson's four points
no more secret diplomacy peace settlement must not lead the way to new wars
no retribution, unjust claims, and huge fines <basically indemnities paid by the losers to the winners.
no more war; includes controls on armaments and arming of nations.
no more Trade Barriers so the nations of the world would become more interdependent.
have been made the essence of nation state operations world wide.
IMO, The CIA exists at the pleasure of the President.
@Curmudgeon all of that,
plus the Kosovo precedent.
In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force
self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination
Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment
there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie
enemies. It makes it ' real '. The 'heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But
the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches,
etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice.
To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens.
In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security
'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there
are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world.
(Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.)
Trump should have kept Steve Bannon as his advisor and should have fired instead his son-in-law. Perhaps "they" are blackmailing
Trump with photos like here: https://www.pinterest.com/richarddesjarla/creepy/
That would explain why Trump is so ineffective at making a reality anything he campaigned for.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
An anti-neocon president appears to have been surrounded by neocons in his own administration.
The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself
with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
Halfway around the world from Washington's halls of power, Ukraine sits along a civilizational and geopolitical fault line.
To Ukraine's west are the liberal democracies of Europe, governed by rule of law and democratic principles. To its east are
Russia and its client states in Eurasia, almost all of which are corrupt oligarchies. [ ] In this war on democratic movements
and democratic principles, Russia's biggest prize and chief adversary has always been the United States. Until now, however,
Russia has always had to contend with bipartisan resolve to counter
No mention of China, and this is the problem with the whole foreign policy establishment not just the neocons. Russia is more
of an annoyance than anything, but they are still operating assumptions on what is the
Geographical Pivot of History , so they want to talk about Russia. Like an Edwardian sea cadet we are supposed to care about
Russia getting (back) a water port in Crimea. Mahan's definition of sea power included a strong commercial fleet. After tearing
their own environment apart like a car in a wrecking yard and heating up the planet China has taken time out from deforestation
and colonising Tibet, to send huge container vessels full of cheap goods through the melting Arctic round the top of Russia all
the better to get to Europe and deindustrialise it.
Western elites have sold out to China, seen as the future, so we hear about Russia rather than the three million Uyghurs in
concentration camps complete with constantly smoking crematoria, and harvesting of organs for rich foreigners.
Who
poses a greater threat to the West: China or Russia?
By the time the West finds itself in open conflict with Beijing, we will have lost our relative advantage. Brendan Simms and
K.C. Lin [ ] The concept of China being a threat is harder to comprehend. In what way? Yes, its hacking and intellectual property
theft is a headache. But is it worse than what Russia is up to? And don't we need Chinese investment, so does it really matter
if China builds our 5G mobile networks? In London, ministers agonise over these issues -- not knowing whether to pity China
(we still send foreign aid there), beg for its money and contracts (with prime ministerial trade trips), or treat it as a potential
antagonist.
Aid ! They sent robots to the far side of the Moon
Beijing has been the beneficiary of liberal revulsion at the Trump presidency: if the Donald is against the Chinese,
who cannot be for them? As a result, Trump's efforts to address China's unfair trade practices have so far missed the mark
with the domestic and international audience. As Trump declares war on free trade, China -- one of the most protectionist economies
in the world -- is now celebrated at Davos as the avatar of free trade. Later this month, China's Vice-President is likely
to be in attendance at Davos -- and there is even talk of him meeting with Trump. Similarly, the messiness of American politics
has made China's one-party state an apparent poster boy of political stability and governability.
"TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by
Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic
known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ".
Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ?
Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal
authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free
speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics,
and that's through America's brutal empire abroad.
The military/intelligence imperial establishment definitely see Israel as a kind of American colony in the Mideast, and they
make sure that it's well provided for. That's what the Neocon Wars have been about. Paving over large parts of Israel's noisy
neighborhood. And that includes matters like keeping Syria off-balance with occupation in its northeast. And constantly threatening
Iran.
Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference,
except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things.
By the way, the last President who tried seriously to make foreign policy as the elected head of government left half of his
head splattered on thec streets of Dallas.
@Jon Baptist We have
all been brainwashed by the propaganda screened by the massmedia ,whether it be FOX , MSNBC , CBS ,etc.. SeptemberClues.info has
a good article entitled "The central role of the news media on 9/11 " :
"The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that weakspot of ours .We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time we can only
wonder why so many never questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks The 9/11 TV imagery of the crucial
morning events was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie."
@follyofwar Pat inhabits
a strange Hollywood type world, where the US is always the good guy. He believes that, although the US may make foreign policy
mistakes, its aims and ambitions are nevertheless noble and well intentioned.
In Pat's world it's still circa 1955, but even then, his take on US foreign policy would have been hopelessly unrealistic.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden acknowledged it "may have looked bad" for his
son to serve on the board of foreign companies, but the former vice president stood firm that
his son did nothing wrong.
... ... ...
When asked by Telemundo if it was wrong -- even if legal -- for Hunter Biden
to take the board seat, Joe Biden doubled down on defending his son.
"There's nothing asserted that he did anything that was illegal," Joe Biden said. "Here's
what I'm not going to do. I'm not going to -- and I know you're not intending to do this --
play the game to take the eye off the culprit."
"... Lev Golinkin explained in The Nation a few months ago that the release of that ledger by Leshchenko and NABU was an important event -- and a direct intervention in the election. "The story rocked the 2016 election, given Manafort's position as head of Trump's campaign. The Hillary Clinton campaign immediately seized on it as proof that Manafort -- and therefore Trump -- was tied to Yanukovych and the Kremlin," he wrote. "Manafort was ousted based on handwritten pieces of paper -- the story would've never gone anywhere without NABU and Leshchenko's vouching for the ledger's authenticity. That's as direct as it gets." ..."
"... But three years later, this episode has been wiped from the collective memory of our media and political establishment. What used to be fact is now smeared as either a pro-Trump rightwing conspiracy theory or Russian propaganda -- and probably both. But saying that it didn't happen doesn't change the historical record. ..."
"... Yasha Levine is an investigative journalist and a founding editor of The eXiled Online. His latest book is "Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet." ..."
Not only did it happen, it was written up as fact by establishment papers and outlets as
varied as Yahoo, Politico and The Financial Times, reports Yasha Levine.
I know I've written about
this before, but I feel like I have to address it again -- seeing how just about every
impeachment witness has repeated the claim that meddling by Ukrainian government officials did
not happen in 2016 and that anyone who says otherwise is spreading toxic Russian propaganda.
I've been dipping into these hearings every now and again and I've seen this said over and
over. It reminds me of those new age quantum-mind-over-matter types in the "The Secret:"
Repeat the mantra often enough and convince yourself it's true and it is!
Let's start with a fact: Meddling in the 2016 election by Ukrainian politicians and
government agencies happened.
The above is true and no amount of denial is going to change that. What's more: Ukrainian
nationals didn't just meddle on their own, they also worked with Americans -- including
Ukrainian-American political operatives on the payroll of the Democratic Party. Not only
did all this happen, it was written up as fact by establishment papers and outlets as varied as
Yahoo , Politico
, and TheFinancial Times in
2016 on the eve of the election. ( See this by me here
.)
One of the best examples of this is the
plot to take down Paul Manafort -- the sleazy Republican political consultant who had long
worked in Ukraine and who headed Donald's Trump campaign.
In 2016, Serhiy Leshchenko, a Ukrainian member of parliament and an anti-corruption activist
(who got embroiled in his own corruption scandal), coordinated the release of a handwritten
ledger. The document purported to show off-the-book payments made to Manafort from the Party of
the Regions -- the political arm of the Viktor Yanukovich, the Ukrainian president who had been
overthrown in a coup-type revolt by a much more Western-friendly political faction. The ledger
itself was released by NABU, a Ukrainian government anti-corruption organization set up as
result of prodding by the Obama administration and which was
run with the backing and financial support of the FBI .
(As an aside: NABU -- which also got embroiled into its own political corruption scandal --
also happens to be at the heart of an internal Ukrainian political fight that sucked in
ex-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. But that's a different and
complicated story . And then there's the weird angle of the FBI being so closely involved
with NABU at a time when this Ukrainian anti-corruption agency decided to involve itself in an
American election.)
Anyway, Leshchenko -- a foreign politician -- made clear that his objective at the time was
to kill off Trump's candidacy. That's a direct admission of meddling. As Oleksiy Kuzmenko has
documented so well, Leshchenko repeated this statement in various ways in both English and
Ukraine over and over again.
Lev Golinkin explained in TheNationa few months ago that the
release of that ledger by Leshchenko and NABU was an important event -- and a direct
intervention in the election. "The story rocked the 2016 election, given Manafort's position as
head of Trump's campaign. The Hillary Clinton campaign immediately seized on it as proof that
Manafort -- and therefore Trump -- was tied to Yanukovych and the Kremlin," he wrote. "Manafort
was ousted based on handwritten pieces of paper -- the story would've never gone anywhere
without NABU and Leshchenko's vouching for the ledger's authenticity. That's as direct as it
gets."
But three years later, this episode has been wiped from the collective memory of our media
and political establishment. What used to be fact is now smeared as either a pro-Trump
rightwing conspiracy theory or Russian propaganda -- and probably both. But saying that it
didn't happen doesn't change the historical record.
Mark Ames makes a very good point: All this outside meddling didn't swing the election, but
it did help us learn something useful about our own political process. The hacking of email
accounts belonging to the John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee revealed to
Americans the corruption of the Democratic Party, including the way that the primaries are run.
And leaks about Manafort revealed the corruption inside Trump campaign (if anyone doubted it in
the first place) and ultimately sent a corrupt scumbag lobbyist to jail for tax evasion.
But this burst of transparency hasn't done much good. Instead of reckoning with the
fundamental rot in our political establishment and our political culture, all we've gotten is
this non-stop selective outrage -- a spectacle that puts Trump and his cronies and a foreign
power at the center of everything that's wrong domestically in America. But the problems are
larger than Trump and they sure are larger than whatever foreign meddling may have occurred --
whether from Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Israel, or any of the other foreign and business
interests that are constantly jockeying to sway the world's most powerful empire.
Manafort did million dollar deals with the Podestas for over 10 years -- then offered to
work for Trump for free.
Daniel , December 5, 2019 at 09:08
I am a daily reader of this site and have always had a healthy skepticism of the
propaganda emanating from corporate media, but I am really struggling with this
Ukraine-interfered vs. that's-a-debunked-conspiracy-theory conflict. Corporate media is
really losing it's mind on this one with virtually ALL of it shaming and shutting down anyone
who acknowledges past reporting on this issue, as here. What is going on? How can one party
tell a story that is (seemingly) obviously true and another claim that it never happened? Do
the facts in this article and previous reporting have nothing to do with the 'debunked
conspiracy theory' we are being shamed about? Are these two separate stories? Or is objective
truth being ghosted out of existence now? I fear the latter.
The propaganda hyper-drive that corporate media has accelerated since Clinton's 2016
defeat has been quite astonishing to witness and a bit of a shock to me, even with all my
skepticism. But it is now apparent to me that there is no depth too low for our corporate
controllers to sink when tasked with defending their corrupt, violent, self-serving status
quo. Trump is too much of a wild card on some points for these folks, it seems, so of course
they feel he must be taken down. (On other points, they play right along as he delivers some
of the benefits they feel their positions have privileged them.)
And, despite my own feeling that the man is unfit for office and could rightly be
impeached on any number of counts, the degradation of our discourse in service of this right
now – and the slim propaganda-confused Ukraine shoulders upon which it is being laid
– is absolutely sickening to me, and seems wildly off the mark. It is, however, giving
those who benefit from our corrupt system a strong feeling of self-righteousness. So there's
that.
Wonder not why Trump's supporters aren't jumping ship (Schiff?). They can smell the BS as
well as anybody.
Eugenie Basile , December 5, 2019 at 04:44
Watched the house judiciary hearing yesterday on CNN. Do the analysts on the Jake Tapper
panel really believe all viewers of CNN have not one functioning brain cell left ?
What was clear yesterday is that the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot.
When even the chairman of the judiciary committee doesn't respect the principles of Law and
Justice, ordering his committee to rubberstamp the partisan report of the Intel committee
without any direct factchecking and possibility for minority members to call directly
involved witnesses, this impeachment becomes void of any legitimacy.
The three pro impeachment Law professors were so blinded by their Anti Trump feelings, they
didn't even realise the danger that this disastrous precedent will create.
DH Fabian , December 3, 2019 at 12:29
We see the same familiar phrases, "catch words," used throughout to sell Russia-gate, as
if all of it has been written by a single small group of people. We see the same claims that
someone said or wrote something that proves there was some INTENT to "meddle," this was
confirmed by (list pro-Democrat sources), and therefore Russia/Ukraine stole the election!
Meddle? How? This began with the Clinton campaign team claiming that Russia hacked into
voting machines across the country, a claim that media repeatedly stated was true. Proof?
Other media said it was true! Except that an extensive investigation of voting machines
across the country proved that it wasn't. No matter, just keep spinning the tale, weaving in
threads of Ukraine-gate in recent months. What does this "meddling" consist of? We still
don't know. They didn't invade the US and overthrow the government, didn't wage a massive
propaganda campaign -- although all of us who dared to criticize Clinton & Co. were
accused of being "foreign operatives." They didn't hack into voting machines, and efforts to
find the alleged "voter fraud" (on anyone's behalf) fell flat. They no longer even bother
trying to show that X did Y, invalidating the election results.
Go back to the 2016 election results. In spite of so much Dem voter opposition to the
Clinton right wing, Hillary Clinton got the most votes. Why did Russia and/or Ukraine try so
hard to get her into the White House? Never mind that, just keep repeating the allegations.
(Trump is president because he got the most electoral voted, something a foreign entity
couldn't influence, hack into, steal, etc., etc.)
Buddy , December 5, 2019 at 12:36
The George Constanza theory at work. "It's not a lie if you believe it." Oh how sad and
true that is. So many people prefer to believe a lie than accept the truth.
Piotr Berman , December 3, 2019 at 10:56
What is the latest on the authenticity of the "hand-written ledger" and Manafort payments?
After all, NABU investigators had a lot of adversaries and aimed to "ugrobit'" them (word
from Leshchenko tweet, "send to their tombs").
michael , December 4, 2019 at 04:20
I heard on the radio that 'the Ukraine did NOT interfere in the 2016 Election"; it has
been "debunked", just like Biden corruption there. There is no corruption in Ukraine,
officially. The Establishment has backed up all the coup-born Ukrainians, Ukrainian
Americans, "Anti-Corruption" Agencies and American Ambassadors who, despite published and
videoed facts from the last three or more years, now will tell you there was "no
interferference, no Black Ledger" of fake handwritten notes that has now disappeared ("no
evidence, no crime"). The Ukrainians had nothing to do with Manafort being toppled as Trump's
Campaign Manager, despite all the evidence to the contrary (evidently invented by the
Russians!!!) The US Establishment wants enough skirmishes with Russia on the Ukraine border
"to the last Ukrainian" to sell arms, based on loans that will never be repaid, with
politicians and their minions (not just Manafort!) lining their pockets.
Just watched Tim Canova's interview with Jimmy Dore from a few days ago. He ran in both 2016
and 2018. His story is a microcosm of what the Establishment has done to election integrity
in America. It is a joke. Once the Establishment silences alt media, there is no point in
having elections.
If you define "meddling" as "anything said or done by a non-US person that may somehow
influence a US voter" then by that standard just about every country out there "meddles" in
US elections.
The difference between Russian "meddling" and Ukrainian "meddling" is that the Ukrainian
flavor is welcomed by the US establishment.
Josep , December 4, 2019 at 18:19
I think it has something to do with the way Ukraine, like Georgia, is seen as a "victim"
of what is touted as "Russian aggression" thanks to its relatively smaller size, though your
guess is as good as mine.
Exiled reader , December 3, 2019 at 10:26
I'm surprised to see Mark Ames (and Yasha) allow that Russia "interfered" in the election,
especially in the context of WikiLeaks. Where is the evidence that Assange was some sort of
Kremlin cut-out?
Is this just a case of bowing slightly to the prevailing winds to prove a larger point, ie,
western presstitutes are incapable of dialectical thinking? Understandable but be careful,
1st thing you're making little concessions to establishment thinking, the next thing your
shilling for forever wars.
Bob Van Noy , December 3, 2019 at 09:39
As usual thank you CD.
"What's more: Ukrainian nationals didn't just meddle on their own, they also worked with
Americans -- including Ukrainian-American political operatives on the payroll of the
Democratic Party."
Many thanks Yasha Levine your statement above says it all and it's terribly important that
America understands that
michael , December 3, 2019 at 07:29
Of course the politicians of Ukraine worked openly with Ukrainian Americans and DNC
members to knock Manafort out as the head of Trump's campaign. These were locusts and
parasites who came into power based on the American-backed coup, and they were eager to show
their fealty to Hillary, and to Biden, as they stole everything that wasn't nailed down,
similar to the plague of Americans who descended on Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed.
The median income of Ukrainians dropped over half after the coup; their culture of
corruption, unlike that of their Ukrainian American overlords, is necessary to the bottom
Ukrainians survival. So they bragged, wanting the world and particularly Hillary to know that
Ukraine had interfered on her side in the Election. The facts are clear and straightforward,
as the author notes (although there is too much incredulity in his tone. Maybe he reads MSM
and is confused?)
However we will not see a three year investigation of Hillary and Biden being in the pocket
of Ukraine; that Russiagate nonsense was just a ruse to undercut America while they worked to
get their agendas back on track. They are the Establishment politicians, they are Democrats
of an administration who brought about coups and wars, and they want their monetary rewards
from these actions, as do the FBI, State Department and CIA (in a more institutional sense)
who crossed the red Hatch Act line to support political candidates (Hillary and Biden) in our
now banana republic. The Establishment have been pushing neolib/neocon agendas since at least
Bill Clinton, with ample support from Bush II (the groundwork) and particularly since Obama
(who was able to greatly expand both the domestic police state and the Empire). They do not
want some outsider, even the incompetent demagogue Trump, interfering in their best laid
plans, and in their consensus community foreign policies. This has nothing to do with America
per se, this is about extending their corrupt profitable dreams which are coming together
after 20+ years of preparations.
" three years later, this episode has been wiped from the collective memory of our media
and political establishment."
But everything important in the United States is treated that way now. Everything.
America has conducted more than 15 years of aggressive war in the Middle East, and you'd
be hard put to find a single honest article about any of it in a mainline American
publication or a story on air by broadcast journalism.
America just conducted a coup against an elected government in Bolivia, attempted another,
again against an elected government, in Venezuela, and is heavily pressuring the governments
of Cuba and Nicaragua. What you see in America's mainline press is not what has happened.
And the nasty Bolsonaro government in Brazil definitely represents fiddling with the
country's institutions, including its courts, but you won't read that in America's press.
Children are being hurt by lack of medicines and foodstuff in Iran, a country which done
absolutely nothing illegal, yet that land of eighty million is just ignored, except for
unwarranted insults. Never once are any of its leaders – including some highly
intelligent and civil men like the President and the Foreign Minister – interviewed or
allowed to make their case.
A creepy outfit like the White Helmets in Syria receives nothing but admiration in
America's press, even though its main job has been to create pressure for increased
bombing.
America's huge fleet of drones, each carrying Hellfire missiles, works day and night to
kill people in many places without the least pretence of legality or justice. Try finding the
victims' faces in the press. Try finding stories about the bizarre buzz-cut CIA workers who
sit at computer screens playing electronic games with live human beings.
Doing that would represent a bit of what Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange did, and just
look at their fates.
If it weren't for alternative and foreign press on the Internet, we'd know little about
any of these things and far more. But even those sources are limited. All the Western
European mainline press is under the same thumb. The Guardian or the BBC read like they were
written in Langley Virginia when it comes to such matters.
Russian sources are constantly attacked and vilified and threated. Outfits like Google,
Washington's willing helpers, now make it hard even to find legitimate alternate news
sources. And what those sources write gets buried in search results. Wikipedia has armies of
folks writing articles now in the same vein as those of the mainline press.
The United States literally does not make any sense anymore. Contradictions all the time.
No logic, no honest words ever come from officials or the press about any important
matter.
That is the just the nature of being at the center of a brutal empire, one engaged in
countless dark and dishonest activities, not ready to be observed, and certainly not
criticized, in any of them.
Correcting the record is almost meaningless anymore. As is speaking the truth on almost
any important matter.
Look at Tulsi Gabbard and how she is treated by the establishment, including that of her
own party.
She's the only Democratic candidate even saying a few honest things, and she is abused or
ignored or brushed aside.
Those who speak to establishment interests are given daily headline coverage, as Biden or
Warren, even though they have nothing to say that is new or helpful or even honest.
It really is a losing battle.
The Inner Party has a small army of Outer Party workers constantly writing and rewriting
Oceania's current events and recent history. Computers make the work easier and more
efficient than ever.
I think the quality of truth in America today makes Donald Trump a perfect representative
of the country. In many ways the perfect President. Full of contradictions and confusion,
given to bellowing and virtually never telling the truth.
michael , December 3, 2019 at 18:34
Agree that this is representative of the American character. Disagree that it is a recent
phenomenon. Americans killed off 15 to 20% of North Koreans in the Korean War (that
percentage would equate to 50-60 million Americans), and killed 2.5 to 4 million in Southeast
Asia (with quite a bit of CIA involvement in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. George HW Bush (who
headed and was active with the CIA) ran the Iran Contra drug running scheme to get Reagan
elected with the October Surprise, killing any Latin Americans who opposed his Freedom
Fighters. Clinton's sanctions killed 500,000 kids in Iraq and Albright noted "we think the
price is worth it"; Clinton had no interest in the Rwanda genocide. The seven Forever Wars
will likely multiply under Trump or his successor. That's where the money is.
9/11 supposedly happened because the CIA failed to "turn" Khalid al Mihdhar, who was also
heavily involved with Saudi spooks. The CIA always escape any accountability or
responsibility. Most of the CIA involved with "mistakes" of 9/11 were promoted despite
(because?) of their illegal actions, which led to the Patriot Act, and forever wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, joined now by Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Ukraine and
Honduras. Perkin's "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" showed the basic model; the CIA, his
"jackals", have become less covert, their visibility projects power. The principals and goals
are the same.
More and more domestic actions will occur at the hands of the CIA, and their propaganda is
passed down by the MSM on any important issue. The CIA is the Gestapo of the American Police
State. Elected politicians are just clowns for entertainment.
Caitlin Johnstone just published an article this morning about despair. It is an
inevitable emotion for those of us who know the truth about the current state of affairs.
Keep soldiering on John, your words have value. Who knows how many eyes are being opened
every day by your efforts? And in the end we could never live with ourselves if we just quit
the game.
In some ways Trump is the perfect President for making the desperation of the Deep State
more visible to the average person. There is less faith in the MSM today than there ever was
before. It's a starting point.
ML , December 4, 2019 at 22:29
Good post, Mr. Chuckman. Try and keep a sense of humor to ward off despair. Your post
reminded me of one of my favorite H. L. Mencken quotes regarding who Americans elect as their
presidents:
"All the odds are on the man who is intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre- the man who
can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends,
year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office of the President
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious
day, the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts's desire at last and the White House
will be adorned by a downright moron." H.L. Mencken
robert e williamson jr , December 5, 2019 at 17:47
Perfect read on it being what it is.
Hunter S. Thompson described the dumbing down of America in his 1990 "SONGS OF THE DOOMED"
.
He was right and we now see the effects of the demise of American acceptable set of
values. Far too many Americans have bull shitted themselves for far too long and it
shows.
Americans get what government they demand no more no less. The bar is pretty close to
touching the ground right now.
Some Americans want a malcontent, despot, bully to push "the other " around and Trump is
proving it by playing to his base.
The far too many of rest of Americans could care less just as long as nobody screws up
their good deal.
This should be interesting and may become painful enough to enough Americans that some
real progress and change can happen.
We need to hope that this happens by ballot rather than by bullet.
Eugenie Basile , December 3, 2019 at 04:20
A general warning for all viewers of the impeachment hearings: this is a political process
that has no factual value. The witnesses are nothing more than politicized instruments for
either political party.
Congress being under control of the democrats, we got their version As soon as the procedure
is passed to the Senate, the republicans will take control.
The timing should be a bonus for the reelection of Trump . seems the DNC has learned nothing
from their 2016 defeat.
Hmmm , December 3, 2019 at 00:49
I think most of the politicians, press, and pundits can and do hold both thoughts in their
head. They just lie about it shamelessly. Take Fiona Hill -- she certainly knows better. But
she's an anti-Russian ideologue, on top of which she knows that her reputation in the proper
circles now depends on promoting one of the two thoughts and dismissing the other. (Indeed,
the mainstream press has been fawning over her as a "heroine" since her testimony.)
Some people with influence may genuinely be unable to understand. But even with them, it's
mostly what Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when
his salary depends on his not understanding it."
There's no price to be paid for this lie. An article in Consortium News, or even The
Nation -- while commendable and most welcome, to be sure -- doesn't do the trick. Similar
points made in conservative outlets get dismissed as pro-Trump propaganda.
Anyway, it's nice to run across a piece like this as a sanity check.
Piotr Berman , December 3, 2019 at 11:12
"An article in Consortium News, or even The Nation -- while commendable and most welcome,
to be sure -- doesn't do the trick. "
The outcome of these revelations is hard to foresee, but currently they are amplified by
Fox News and other pro-Republican media. War liberals of the Democratic Party getting
squeezed from both sides. Trump does not have many talents, but I know no one better at
making adversaries look stupid, while getting away with inane rants -- a trick that never
ceases to amaze me.
A tragedy is that by focusing on Russia, Democrats take oxygen away from other fires they
should tend, pretty much like in 2016.
Excellent, but I was surprised to see the words "The hacking of email accounts belonging
to the John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee," when CN has well documented
articles that it was an insider leak and not a hack. We need to squash the myth of hacking
whenever we can.
Eugenie Basile , December 3, 2019 at 04:25
The Guccifer2 was definitely a hack with some Cyrillic traces ..( bit too obvious )
jdd , December 2, 2019 at 19:40
Robert Mueller's babbling notwithstanding, the VIPS have proven through uncontroverted
forensic analysis, that Popdesta's email account, like that of Hillary Clinton, was leaked
not hacked. As Julian Assange, who is slowly being murdered in a British prison, has
repeatedly stated, he did not receive the emails from "a state actor." Yet the truth of what
they revealed was, among other things, that the DNC conspired with the Clinton campaign to
rig the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton to be a craven puppet of
Wall Street. The big lie of "Russian hacking" needs to be fully exposed, as it sits at the
very heart of the Russiagate narrative, and is the basis for all the lies that followed..
Jeff Harrison , December 2, 2019 at 19:22
The truth is that lots of countries meddle in large and small ways and in effective and
ineffective ways. The biggest meddler is Israel. Without US support, Israel would be a small
piece of pea gravel on a hot asphalt road with a full sized steam roller headed her way. So
they control the direction of the steam roller. The only countries that don't meddle in
American politics are countries that don't care what the US does. There aren't many of those.
Companies hire lobbyists to meddle in Congressional decisions so that the government will
issue edicts that favor their business over the people. Countries do the same thing.
Sometimes they skip the lobbyist and do it themselves. Only Americans are stupid enough to
think that it doesn't happen. We have recently seen a parade of Americans who are that stupid
and worse, they don't seem to realize that the US has been doing that and worse all over the
world.
Jb , December 3, 2019 at 06:44
Amen!!
AnneR , December 3, 2019 at 07:33
Jeff – So true. I would only add that what Americans decry in other (usually, you
know, those "lesser" countries of Africa, Asia and MENA) as rank corruption and blatant
bribery is so well-established, deeply rooted, and by all appearances legalized in this
country, particularly in DC that for the general population, whose voices, needs and
desperation go totally unheeded (no money to sway Congressional minds), the lobbying, the
really existing political meddling by such countries as Israel (Occupied Palestine) and, I
would also add, the UK, is normal. And not the bribery, conniving, interference and
corruption that it really, truly is.
As for the well-educated bourgeoisie – they have, largely, benefited from the
results of that bribery and corruption. Until the Strumpet pipped Killary to the post. (Not
that they've not continued enjoy their self-presumed merited lifestyles even under him.)
And it is abundantly clear that repeating the lies (even, especially when they are known
to be lies by those controlling and disseminating the stories), obfuscating the truth by
avoidance of those topics that the ruling elites want to remain unnoticed, has not only
increased in the MSM but also continues to be believed by large swathes of the bourgeoisie
who consider themselves to be "progressive," "left-wing," and who are juggling which Demrat
candidate to vote for while ignoring what some candidates, at least, have voted *for* in
Congress.
CrowdStrike had 2 people that used to work for Mueller and one was part of the Atlantic
Council. Atlantic Council has ties to Burisma Group (Hunter Biden), Big Clinton donors and
Ukraine.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=3387
No intel agency ever saw the evidence. They only saw a redacted report provided by
CrowdStrike.
Dimitry Alperovich – Co-Founder and CTO. Crowdstrike "investigated" the hacking of the
DNC's servers. The FBI was refused access to independently examine the DNC servers. Former NSA
experts later claim it wasn't a hack, but a leak by someone with access to the DNC's system.
Alperovich is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. Former McAfee
Executive.
George Kurtz – Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer. Former McAfee Executive.
Steven Chabinsky – Former General Counsel and Chief Risk Officer (9/12-4/16).
Appointed by Obama to the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity on April 18, 2016
– two months before Crowdstrike report. Former Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's
Cyber Division and FBI's top cyber lawyer during Mueller's tenure as FBI Director. Now a
Partner at White & Case – a D.C. law firm.
Shawn Henry – CSO and President of Crowdstrike Services since April 2012. Previously
the FBI's Executive Assistant Director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch
– appointed by FBI Director Mueller.
Robert Johnston – Principal Consultant & Incident Response Expert. Lead
investigator on the DNC server investigation. Previously, Marine Corps captain in U.S. Cyber
Command. Team Lead of 81 National Cyber Protection Team. Left Crowdstrike in August 2016 and
co-founded cybersecurity firm Adlumin. The FBI has never spoken with Johnston.
The Atlantic Council of the United States and Burisma Group, an independent gas producer
in Ukraine, have announced a cooperative agreement. Atlantic Council will develop programs
with Burisma's support to strengthen transatlantic relations, including a focus on energy
security and related issues.
This is the company that Hunter Biden had connections too and this is the company that was
being investigated by the Ukraine Prosecutor that Biden got removed due to bribing the Ukraine
with $1B.
Between 2009 and 2013, including when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, the Clinton
Foundation received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, according to
that foundation, which is based in Kiev, Ukraine.
The Schiff staffer, Thomas Eager, is also currently one of 19 fellows at the Atlantic
Council's Eurasia Congressional Fellowship, a bipartisan program that says it "educates
congressional staff on current events in the Eurasia region."
Eager's trip to Ukraine last month was part of the fellowship program and included nine
other House employees. The bi-partisan visit, from August 24 to August 31, was billed as a
"Ukraine Study Trip," and culminated in a meeting with former Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko.
The dates of the pre-planned trip are instructive. Eager's visit to Ukraine sponsored by the
Burisma-funded Atlantic Council began 12 days after the so-called whistleblower officially
filed his August 12 complaint about President Donald Trump's phone call with Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky.
FYI: This is why the media and the dems have been doing everything they can to spin the
narratives to distract from all this. Most of this info people don't know about so it needed to
be shared.
The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to
servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been
mitigated. This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third-party for information. These
actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion
earlier,"
The CrowdStrike report implicated Russia for the DNC hack, leading to the two-plus years of
Russiagate–but there's more. To this day neither the DOJ nor the FBI has a complete copy
of the CrowdStrike report According to the Department of Justice, in its response to the Roger
Stone defense asking for a copy of the CrowdStrike report, lawyers for the DNC and DCCC
provided redacted draft copies of the CrowdStrike report "to the government." They never saw
the full report.
Perhaps the FBI trusted CrowdStrike's report because the company's executive Shawn Henry,
who led the forensics team that ultimately blamed Russia for the DNC hack served as assistant
director at the FBI under Mueller.
CrowdStrike has ties to the Obama team, is friends with Hillary Clinton, former Ukraine
president Petro Poroshenko, and connected to Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, another friend
of the DNC and someone who donated $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Tying it all together, the CrowdStrike document (if the full report ever existed) may have
been one more element of the DNC/Deep State effort to end the Trump Presidency before it
started If everything was above board -- why didn't the FBI demand to examine the DNC server or
the entire CrowdStrike report?
"They were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, we're not going to give you the
billion dollars. They said, 'You have no authority. You're not the president -- the president
said' I said, 'Call him.' I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars.'
I said, you're not getting the billion. I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a b -- -. He got
fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
"This was a debate over policy. Trump's critics may not have liked the policy he was
pushing. But as former Defense Intelligence Agency official Pat Lang noted on his blog last
week,
the statute in question applies only to "intelligence activities" but "does not include
differences of opinions concerning public policy matters."
That's what this fight is about, said Lang . Speaker after speaker at the hearings asserted
that Trump's views did not comport with official national policy. But the president sets that
policy, Lang said, not the diplomats.
"They think they are the people who set national policy and the president is this figurehead
who is guided by all these people around him who agree on everything," he said. "The president
doesn't need to use the State Department at all to conduct foreign policy." ' Paul Mulshine
-------------
Actually, I was too minimal in speaking of "diplomats." Vindman is not a diplomat and there
are many other actors in this drama of Borgist angst (foreign policy establishment ) who are
not diplomats.
For one thing a large percentage of the Drones at the State Department are civil service
employees rather than Foreign Service Officers, and although they do not play well together
they agree on the ultimate authority of the Supremacy Clause (non-existent) in the US
Constitution that gives the State Department dominion over all the Lord created. A career
ambassador's wife once lectured me that the US Army should change the cap badge that officers
wear because it looks too much like the Great Seal of the United States which in the State
Department can only be displayed by Ambassadors. I told her that she should petition the
Secretary of the Army in this matter.
Various departments of government, media, academia, thinktankeries, etc., all have heavy
infestations of folks who went to graduate school together in poly sci in all its branches, or
who wish to be thought worthy of such attendance. They specialize in group think, conformity,
and conformism, even to the solemn dress they affect. The four in hand tie knot is pretty much
mandatory for serious consideration for inclusion in the Borg. It indicates a certain preppy
insouciance and faux disregard for details of dress.
Trump's casual disregard for all that enrages the Borg who thought they had "won it all"
long ago and that they would have a Borgist neocon to deal with in Hillary.
Hillary's Foundation has lost millions recently, which has Hillary pursing her lips like
she's been using a lemon for her lipstick. I mean, worse than fish-lips, Hillary's pursing
expression.
Too bad that we can't form some cement shoes for the Borg and toss them into the east
river AKA the Atlantic, or send them back to hell from where they originated!
OT:
This afternoon my wife and I turned on the TV to watch football. We were flipping through
channels and came upon some local ABC affiliate (WMUR) which had on a documentary which
mentioned the Medal of Honor and a Catholic chaplain in Vietnam. Needless to say we stayed on
that channel. Long story short, it was one of the most powerful things we've ever watched. We
were both in tears by the end (nb: I don't cry easily) and we were changed from having
watched it. We immediately went online to purchase copies for family members. It was recently
released.
As the Borg like to say "We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our
own." They have done this with the four in hand tie knot which was previously worn by giants
like George Kennon and Chip Bohlen. Yet now, the midgetry prevails.
Colonel...This is another Reason why I appreciate your levels of Experience and knowledge
with SST..Thank you for doing that...I always come away with New Insight..and Understanding
of Real Dynamics..what has Progressively Developed inside the State.Department.with its
Influence On so Much POLICY...and .is as You say...The BORG..and Their Own Culture.your
Article put that all into a Big Picture for Me..(Connecting the Data..) .It.as you aptly
Described. is a Universal.Sect..and...At The National Level...They are Cyber Borgs..Shciff
Shapers..and that Whole Colony has Been Exposed.,,, Bad Products and All....
Fiona Hill appears to be part of the Borg, not really sure which part she's affiliated.
Some have called her a 'sleeper agent', but a sleeper for whom? British Intelligence agent of
influence? Or an Israeli agent of influence, or maybe a Daniel Pipes trained NEOCON agent of
influence? Any way one spins it, Fiona Hill has been undermining POTUS Trump while she was
part of his NSC and his advisory team. Why her intense hatred of Putin? Does he happen to
know through his nation's intelligence exactly who she is and whom she may be working on
behalf of? The Skripal incident showed just how much that the British Government and Crown
hate Russia. But why the intense British hatred of Russia, why?
Questions, so many questions regarding Ms. Hill and who she really works for.
"... Thanks again for making explicit what I have long known: To America, Ukraine is nothing but a weapon against Russia. The whole point of support for Ukraine is to make Russia bleed—doesn’t matter how many people die or suffer in the process or how much of Ukraine is destroyed. https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1202267180219478024 … ..."
"... So fomenting on a war on Russia's border is, it appears, self-evidently aids our national security. What's next? A war scare? Ramping up MH17? ..."
"'Our Democracy Is at Stake.' Pelosi Orders Democrats to Draft Articles of Impeachment
Against Trump" [ Time ]. With autoplay video.
""The President abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of
our national security by withholding military aid and a crucial Oval Office meeting in
exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival." • So now when
a President doesn't allow The Blob to dictate Ukraine policy it's an impeachable offense?
Really? Yasha Levine quotes Democrat impeachment witness Karlan (see below) but the point is
the same:
Yasha Levine ✔ @yashalevine
Thanks again for making explicit what I have long known: To America, Ukraine is nothing but a weapon
against Russia. The whole point of support for Ukraine is to make Russia bleed—doesn’t matter how many people die or
suffer in the process or how much of Ukraine is destroyed.
https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1202267180219478024 …
So fomenting on a war on Russia's border is, it appears, self-evidently aids our
national security. What's next? A war scare? Ramping up MH17?
"Read opening statements from witnesses at the House Judiciary hearing" [
Politico ]. "Democrats' impeachment witnesses at Wednesday's judiciary committee hearing
plan to say in their prepared remarks that President Donald Trump's actions toward Ukraine were
the worst examples of misconduct in presidential history." • So again, it's all about
Ukraine. I feel like I've entered an alternate dimension. Aaron Maté comments:
My very subjective impression: I've skimmed three, and read Turley. Karlan, in particular,
is simply not a serious effort. Turley may be wrong -- a ton of tribal dunking on Twitter --
but at least he's making a serious effort. I'm gonna have to wait to see if somebody, say at
Lawfare, does a serious effort on Turley. Everything I've read hitherto is and posturing and
preaching to the choir. (Sad that Larry Tribe has so completely discredited himself, but that's
where we are.)
Lambert, while Trump was unable to complete his attempt to extort the President of
Ukraine, as someone who practiced the criminal law for 34 years, let me be the first to clue
you in to the concept in the criminal law of the inchoate offense . This is
criminal law, not contract law.
An inchoate offense includes an attempt, a conspiracy, and the solicitation of a crime.
All focus on the state of mind of the perpetrator, and none require that the offense be
completed -- only that a person or persons having the required criminal intent took material
steps toward completing the crime. Such a person becomes a principal in the contemplated
crime, and in the eyes of the law is just as guilty as if he or she had completed the
attempted offense.
(The details of Trump's offense differ from what David in Santa Cruz said they would be.)
"Inchoate" appears only in Turley's piece, indicating, to me, that his was the only serious
effort.
....Also discussed at length is connection between the Ukrainian Atlantic Council to the
DNC, Clintons, NATO, Evelyn Farkas, George Soros, and the globalist gangsters . The
anti-Russian propaganda of NATO's Cold War machine (Atlantic Council) used Dmitri Alperovitch's
Crowdstrike to disrupt the U. S. Presidential election and Ukrainian/Russian relations.
Additional resources to support the audio discussion are:
The official Director of National Intelligence Agency report on Russian hacking (meddling)
in the U. S. presidential election is hyperlinked below – thirteen pages of a big
"nothing burger" that does not have a single piece of evidence. This is an embarrassing waste
of U.S. taxpayer dollars. .
Note that the entire "evidence" on Russian hacking of the DNC server is one paragraph
containing zero evidence.
Another fake intelligence report claims to describe how Dmitri Alperovitch's Cozy Bear and
Fancy Bear work in cyberspace. This report is another sad, expensive report that is nothing
more than a disinformation piece produced and published by two U.S. intelligence agencies
– the FBI and Department of Homeland Security – to propagandize Americans. What the
report actually describes is well-known and freely available Ukrainian malware that is old and
has nothing to do with Russia.
The report does not prove that Russia hacked the 2016 U.S. election, but it does reveal that
the PHP malware sample that the government provided from the CrowdStrike report is:
An old version of malware. The sample was version 3.1.0 and the current version is 3.1.7
with 4.1.1 beta also available.
Freely available to anyone who wants it.
The authors claim they are Ukrainian, not Russian.
The malware is an administrative tool used by hackers to upload files, view files on a
hacked website, download database contents and so on. It is used as one step in a series of
steps that would occur during an attack.
Wordfence (cyber analysis company) analyzed the IP addresses available in the declassified
report and demonstrated that they are in 61 countries, belong to over 380 organizations and
many of those organizations are well known website hosting providers from where many attacks
originate. There is nothing in the IP data that points to Russia specifically.
Furthermore, the report claims to contain technical details regarding the tools and
infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence services to compromise
and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of
U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities.
If you read this report, remember that it is propaganda, and the authors assume that you
know nothing about anything and count on you "believing" multiple U.S. intelligence agencies
who really work for the Deep State and not the American people.
"... In many accounts of the incident (e.g. Wikipedia here ), it's been reported that "both groups of intruders were successfully expelled from the systems within hours after detection". This was not the case, as Ritter pointed out: data continued to be exfiltrated AFTER the installation of Crowdstrike software, including the emails that ultimately brought down Wasserman-Schultz: ..."
"... There were no fewer than 14409 emails in the Wikileaks archive dating after Crowdstrike's installation of its security software. In fact, more emails were hacked after Crowdstrike's discovery on May 6 than before . Whatever actions were taken by Crowdstrike on May 6 , they did nothing to stem the exfiltration of emails from the DNC. (Read more: Climate Audit/Steve McIntire, 9/02/2017) ..."
"The cyber security firm outsourced by the
Democratic
National Committee , CrowdStrike, reportedly misread data, falsely attributing a hacking in Ukraine to the Russians in December
2016 . Voice of America , a US Government funded media outlet, reported, "the
CrowdStrike report
, released in December , asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in
Ukraine's war with Russian-backed separatists. But the International Institute for
Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection
to the CrowdStrike report.
( ) The investigation methods used to come to the conclusion that the Russian Government led the hacks of the
DNC ,
Clinton Campaign Chair John
Podesta, and the DCCC were further called into question by a recent BuzzFeed
report by Jason Leopold, who has developed a notable reputation from leading several non-partisan Freedom of Information Act
lawsuits for investigative journalism purposes. On March 15 that the Department of Homeland Security released just two heavily redacted
pages of unclassified information in response to an FOIA request for definitive evidence of Russian election interference allegations.
Leopold wrote, "what the agency turned over to us and Ryan Shapiro, a PhD candidate at MIT and a research affiliate at Harvard University,
is truly bizarre: a two-page intelligence assessment of the incident, dated Aug. 22, 2016, that contains information DHS culled from
the internet. It's all unclassified -- yet DHS covered nearly everything in wide swaths of black ink. Why? Not because it would threaten
national security, but because it would reveal the methods DHS uses to gather intelligence, methods that may amount to little more
than using Google."
Hillary Clinton accepts the Atlantic Council's 2013 Distinguished International Leadership Award. (Credit: YouTube)
In lieu of substantive evidence provided to the public that the alleged hacks which led to Wikileaks releases of DNC and Clinton
Campaign Manager John Podesta's emails were orchestrated by the Russian Government, CrowdStrike's bias has been
cited
as undependable in its own assessment, in addition to its skeptical methods and conclusions. The firm's CTO and co-founder, Dmitri
Alperovitch, is a senior fellow
at the Atlantic Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments that is funded by Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk,
who also happened to donate at least $10 million to the
Clinton Foundation
.
In 2013 , the Atlantic Council awarded Hillary Clinton it's Distinguished
International Leadership Award. In 2014 , the Atlantic Council
hosted
one of several events with former Ukrainian Prime Minister
Arseniy Yatsenyuk , who took over after pro-Russian President
Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in early 2014 , who now lives in exile in Russia."
(Read more: CounterPunch, 3/23/2017)
"The cyber security firm hired to inspect the DNC hack and determine who was responsible is a firm called Crowdstrike. Its conclusion
that Russia was responsible was released last year, but several people began to call its analysis into question upon further inspection.
The FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) "
Grizzly
Steppe " was released yesterday as part of the
White House's response to alleged Russian government interference in the 2016 election process. It adds nothing to the call for
evidence that the Russian government was responsible for hacking the DNC, the DCCC, the email accounts of Democratic party officials,
or for delivering the content of those hacks to Wikileaks.
It merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that is suspected of being Russian-made
and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services (RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection
exists.
Unlike Crowdstrike, ESET doesn't assign APT28/Fancy Bear/Sednit to a Russian Intelligence Service or anyone else for a very
simple reason. Once malware is deployed, it is no longer under the control of the hacker who deployed it or the developer who created
it. It can be reverse-engineered, copied, modified, shared and redeployed again and again by anyone. In other words -- malware
deployed is malware enjoyed!
If ESET could do it, so can others. It is both foolish and baseless to claim, as Crowdstrike does, that X-Agent is used solely
by the Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to find and use at will.
If the White House had unclassified evidence that tied officials in the Russian government to the DNC attack, they would have
presented it by now. The fact that they didn't means either that the evidence doesn't exist or that it is classified.
If it's classified, an independent commission should review it because this entire assignment of blame against the Russian
government is looking more and more like a domestic political operation run by the White House that relied heavily on questionable
intelligence generated by a for-profit cybersecurity firm with a vested interest in selling "attribution-as-a-service".
Nevertheless, countless people, including the entirety of the corporate media, put total faith in the analysis of Crowdstrike
despite the fact that the FBI was denied access to perform its own analysis. Which makes me wonder, did the U.S. government do any
real analysis of its own on the DNC hack, or did it just copy/paste Crowdstrike?
The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director
James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.
The bureau made "multiple requests at different levels," according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC
that a "highly respected private company" would get access and share what it found with investigators.
"We'd always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that's possible," Comey said, noting that he didn't know why the DNC
rebuffed the FBI's request.
This is nuts. Are all U.S. government agencies simply listening to what Crowdstike said in coming to their "independent" conclusions
that Russia hacked the DNC? If so, that's a huge problem. Particularly considering what Voice of America published yesterday
in a piece titled,
Cyber Firm at Center
of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data :
An influential British think tank and Ukraine's military are disputing a report that the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike
has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election.
The CrowdStrike
report , released in December , asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers
in Ukraine's war with Russian-backed separatists.
But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that
CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine's
Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.
The challenges to CrowdStrike's credibility are significant because the firm was the first to link last year's hacks of Democratic
Party computers to Russian actors, and because CrowdStrike co-founder Dimiti Alperovitch has trumpeted its Ukraine report as more
evidence of Russian election tampering. "
( ) " Breitbart News has
interviewed
tech experts who do not agree with the CrowdStrike assessment or Obama administration's claims that the DNC/DCCC hacks clearly
committed by Russian state actors, with much criticism aimed at the FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) "Grizzly Steppe" that was
released at the end of December . As ZDNetreported after the JAR report was
released by the Obama administration on the same day that they announced sanctions against Russia:
Mark Maunder, CEO, Wordfence (Credit: public domain)
The JAR included "specific indicators of compromise, including IP addresses and a PHP malware sample." But what does this really
prove? Wordfence, a WordPress security company specializing in analyzing PHP malware, examined these indicators and didn't find any
hard evidence of Russian involvement. Instead, Wordfence found the attack software was P.AS. 3.1.0, an out-of-date, web-shell hacking
tool. The newest version, 4.1.1b, is more sophisticated. Its website claims it was written in the Ukraine.
Mark Maunder, Wordfence's CEO, concluded that since the attacks were made "several versions behind the most current version of
P.A.S sic which is 4.1.1b. One might reasonably expect Russian intelligence
operatives to develop their own tools or at least use current malicious tools from outside sources."
Rob Graham, CEO of Errata Security (Credit: public domain)
True, as Errata Security CEO Rob Graham pointed out in a blog post, P.A.S is popular among Russia/Ukraine hackers. But it's "used
by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world." In short, just
because the attackers used P.A.S., that's not enough evidence to blame it on the Russian government.
Independent cybersecurity experts, such as Jeffrey Carr , have cited
numerous errors that the media and CrowdStrike have made in discussing the hacking in what Carr refers to as a "
runaway train " of misinformation.
For example, CrowdStrike has named a threat group that they have given the name "Fancy Bear" for the hacks and then said this
threat group is Russian intelligence. In December 2016 ,
Carr wrote in a post on Medium :
A common misconception of "threat group" is that [it] refers to a group of people. It doesn't. Here's how ESET describes SEDNIT,
one of the names for the threat group known as APT28, Fancy Bear, etc. This definition is found on p.12 of part two "En Route with
Sednit: Observing the Comings and Goings":
As security researchers, what we call "the Sednit group" is merely a set of software and the related network infrastructure,
which we can hardly correlate with any specific organization.
Unlike CrowdStrike, ESET doesn't assign APT28/Fancy Bear/Sednit to a Russian Intelligence Service or anyone else for a very simple
reason. Once malware is deployed, it is no longer under the control of the hacker who deployed it or the developer who created it.
It can be reverse-engineered, copied, modified, shared and redeployed again and again by anyone.
Despite these and other criticisms from technical experts with no political ax to grind, the House Intelligence Committee has
called no independent cybersecurity professionals to challenge the Democrats' claims of "Russian hacking" that have been repeated
ad naseum by the media.
Instead of presenting counter-arguments to allow the general public to make up their own minds, the House committee has invited
Shawn Henry and Dmitri Alperovitch from CrowdStrike.
(Read more: Breitbart, 3/09/2017)
"Yesterday, Scott Ritter published a savage and thorough
critique of the role of Dmitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike, who are uniquely responsible for the attribution of the DNC hack
to Russia. Ritter calls it "one of the greatest cons in modern American history". Ritter's article gives a fascinating account of
an earlier questionable incident in which Alperovitch first rose to prominence – his attribution of the "Shady Rat" malware to the
Chinese government at a time when there was a political appetite for such an attribution. Ritter portrays the DNC incident as Shady
Rat 2. Read the article.
My post today is a riff on a single point in the Ritter article, using analysis that I had in inventory but not written up. I've
analysed the dates of the emails in the Wikileaks DNC email archive: the pattern (to my knowledge) has never been analysed.
The results are a surprise – standard descriptions of the incident are misleading.
Nov 7, 2017 : story picked up by Luke Rosniak at Daily Caller
here
On April 29 , DNC IT staff noticed anomalous activity and brought it to the attention of senior DNC officials: Chairwoman of the
DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, DNC's Chief Executive, Amy Dacey, the DNC's Technology Director, Andrew Brown, and Michael Sussman,
a lawyer for Perkins Coie, a Washington, DC law firm that represented the DNC. After dithering for a few days, on May 4, the DNC
(Sussman) contacted Crowdstrike (Shawn Henry), who installed their software on May 5 .
Dmitri Alperovich sits before a Crowdstrike/DNC timeline published by Esquire, with one addition by an observant viewer. (Credit:
Christopher Leaman/Esquire)
According to a
hagiography
of Crowdstrike's detection by Thomas Rid last year, Crowdstrike detected "Russia" in the network in the early morning of May 6 :
At six o'clock on the morning of May 6 , Dmitri Alperovitch woke up in a Los Angeles hotel to an alarming email. Alperovitch
is the thirty-six-year-old cofounder of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, and late the previous night, his company had been
asked by the Democratic National Committee to investigate a possible breach of its network. A CrowdStrike security expert had
sent the DNC a proprietary software package, called Falcon, that monitors the networks of its clients in real time. Falcon "lit
up," the email said, within ten seconds of being installed at the DNC: Russia was in the network.
In many accounts of the incident (e.g. Wikipedia
here ), it's been reported
that "both groups of intruders were successfully expelled from the systems within hours after detection". This was not the case,
as Ritter pointed out: data continued to be exfiltrated AFTER the installation of Crowdstrike software, including the emails that
ultimately brought down Wasserman-Schultz:
Moreover, the performance of CrowdStrike's other premier product, Overwatch, in the DNC breach leaves much to be desired. Was
CrowdStrike aware that the hackers continued to exfiltrate data (some of which ultimately proved to be the undoing of the DNC Chairwoman,
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the entire DNC staff) throughout the month of May 2016, while Overwatch was engaged?
This is an important and essentially undiscussed question.
Distribution of Dates
The DNC Leak emails are generally said to commence in January 2015 (e.g. CNNhere ) and continue until
the Crowdstrike expulsion. In other email leak archives (e.g Podesta emails; Climategate), the number of emails per month tends to
be relatively uniform (at least to one order of magnitude). However, this is not the case for the DNC Leak as shown in the below
graphic of the number of emails per day:
Figure 1. Number of emails per day in Wikileaks DNC archive from Jan 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. Calculated from monthly data through
March 31, 2016 , then weekly until April 15 , then daily. No emails after May 25, 2016 .
There are only a couple of emails per month (~1/day) through 2015 and up to April 18, 2016 . Nearly all of these early
emails were non-confidential emails involving DNCPress or innocuous emails to/from Jordan Kaplan of the DNC. There is a sudden change
on April 19, 2016 when 425 emails in the archive. This is also the first day on which emails from hillaryclinton.com occur
in the archive – a point that is undiscussed, but relevant given the ongoing controversy about security of the Clinton server (the
current version of which was never examined by the FBI) The following week, the number of daily emails in the archive exceeded 1000,
reaching a maximum daily rate of nearly 1500 in the third week of May . There is a pronounced weekly cycle to the archive (quieter
on the week-ends).
Rid's Esquirehagiography
described a belated cleansing of the DNC computer system on June 10-12 , following which Crowdstrike celebrated:
Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC. Until the network was clean,
secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10 , all DNC employees were instructed to leave their laptops in the office.
Alperovitch told me that a few people worried that Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, was clearinghouse. "Those
poor people thought they were getting fired," he says. For the next two days, three CrowdStrike employees worked inside DNC headquarters,
replacing the software and setting up new login credentials using what Alperovitch considers to be the most secure means of choosing
a password: flipping through the dictionary at random. (After this article was posted online, Alperovitch noted that the passwords
included random characters in addition to the words.) The Overwatch team kept an eye on Falcon to ensure there were no new intrusions.
On Sunday night, once the operation was complete, Alperovitch took his team to celebrate at the Brazilian steakhouse Fogo de Chão.
Curiously, the last email in the archive was noon, May 25 – about 14 days before Crowdstrike changed all the passwords
on the week-end of June 10-12 . Two days later ( June 14 ), the DNC arranged for a self-serving article in the Washington Post
in which they announced the hack and blamed it on the Russians. Crowdstrike published a technical report purporting to support the
analysis and the story went viral.
There were no fewer than 14409 emails in the Wikileaks archive dating after Crowdstrike's installation of its security software.
In fact, more emails were hacked after Crowdstrike's discovery on May 6 than before . Whatever actions were taken by Crowdstrike
on May 6 , they did nothing to stem the exfiltration of emails from the DNC.
(Read more: Climate Audit/Steve
McIntire, 9/02/2017)
In its most detailed account yet, the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington says a Democratic
National Committee (DNC) insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump's
campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help.
In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor
Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort dealings inside the country in
hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.
Chalupa later tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on
Manafort's Russian ties on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign, the ambassador said.
Chaly says that, at the time of the contacts in 2016, the embassy knew Chalupa primarily as
a Ukrainian American activist and learned only later of her ties to the DNC. He says the
embassy considered her requests an inappropriate solicitation of interference in the U.S.
election.
"The Embassy got to know Ms. Chalupa because of her engagement with Ukrainian and other
diasporas in Washington D.C., and not in her DNC capacity. We've learned about her DNC
involvement later," Chaly said in a statement issued by his embassy. "We were surprised to
see Alexandra's interest in Mr. Paul Manafort's case. It was her own cause. The Embassy
representatives unambiguously refused to get involved in any way, as we were convinced that
this is a strictly U.S. domestic matter."
"All ideas floated by Alexandra were related to approaching a Member of Congress with a
purpose to initiate hearings on Paul Manafort or letting an investigative journalist ask
President Poroshenko a question about Mr. Manafort during his public talk in Washington,
D.C.," the ambassador explained.
Reached by phone last week, Chalupa said she was too busy to talk. She did not respond to
email and phone messages seeking subsequent comment.
Chaly's written answers mark the most direct acknowledgement by Ukraine's government that an
American tied to the Democratic Party sought the country's help in the 2016 election, and they
confirm the main points of a January 2017
story by Politico on Chalupa's efforts.
... ... ...
In addition, I
wrote last month that the Obama White House invited Ukrainian law enforcement officials to
a meeting in January 2016 as Trump rose in the polls on his improbable path to the presidency.
The meeting led to U.S. requests to the Ukrainians to help investigate Manafort, setting in
motion a series of events that led to the Ukrainians leaking the documents about Manafort in
May 2016.
The DNC's embassy contacts add a new dimension, though. Chalupa discussed in the 2017
Politico article about her efforts to dig up dirt on Trump and Manafort, including at the
Ukrainian Embassy.
Exactly how the Ukrainian Embassy responded to Chalupa's inquiries remains in dispute.
Chaly's statement says the embassy rebuffed her requests for information: "No documents related
to Trump campaign or any individuals involved in the campaign have been passed to Ms. Chalupa
or the DNC neither from the Embassy nor via the Embassy. No documents exchange was even
discussed."
But Andrii Telizhenko, a former political officer who worked under Chaly from December 2015
through June 2016, told me he was instructed by the ambassador and his top deputy to meet with
Chalupa in March 2016 and to gather whatever dirt Ukraine had in its government files about
Trump and Manafort.
Telizhenko said that when he was told by the embassy to arrange the meeting, both Chaly and
the ambassador's top deputy identified Chalupa "as someone working for the DNC and trying to
get Clinton elected." Over lunch at a Washington restaurant, Chalupa told Telizhenko in
stark terms what she hoped the Ukrainians could provide the DNC and the Clinton campaign,
according to his account.
"She said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort
were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with [Russian President Vladimir]
Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would
introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed
from the ballot, from the election," he recalled.
After the meeting, Telizhenko said he became concerned about the legality of using his
country's assets to help an American political party win a U.S. election. But he proceeded with
his assignment. Telizhenko said that as he began his research, he discovered that Fusion GPS
was nosing around Ukraine, seeking similar information, and he believed they, too, worked for
the Democrats. As a former aide inside the general prosecutor's office in Kiev, Telizhenko used
contacts with intelligence, police and prosecutors across the country to secure information
connecting Russian figures to assistance on some of the Trump organization's real estate deals
overseas, including a tower in Toronto.
Telizhenko said he did not want to provide the intelligence he collected directly to Chalupa
and instead handed the materials to Chaly: "I told him what we were doing was illegal, that it
was unethical doing this as diplomats." He said the ambassador told him he would handle the
matter and had opened a second channel back in Ukraine to continue finding dirt on Trump.
Telizhenko said he also was instructed by his bosses to meet with an American journalist
researching Manafort's ties to Ukraine.
About a month later, he said his relationship with the ambassador soured and, by June 2016,
he was ordered to return to Ukraine. There, he reported his concerns about the embassy's
contacts with the Democrats to the former prosecutor general's office and officials in the
Poroshenko administration: "Everybody already knew what was going on and told me it had been
approved at the highest levels."
Telizhenko said he never was able to confirm whether the information he collected for
Chalupa was delivered to her, the DNC or the Clinton campaign.
Chalupa, meanwhile, continued to build a case that Manafort and Trump were tied to
Russia.
In April 2016, she attended an international symposium where she reported back to the DNC
that she had met with 68 Ukrainian investigative journalists to talk about Manafort. She also
wrote that she invited American reporter Michael Isikoff to speak with her. Isikoff wrote some
of the
seminal stories tying Manafort to Ukraine and Trump to Russia; he later wrote a
book making a case for Russian collusion.
"A lot more coming down the pipe," Chalupa wrote a top DNC official on May 3, 2016 ,
recounting her effort to educate Ukrainian journalists and Isikoff about Manafort.
Then she added, "More offline tomorrow since there is a big Trump component you and Lauren
need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I'm working on you should be
aware of."
Less than a month later, the " black
ledger " identifying payments to Manafort was announced in Ukraine, forcing Manafort to
resign as Trump's campaign chairman and eventually to face criminal prosecution for improper
foreign lobbying.
DNC officials have suggested in the past that Chalupa's efforts were personal, not
officially on behalf of the DNC. But Chalupa's May 2016 email clearly informed a senior DNC
official that she was "digging into Manafort" and she suspected someone was trying to hack into
her email account.
Chaly over the years has tried to portray his role as Ukraine's ambassador in Washington as
one of neutrality during the 2016 election. But in August 2016 he raised eyebrows in some
diplomatic circles when he wrote an
op-ed for The Hill skewering Trump for some of his comments on Russia. "Trump's comments
send wrong message to world," Chaly's article blared in the headline.
... ... ...
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years
has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists'
misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political
corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at
The Hill. Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports .
The possibility of CrowdStrike central role in creation of Russiagate might be one reason that Congressional Democrats (and
Republicans) were trying to swipe under the carpet the part of Trump conversation where he asked Zelenski to help to recover
server images CrowdStrike shipped to Ukraine.
Another question is that now it is possible that one of CrowdStrike employees or Alperovich himself played the role of Gussifer
2.0
Notable quotes:
"... There is strong reason to doubt Mueller's suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange. ..."
"... Mueller's decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions. ..."
"... the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking. ..."
"... John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller's investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump. ..."
Most of the material in this article will be familiar to regular readers of SST because I
wrote about it first. Here are the key conclusions:
The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that
Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence
officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to
WikiLeaks.
The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative,
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not
only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that
provided them.
There is strong reason to doubt Mueller's suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout
called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
Mueller's decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims
Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of
evidence on fundamental questions.
U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the
Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers
themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for
the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as "Russian dossier" compiler Christopher Steele,
also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors
squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller
ignores.
Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel
to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be
revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
Mueller's report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out
the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a
private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was
sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the
collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked
hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all
facets of what became Mueller's investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial
collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment
that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate.
Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral
party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.
I encourage you to read the piece. It is well written and provides an excellent overview of
critical events in the flawed investigation.
This is just a bad show... Republicans are afraid to ask critical question. And Democrats are
afraid even to touch the issue of their alliance with CIA, as they have way to many skeletons
buried in the closet. I would like to see Obama testifying on Trump spying he ordered Brennan to
conduct, Brennan contacts with MI6 which he authorized and on his actions in Ukraine, when he
crushed a fragile constitutional order and installed right-wing junta. Nobody wants truth.
Instead, they peddled three hyper-partisan scholars in front of the House Judiciary
Committee who had an obvious emotional investment in impeaching Trump, over claims that he
abused his office by asking Ukraine to investigate credible allegations of corruption by former
Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
The lone moderate was George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley, who told House
Democrats that by attempting such an ill-founded impeachment they are the ones abusing their
power.
... ... ...
Gaetz ends by suggesting that if "wiretapping a political opponent is an impeachable
offense, I look forward to reading that Inspector General's report because maybe it's a
different president we should be impeaching.
Too bad this questioning could not go on further. She is a total A$$, to say the least.
Just an example of the elite in our "Elite" colleges. I hope the admin of Stanford is happy
with her "performance"! Good thing I wasn't smart enough to go there! Embarrassing.
"Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan raised eyebrows online for suggesting during
congressional impeachment hearings that the US must keep Ukraine strong "so they fight the
Russians there and we don't have to fight them here."
Yes, you read that right. It seems in Karlan's mind, all that's stopping "the Russians" from
invading the US is the Ukrainian army, which must be kept strong to stave off the ultimate
disaster. The law professor made the baffling comment during the House Judiciary Committee
impeachment hearing on Wednesday."
The most likely outcome of a continuation of the impeachment fiasco is the reelection of
Trump
In the push for a December impeachment vote, House Democrats appear poised to make history.
It will be the shortest investigation producing the thinnest record of wrongdoing for the
narrowest impeachment in history.
This is the worst sort of self-interested partisan politics and factional bureaucratic power
grab creeping into a full-blown war. Nobody represents me in this fight, and nobody is serving
the national interest. Remove them all before they blow us all up.
Those people who want Trump out of office ASAP because of the damage he is doing to the
country and the world, should understand that the rot is too entrenched and both parties want the
things Trump is doing. So changing who is at the help of the Titanic is not going to change a
damn thing.
And now about the level of corruption of US academy or professor as a gangster: Stanford law
professor Pamela Karlan raised eyebrows online for suggesting during congressional impeachment
hearings that the US must keep Ukraine strong "so they fight the Russians there and we don't have
to fight them here."
"presumed" the aid to Ukraine was conditioned on
investigations." [snip]
"Will Chamberlain, lawyer and publisher of the conservative journal Human Events, went a
step further and argued that Schiff's report actually exonerates Trump. By noting that the
president's view of Ukraine as corrupt was based on discussions with Hungarian PM Viktor Orban,
the report actually gives evidence that Trump's actions were based on policy concerns –
which would make them perfectly in line with his authority as president, Chamberlain argued on
Twitter.
Not that any of this matters for the further course of the impeachment inquiry. The
publication of Schiff's report was a mere formality, as House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry
Nadler (D-New York) had scheduled the first of his own impeachment hearings for Wednesday."
'House Democrats begin next phase of impeachment drive', By Patrick Martin, 3 December 2019 ,
wsws.org
"The Democratic Party effort to impeach President Trump for withholding military aid to
Ukraine moves into its next stage Wednesday [today], with the first formal hearing before the
House Judiciary Committee, which is expected to draw up articles of impeachment for a vote by
the full House before the end of the month.
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, in a five-page letter sent Sunday to Judiciary Committee
Chair Jerrold Nadler, denounced the hearing and said Trump would not send a legal
representative or otherwise participate.
Wednesday's hearing will review the legal and constitutional requirements for impeachment,
without any testimony on the nature of the charges being brought against Trump. Late Monday,
Nadler released the names of the four witnesses. All are law school professors, including three
called by the Democrats -- Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law
School, and Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina School of Law -- and one
called by the Republicans, Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School.'
[snip]
If Biden was corrupt as hell, why not to coordinate with President administration and his
personal lawyer about this matter. Biden status as a Democratic contender does not absolve him
from criminal liability under Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq.
("FCPA"), was enacted for the purpose of making it unlawful for certain classes of persons and
entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining
business.
Contained within a 300-page report on the Democrats' impeachment investigation was a
startling admission; House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) had obtained
call records between Rep. Devin Nunes, Rudy Giuliani, Ukraine intermediary Lev Parnas,
and journalist John Solomon .
In response, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) said "It
raises a lot of serious questions," before demanding to know what Schiff was up to.
" I want to know all the people Adam Schiff is spying on ," Schiff told the Washington Examiner . "Are there other members of Congress that he is spying on,
and what justification does he have? He needs to be held accountable and explain what he's
doing, going after journalists, going after members of Congress, instead of doing his job."
The records showed calls between Nunes and President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy
Giuliani, and calls between Nunes and Lev Parnas , a Giuliani associate now under indictment
for funneling foreign money to U.S. political candidates.
Schiff said the calls raise questions about whether Nunes was involved in what Democrats
believe was a scheme to undermine Trump's political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. -
Washington Examiner
On Tuesday, Schiff said "I find it deeply concerning at a time when the president of the
United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there
may be evidence of members of Congress complicit in that activity ."
Nunes says he doesn't recall speaking with Parnas, and that any discussions with Giuliani
would have likely revolved around the Mueller report.
"I remember talking to Rudy Giuliani, and we were actually laughing about how Mueller bombed
out," Nunes told Fox News on Tuesday. Democrats claim that the Nunes call records
reveal that he's been coordinating with the Trump administration and Giuliani to go after
former Vice President Joe Biden, who has been credibly accused of corruption in Ukraine
involving his son Hunter.
Democrats have been critical of Nunes since his tenure as the House Intelligence Committee
chairman from 2017 to 2019. During that time, Nunes made a trip to the White House to inform
Trump his transition meeting messages were intercepted by U.S. intelligence.
"I always felt that Mr. Nunes was a dividing character," Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell of
New Jersey told the Washington Examiner . "We know of his meetings with the president,
which he had every right to do by the way. But in the peculiar position he was in, it was
obvious where he was getting his orders and how he proceeded. And I think he's going to get
what's coming to him."
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said "there are serious questions" about the calls between
Nunes and Giuliani and Parnas. He said Democrats "need to look at them and see what action
ought to be taken, if any."
Hoyer declined to say whether it would be in the form of a House ethics investigation or a
punitive House floor measure.
"I want to have input from other people before I opine on what we ought to be doing. I
will be doing that," he said. - Washington Examiner
The call record produced by House Democrats also reveal calls in late April between Lev
Parnas and journalist John Solomon, a previous columnist for The Hill who has broken
several bombshell stories regarding the Russia investigation and the Bidens.
"I'm interested in why he was doing this," said Scalise of Schiff. "And under what
authority."
The fraction of RussiaGate/UkraineGate that can be taken seriously is quite small. An
enormous amount of it is "it's ok when we do it"-level material. Difficult to sort without
presenting a range encompassing all factions.
It's possible I'm too jaded, but "reporters presents material derived from his political
faction" isn't all that exciting, since I don't belong to either of the factions engaged in
this battle. I remember the Lewinsky Matter, WMDs, and (see today's Links), being smeared by
Prop0rNot, and UkraineGate just a little too well.
I believe we are talking about the "Fruit of the poisonous tree" objection. That evidence
obtained illegally cannot be used and anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as
well.
Two questions: Was the whistle blower action illegal or just "improper"?
And if illegal, does the "attenuation doctrine" apply here?
"For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent
intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's
illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself. (United States
v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))"
Most likely, if this case were being heard in a court of law, it would be thrown out as fruit
of the poisoned tree doctrine. However, the problem here is there are no judges with the
authority to issue a ruling ordering Congress to stop these hearings.
However, it is certain that if Congress votes for impeachment, the Senate, same as the
House, can also do what it wants and the GOP majority may vote to throw the case out on the
grounds of fruit of the poisoned tree. However, I believe a full trial with witnesses
favorable to the president testifying and focusing on Biden corruption would show the
American people the impeachment process was bogus from the beginning and thus be more
favorable to Trump. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the GOP majority Senate will
provide the 67 votes necessary for impeachment.. So, at then end of the day, this is one big
show trial where the end result will be Trump serving out his elected term or terms.
I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a
potential/inevitable Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as
accurately described here, will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a
master at giving his enemies enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show
appears to me to be a classic example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are
still busying themselves atop the fagot pile.
While the Impeachment circus act was in gear, the Democrats were quietly reauthorizing The
Patriot Act in the funding resolution keeping the government afloat for another 3
months.
I am a bit puzzled with what the Democrats are doing.
In reading the Constitution, there's nothing that I can see that enumerates a specific
procedure on impeachment in the House. It also appears that there is no definition of what
High Crimes & Misdemeanors are and it would be whatever the House says it is. It
appears the House can impeach by bringing the Articles of Impeachment to the floor for a
vote. Nancy Pelosi has enough votes in her caucus to pass that with just her own party
votes.
What is prompting the current process they are following? An inquiry by the
Intelligence Committee, where the majority decides which witnesses can be called and there's
no opportunity for the accused to cross-examine and provide rebuttal evidence and
testimony.
They have controlled the media news cycle for most of the last few weeks. They are also
deploying and testing soundbites. Given the news from FB, Twitter and Google to limit the
ability of "political ads" to target audiences with unique adds. That's all coordinated
against Trump. The fact these hearings showed the career bureaucracy is not only out of touch
with America but contemptuous of most Americans.
The last two were prime examples. The "good immigrant" - and a woman; check a couple of
boxes for democratic party declared support groups being victimized by Trump's Tweets
(now labeled attacks, kind of like the hate speech label). Then there is wonderboy Mr.
Holmes. Do you think either know what's going on in Tupelo or Topeka, or give a damn? Mr.
Holmes was upset that two Ukrainians recently died in combat. That was last night in Detroit.
And Baltimore. And Chicago. Of course the Dynamic Duo was working to end corruption: in
Kiev.
Of course those aren't the lives that matter to the Council on Foreign Relations crowd or
those who went to that fine proletarian school: St. Andrews - in Scotland. A fine school all
middle class Americans aspire too. Yep, just regular ole American's. You are concerned about
due process and evidence faked by police? Just ask some inner city black Americans if that
happens in their neighborhood.
Once Trump RIFs 90 percent of these people they can go put their skills in corruption
fighting to good use in a country they all love. I'm sure these two fine examples of white
privelege integrity and honest governance will have no trouble getting hired in a place
like Baltimore. They hired DeRay McKesson; these well credentialed experts will have no
problems at all fixing that city. It's full of honest Americans.
Witches are devious and the nature of their witchcraft may only be apparent to the accusers.
See how at each session the Witchfinder General takes plenty of time to explain to onlookers
the nature of the witchcraft lest they mistake it for, say, a regular phone call.
Democrats reluctance to go on record impeaching a popular opposition party President is what
is driving this Democrat-led inquiry process - almost impeachment but not quite impeachment.
The intent is to wound, smear, damage, distract and distort. Typical Democrat politics of
personal destruction that we have seen in play now for three long painful years.
I live in California, so we see a lot of this 24/7/365. It has been a very effective and
intimidating tactic since now most Democrat central committee chosen candidates run u
unopposed - no one wants to face the Democrat mean machine meat grinder.
The only wild card is how tough Trump has been facing this onslaught down. He is our
favorite schmoo doll who simply cannot be knocked down. Thank you President Trump.
Winning.
blue peacock, I am also puzzled by the Democrats - soviet style show trial like, a campaign whose
„face" now is Adam Schiff. I have asked the SST commenters, in different article, why
would DT be so viciously attacked by the very same supporters of Israel, who should be very
grateful to him for his many actions in favor of Israel. One commenter replied that DT is not
going to wage war on Iran and therefore he is not useful anymore. I disagree with that
assessment, and am still puzzled by the whole theater. Adam Schiff and his show trial is
playing in the hands of republicans, and the democrats will bitterly regret that they did not
follow once more the mantra of Nancy Pelosi - in different context - „impeachment is
off the table".
One of the problems with show trials is that they usually backfire...
Notable quotes:
"... What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for filing false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the whistle-blower law. ..."
"... Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint. Only if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant. ..."
"... The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job isn't it? ..."
"... turcopolier , 20 November 2019 at 09:46 PM ..."
"... I will try again. The law has nothing to do with non-intelligence matters and there were no intelligence matters in the phone call. ..."
"... The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal destruction. While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint of irony) to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump alone has torn it asunder. ..."
"... If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires. ..."
"... Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating complaints about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect luggage at the airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'. ..."
"... Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway. ..."
"... Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting. ..."
"... Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse. ..."
Only way out is to call for the impeachment, have a vote and either lick their wounds if
they lose (mainly Schiff and Nadler get sacrificed - Fancy Nancy has been dancing on a tight
rope so she gets a pass); or vote to pass articles of impeachment and finally send this
turkey on to the senate.
Wild card, how many Democrats not engaged in this blatant publicity stunt also want no
part in it. What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for
filing false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the
whistle-blower law.
Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint.
Only if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant.
Otherwise, all you have are the opening opinion statements in tonights DNC debate, sneered
out by Rachael Maddow, picked up with even more sneers by Kamala Harris and echoed by every
single DNC candidate as already a fait accompli.
The unocntested party line tonight is this "whistle blower" busted Trump wide open as a
crook and a self-confessed crook at that.
That political message flowing from this "irrelevant complaint "is hard to overcome as the
DNC debate crowd cheered, unless the perpetrator is brought to justice under the relevance of
this law. We shall wait patiently for that moment. As the Democrats all stated tonight - 2020
election is all about JUSTICE AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I do, which is what I meant by
"In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act."
The point I was making is that, as drafted, there is in adequate redress/protection for
those who witness acts which are clearly covered. This is not conducive to keeping government
on the straight and narrow. The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been
massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and
saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job
isn't it?
The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal
destruction. While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint
of irony) to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump
alone has torn it asunder.
Exactly right. If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower
complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence
activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires.
Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating
complaints about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect
luggage at the airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson
is the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint;
an intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information
of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very
epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
Republicans are afraid to raise this key question. Democrats are afraid of even mentioning CrowdStrike in Ukrainegate hearings.
The Deep State wants to suppress this matter entirely.
Alperovisch connections to Ukraine and his Russophobia are well known. Did Alperovich people played the role of "Fancy Bear"? Or
Ukrainian SBU was engaged? George Eliason clams that
"I have already clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators." ... "Since there is so much crap surrounding
the supposed hack such as law enforcement teams never examining the DNC server or maintaining control of it as evidence, could the hacks
have been a cover-up?"
Notable quotes:
"... So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility. ..."
"... What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of a 'false flag' operation. ..."
"... On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short, and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/ .) ..."
"... And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net ) ..."
"... The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.' ..."
"... Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed? ..."
"... Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers. ..."
"... What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian conclusion. ..."
"... Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link ..."
"... Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth ..."
"... Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike. ..."
"... In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives. ..."
"... His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services, is very suspicious indeed. ..."
"... Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time. ..."
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI investigation, was tied very closely to
the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far too much.
what exactly, to the extend I recall, could the Ukraine contribute the the DNC's server/"fake malware" troubles? Beyond, that
I seem to vaguely recall, the supposed malware was distributed via an Ukrainan address.
On the other hand, there seems to be the (consensus here?) argument there was no malware breach at all, simply an insider copying
files on a USB stick.
If people discovered there had been a leak, it would perfectly natural that in order to give 'resilience' to their cover-up
strategies, they could have organised a planting of evidence on the servers, in conjunction with elements in Ukraine.
So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible
calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious
questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility.
The issues involved become all the more important, in the light of the progress of Ty Clevenger's attempts to exploit the clear
contradiction between the claims by the FBI, in response to FOIA requests, to have no evidence relating to Seth Rich, and the
remarks by Ms. Deborah Sines quoted by Michael Isikoff.
What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of
a 'false flag' operation.
On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against
the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short,
and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining
the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/
.)
It is eminently possible that Ms. Hines has simply made an 'unforced error.'
However, I do not – yet – feel able totally to discount the possibility that what is actually at issue is a 'ruse', produced
as a contingency plan to ensure that if it becomes impossible to maintain the cover-up over Rich's involvement in its original
form, his laptop shows 'evidence' compatible with the 'Russiagate' narrative.
And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the
level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance
is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See
http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net )
Looking at it from the perspective of an old television current affairs hack, I do think that, while it is very helpful to
have some key material available in a single place, it would useful if more attention was paid to presentation.
In particular, it would be a most helpful 'teaching aid', if a full and accurate transcript was made of the conversation with
Seymour Hersh which Ed Butowsky covertly recorded. What seems clear is that both these figures ended up in very difficult positions,
and that the latter clearly engaged in 'sleight of hand' in relation to his dealings with the former. That said, the fact that
Butowsky's claims about his grounds for believing that Hersh's FBI informant was Andrew McCabe are clearly disingenuous does not
justify the conclusion that he is wrong.
It is absolutely clear to me – despite what 'TTG', following that 'Grub Street' hack Folkenflik, claimed – that when Hersh
talked to Butowsky, he believed he had been given accurate information. Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how anyone whose eyes
were not hopelessly blinded by prejudice, a\nd possibly fear of where a quest for the truth might lead, could not see that, in
this conversation, both men were telling the truth, as they saw it.
However, all of us, including the finest and most honourable of journalists can, from time to time, fall for disinformation.
(If anyone says they can always spot when they are being played, all I can say is, if you're right, you're clearly Superman, but
it is more likely that you are a fool or knave, if not both.)
The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise
the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak
before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.'
1. Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What
was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed?
2. Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to
help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
3. What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian
conclusion.
4. Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how
exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian
link .
5. Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are
any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question
when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth .
Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted
to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
Alperovich is really a very suspicious figure. Rumors are that he was involved in compromising PGP while in MacAfee( June 2nd,
2018 Alperovich's DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams - YouTube ):
Investigative Journalist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the CEO Bill Larsen bought a small,
Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate to reduce NSA spying on the
public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order
to crack encrypted communications to write a back door for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would
go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted
communications for covert action operatives.
His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a
false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services,
is very suspicious indeed.
Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After
all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time.
While all this DNC hack saga is completely unclear due to lack of facts and the access to the evidence, there are some stories
on Internet that indirectly somewhat strengthen your hypothesis:
"... Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that here . ..."
"... Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails here . ..."
"... Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations here . ..."
"... Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the embassy's statement here and here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary Clinton winning." You can read her testimony here . ..."
"... Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality. ..."
"... Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars, including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter here . Kent testified he signed the letter here . ..."
"... Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I accurately quoted him by watching the video here . ..."
"... Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
"... Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
honor and applaud Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's service to his country. He's a hero. I also respect his decision to testify
at the impeachment proceedings. I suspect neither his service nor his testimony was easy.
But I also know the liberties that Lt. Col. Vindman fought on the battlefield to preserve permit for a free and honest debate
in America, one that can't be muted by the color of uniform or the crushing power of the state.
So I want to exercise my right to debate Lt. Col. Vindman about the testimony he gave about me. You see, under oath to Congress,
he asserted all the factual elements in my columns at The Hill about Ukraine were false, except maybe my grammar
"I think all the key elements were false," Vindman testified.
Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y, pressed him about what he meant. "Just so I understand what you mean when you say key elements, are you
referring to everything John Solomon stated or just some of it?"
"All the elements that I just laid out for you. The criticisms of corruption were false . Were there more items in there, frankly,
congressman? I don't recall. I haven't looked at the article in quite some time, but you know, his grammar might have been right."
Such testimony has been injurious to my reputation, one earned during 30 years of impactful reporting for news organizations that
included The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Daily Beast/Newsweek.
And so Lt. Col. Vindman, here are the 28 primary factual elements in my Ukraine columns, complete with attribution and links to
sourcing. Please tell me which, if any, was factually wrong.
Fact 1 : Hunter Biden was hired in May 2014 by Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company, at a time when his father
Joe Biden was Vice President and overseeing US-Ukraine Policy.
Here
is the announcement. Hunter Biden's hiring came just a few short weeks after Joe Biden urged Ukraine to expand natural gas production
and use Americans to help. You can read his comments to the Ukrainian prime minister
here . Hunter Biden's firm then began receiving monthly payments totaling $166,666. You can see those payments
here .
Fact 2 : Burisma was under investigation by
British authorities for corruption
and soon came under investigation by
Ukrainian authorities led by Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
Fact 3 : Vice President Joe Biden and his office were alerted by a
December 2015 New York Times article that Shokin's office was investigating Burisma and that Hunter Biden's role at the company
was undercutting his father's anticorruption efforts in Ukraine.
Fact 4 : The Biden-Burisma issue created the appearance of a conflict of interest, especially for State Department officials.
I especially refer you to State official George Kent's testimony
here . He testified he viewed
Burisma as corrupt and the Bidens as creating the perception of a conflict of interest. His concerns both caused him to contact the
vice president's office and to block a project that State's USAID agency was planning with Burisma in 2016. In addition, Ambassador
Yovanovitch testified she, too, saw the Bidens-Burisma connection as creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. You can read
her testimony
here .
Fact 5 : The Obama White House invited Shokin's prosecutorial team to Washington for meetings in January 2016 to discuss
their anticorruption investigations. You can read about that
here . Also, here is the official agenda for that meeting in
Ukraine and
English
. I call your attention to the NSC organizer of the meeting.
Fact 6 : The Ukraine investigation of Hunter Biden's employer, Burisma Holdings, escalated in February 2016 when Shokin's
office raided the home of company owner Mykola Zlochevsky and seized his property.
Here is the announcement of that court-approved
raid.
Fact 7 : Shokin was making plans in February 2016 to interview Hunter Biden as part of his investigation. You can read
his interview with me here, his sworn deposition to a court
here and his interview with
ABC News
here .
Fact 8 : Burisma's American representatives lobbied the State Department in late February 2016 to help end the corruption
allegations against the company, and specifically invoked Hunter Biden's name as a reason to intervene. You can read State officials'
account of that effort here
Fact 9 : Joe Biden boasted in a
2018 videotape
that he forced Ukraine's president to fire Shokin in March 2016 by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid. You can view his
videotape here
.
Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and
ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that
claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that
here .
Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting
with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails
here .
Fact 12 : Burisma's legal representatives secured that meeting April 6, 2016 and told Ukrainian prosecutors that "false
information" had been spread to justify Shokin's firing, according to a Ukrainian government memo about the meeting. The representatives
also offered to arrange for the remaining Ukrainian prosecutors to meet with U.S State and Justice officials. You can read the Ukrainian
prosecutors' summary memo of the meeting here and here and the Burisma lawyers' invite to Washington
here .
Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion
dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations
here .
Fact 14 : In March 2019, Ukraine authorities reopened an investigation against Burisma and Zlochevsky based on new evidence
of money laundering. You can read NABU's February 2019 recommendation to re-open the case
here , the March 2019 notice of suspicion by Ukraine prosecutors
here and a
May 2019 interview
here
with a Ukrainian senior law enforcement official stating the investigation was ongoing. And
here is an announcement this week that the Zlochevsky/Burisma probe has been expanded to include allegations of theft of Ukrainian
state funds.
Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee
contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the
embassy's statement
here and
here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary
Clinton winning." You can read her testimony
here .
Fact 16 : Chalupa sent an email to top DNC officials in May 2016 acknowledging she was working on the Manafort issue. You
can read the email here .
Fact 17 : Ukraine's ambassador to Washington, Valeriy Chaly, wrote an OpEd in The Hill in August 2016 slamming GOP nominee
Donald Trump for his policies on Russia despite a Geneva Convention requirement that ambassadors not become embroiled in the internal
affairs or elections of their host countries. You can read Ambassador Chaly's OpEd
here and the Geneva Convention rules of conduct for foreign diplomats
here . And your colleagues
Ambassador Yovanovitch and Dr. Hill both confirmed this, with Dr. Hill
testifying this
week that Chaly's OpEd was "probably not the most advisable thing to do."
Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary
member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference
by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling
here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality.
Fact 19 : George Soros' Open Society Foundation issued a memo in February 2016 on its strategy for Ukraine, identifying
the nonprofit Anti-Corruption Action Centre as the lead for its efforts. You can read the memo
here .
Fact 20 : The State Department and Soros' foundation jointly funded the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. You can read about
that funding here from the Centre's own funding records and George
Kent's testimony about it here
.
Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office
demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars,
including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter
here . Kent testified he signed the
letter here .
Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I
accurately quoted him by watching the video
here .
Fact 23 : Ambassador Yovanovitch and her embassy denied Lutsenko's claim, calling it a "fabrication." I reported their
reaction
here .
Fact 24 : Despite the differing accounts of what happened at the Lutsenko-Yovanovitch meeting, a senior U.S. official in
an interview arranged by the State Department stated to me in spring 2019 that US officials did pressure Lutsenko's office on several
occasions not to "prosecute, investigate or harass" certain Ukrainian activists, including Parliamentary member Leschenko, journalist
Vitali Shabunin, the Anti-Corruption Action Centre and NABU director Sytnyk. You can read that official's comments
here . In addition, George Kent confirmed this same information in his deposition
here .
Fact 25 : In May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions sent an official congressional letter to Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo asking that Yovanovitch be recalled as ambassador to Ukraine. Sessions and State confirmed the official letter,
which you can read here
.
Fact 26 : In fall 2018, Ukrainian prosecutors, using a third party, hired an American lawyer (a former U.S. attorney) to
proffer information to the U.S. government about certain activities at the U.S. embassy, involving Burisma and involving the 2016
election, that they believed might have violated U.S. law. You can read their account
here . You can also confirm it independently by talking to the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan or the American lawyer representing
the Ukrainian prosecutors' interests.
Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State
Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to
discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Lt. Col. Vindman, if you have information that contradicts any of these 28 factual elements in my columns I ask that you make
it publicly available. Your testimony did not.
If you don't have evidence these 28 facts are wrong, I ask that you correct your testimony because any effort to call factually
accurate reporting false only misleads America and chills the free debate our Constitutional framers so cherished to protect.
Pelosi interference in elections might cost democrats a victory. She enraged Trump base and
strengthened Trump, who before was floundering. Now election changed into "us vs them" question,
which is very unfavorable to neoliberal Dems. as neolibelism as ideology is dead. She also
brought back Trump some independents who othersie would stay home or vote for Dem candidate. No
action of House of Representatives can changes this. Bringing Vindman and Fiona Hill to testify
were huge blunders as they enhance the narrative that the Deep State, unaccountable Security
Establishment, controls the government, to which Trump represents very weak, but still a
challenge. As such they strengthened Trump
Essentially Dems had driven themselves into a trap. Moreover actions of the Senate can drag
democrats in dirt till the elections, diminishing their chances further and firther. Can you
image the effect if Schiff would be called testify under oath about his contacts with Ciaramella?
Or Biden questioning about his dirty dealing with both Yanukovich administration and Provisional
Government after the 2014 coup d'état (aka EuroMaydan, aka "the Revolution of dignity"
?
Notable quotes:
"... It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over "withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one. Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed "isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to criticize a president. ..."
"... Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe, Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S. involvement overseas are reducing it. ..."
"... We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually been adding to them. ..."
Gideon Rachman tries to find
similarities between the foreign policies of Trump and Obama:
Both men would detest the thought. But, in crucial respects, the foreign policies of
Donald Trump and Barack Obama are looking strikingly similar.
The wildly different styles of the two presidents have disguised the underlying
continuities between their approaches to the world. But look at substance, rather than style,
and the similarities are impressive.
There is usually considerable continuity in U.S. foreign policy from one president to
another, but Rachman is making a stronger and somewhat different claim than that. He is arguing
that their foreign policy agendas are very much alike in ways that put both presidents at odds
with the foreign policy establishment, and he cites "disengagement from the Middle East" and a
"pivot to Asia" as two examples of these similarities. This seems superficially plausible, but
it is misleading. Despite talking a lot about disengagement, Obama and Trump chose to keep the
U.S. involved in several conflicts, and Trump actually escalated the wars he inherited from
Obama. To the extent that there is continuity between Obama and Trump, it has been that both of
them have acceded to the conventional wisdom of "the Blob" and refused to disentangle the U.S.
from Middle Eastern conflicts. Ongoing support for the war on Yemen is the ugliest and most
destructive example of this continuity.
In reality, neither Obama nor Trump "focused" on Asia, and Trump's foray into
pseudo-engagement with North Korea has little in common with Obama's would-be "pivot" or
"rebalance." U.S. participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a major part of Obama's
policy in Asia. Trump pulled out of that agreement and waged destructive trade wars instead.
Once we get past generalizations and look at details, the two presidents are often
diametrically opposed to one another in practice. That is what one would expect when we
remember that Trump has made dismantling Obama's foreign policy achievements one of his main
priorities.
The significant differences between the two become much more apparent when we look at other
issues. On arms control and nonproliferation, the two could not be more different. Obama
negotiated a new arms reduction treaty with New START at the start of his presidency, and he
wrapped up a major nonproliferation agreement with Iran and the other members of the P5+1 in
2015. Trump reneged on the latter and seems determined to kill the former. Obama touted the
benefits of genuine diplomatic engagement, while Trump has made a point of reversing and
undoing most of the results of Obama's engagement with Cuba and Iran. Trump's overall hostility
to genuine diplomacy makes another one of Rachman claims quite baffling:
The result is that, after his warlike "fire and fury" phase, Mr Trump is now pursuing a
diplomacy-first strategy that is strongly reminiscent of Mr Obama.
Calling Trump's clumsy pattern of making threats and ultimatums a "diplomacy-first strategy"
is a mistake. This is akin to saying that he is adhering to foreign policy restraint because
the U.S. hasn't invaded any new countries on Trump's watch. It takes something true (Trump
hasn't started a new war yet) and misrepresents it as proof that the president is serious about
diplomacy and that he wants to reduce U.S. military engagement overseas. Trump enjoys the
spectacle of meeting with foreign leaders, but he isn't interested in doing the work or taking
the risks that successful diplomacy requires. He has shown repeatedly through his own behavior,
his policy preferences, and his proposed budgets that he has no use for diplomacy or diplomats,
and instead he expects to be able to bully or flatter adversaries into submission.
So Rachman is simply wrong he reaches this conclusion:
Mr Trump's reluctance to attack Iran was significant. It underlines the fact that his
tough-guy rhetoric disguises a strong preference for diplomacy over force.
Let's recall that the near-miss of starting a war with Iran came as a result of the downing
of an unmanned drone. The fact that the U.S. was seriously considering an attack on another
country over the loss of a drone is a worrisome sign that this administration is prepared to go
to war at the drop of a hat. Calling off such an insane attack was the right thing to do, but
there should never have been an attack to call off. That episode does not show a "strong
preference for diplomacy over force." If Trump had a strong preference for diplomacy over
force, his policy would not be one of relentless hostility towards Iran. Trump does not believe
in diplomatic compromise, but expects the other side to capitulate under pressure. That
actually makes conflict more likely and reduces the chances of meaningful negotiations.
It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over
"withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that
they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one.
Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed
"isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been
criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies
because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to
criticize a president.
Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most
of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is
guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe,
Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think
there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world.
Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn
non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S.
involvement overseas are reducing it.
Rachman ends his column with this assertion:
In their very different ways, both Mr Obama and Mr Trump have reduced America's global
commitments -- and adjusted the US to a more modest international role.
The problem here is that there has been no meaningful reduction in America's "global
commitments." Which commitments have been reduced or eliminated? It would be helpful if someone
could be specific about this. The U.S. has more security dependents today than it did when
Trump took office. NATO has been expanded to include two new countries in just the last three
years. U.S. troops are engaged in hostilities in just as many countries as they were when Trump
was elected. There are more troops deployed to the Middle East at the end of this year than
there were at the beginning, and that is a direct consequence of Trump's bankrupt Iran
policy.
We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really
have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually
been adding to them.
"... Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia. The Council in turn is financed by Google Inc. ..."
"... In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma. ..."
"... Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential race. ..."
"... Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. ..."
"... Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are "disputed." ..."
There are common threads that run through an organization repeatedly relied upon in the
so-called whistleblower's complaint about President Donald Trump and CrowdStrike, the outside
firm utilized to conclude that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee's servers
since the DNC would not allow the U.S. government to inspect the servers.
One of several themes is financing tied to Google, whose Google Capital led a $100 million
funding drive that financed Crowdstrike. Google Capital, which now goes by the name of
CapitalG, is an arm of Alphabet Inc., Google's parent company. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of
Alphabet, has been a staunch and active supporter of Hillary Clinton and is a longtime donor
to the Democratic Party.
CrowdStrike was mentioned by Trump in his call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign,
reportedly helped draft CrowdStrike to aid with the DNC's allegedly hacked server.
On behalf of the DNC and Clinton's campaign, Perkins Coie also paid the controversial
Fusion GPS firm to produce the infamous, largely-discredited anti-Trump dossier compiled by
former British spy Christopher Steele.
CrowdStrike is a California-based cybersecurity technology company co-founded by Dmitri
Alperovitch.
Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the
Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward
Russia. The Council in turn is financed
by Google Inc.
In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council
funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe
Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with
Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's
role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when
Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma.
Besides Google and Burisma funding, the Council is also financed by billionaire activist
George Soros's Open Society Foundations as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. and
the U.S. State Department.
Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State
Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization
repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint
alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign
country" in the 2020 presidential race.
The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the whistleblower's document and released
by the Google and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting
Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower's
own claims, as Breitbart News
documented .
One key section of the so-called whistleblower's document claims that "multiple U.S.
officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of
other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the
Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov."
This was allegedly to follow up on Trump's call with Zelensky in order to discuss the
"cases" mentioned in that call, according to the so-called whistleblower's narrative. The
complainer was clearly referencing Trump's request for Ukraine to investigate the Biden
corruption allegations.
Even though the statement was written in first person – "multiple U.S. officials
told me" – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and
Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
That footnote reads:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on
22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met
with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
The so-called whistleblower's account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three
more occasions. It does so to:
Write that Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko
"also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these
matters." Document that Trump adviser Rudi Giuliani "had spoken in late 2018 to former
Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani."
Bolster the charge that, "I also learned from a U.S. official that 'associates' of Mr.
Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team." The so-called
whistleblower then relates in another footnote, "I do not know whether these associates of
Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced
above."
The OCCRP
report repeatedly referenced is actually a "joint investigation by the Organized Crime
and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and
business records in the United States and Ukraine."
BuzzFeed infamously also first
published the full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump's
presidential campaign and Russia. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and
the Democratic National Committee and was produced by the Fusion GPS opposition dirt
outfit.
The OCCRP and BuzzFeed "joint investigation" resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed
publishing similar lengthy pieces on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use
connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump's political rivals.
The so-called whistleblower's document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP
and does not reference BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia
collusion claims.
Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal
billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.
Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also
funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International
Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are
"disputed."
Like OCCRP, the Poynter Institute's so-called news fact-checking project is openly
funded by not only Soros' Open Society Foundations but also Google and the National
Endowment for Democracy.
CrowdStrike and DNC servers
CrowdStrike, meanwhile, was brought up by Trump in his phone call with Zelensky. According to the transcript, Trump told Zelensky, "I would like you to find out what
happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike I guess you have one of
your wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it."
In his extensive
report , Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller notes that his investigative team did not
"obtain or examine" the servers of the DNC in determining whether those servers were hacked
by Russia.
The DNC famously refused to allow the FBI to access its servers to verify the allegation
that Russia carried out a hack during the 2016 presidential campaign. Instead, the DNC
reached an arrangement with the FBI in which CrowdStrike conducted forensics on the server
and shared details with the FBI.
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2017, then-FBI Director
James Comey
confirmed that the FBI registered "multiple requests at different levels," to review the
DNC's hacked servers. Ultimately, the DNC and FBI came to an agreement in which a "highly
respected private company" -- a reference to CrowdStrike -- would carry out forensics on the
servers and share any information that it discovered with the FBI, Comey testified.
A senior law enforcement official stressed the importance of the FBI gaining direct access
to the servers, a request that was denied by the DNC.
"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to
servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been
mitigated," the official was quoted by the news media as saying.
"This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions
caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier," the
official continued.
... ... ...
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter.
He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "
Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio ." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.
Russians did not hack the DNC system, a Russian named Dmitri Alperovitch is the hacker
and he works for President Obama. In the last five years the Obama administration has
turned exclusively to one Russian to solve every major cyber-attack in America, whether the
attack was on the U.S. government or a corporation. Only one "super-hero cyber-warrior" seems
to "have the codes" to figure out "if" a system was hacked and by "whom."
Dmitri's company, CrowdStrike has been called in by Obama to solve mysterious attacks on
many high level government agencies and American corporations, including: German Bundestag,
Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the White
House, the State Department, SONY, and many others.
CrowdStrike's philosophy is: "You don't have a malware problem; you have an adversary
problem."
CrowdStrike has played a critical role in the development of America's cyber-defense policy.
Dmitri Alperovitch and George Kurtz, a former head of the FBI cyberwarfare unit founded
CrowdStrike. Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director at the FBI is now CrowdStrike's
president of services. The company is crawling with former U.S. intelligence agents.
Before Alperovitch founded CrowdStrike in 2011, he was working in Atlanta as the chief
threat officer at the antivirus software firm McAfee, owned by Intel (a DARPA company). During
that time, he "discovered" the Chinese had compromised at least seventy-one companies and
organizations, including thirteen defense contractors, three electronics firms, and the
International Olympic Committee. He was the only person to notice the biggest cyberattack in
history! Nothing suspicious about that.
Alperovitch and the DNC
After CrowdStrike was hired as an independent "vendor" by the DNC to investigate a possible
cyberattack on their system, Alperovitch sent the DNC a proprietary software package called
Falcon that monitors the networks of its clients in real time. According to Alperovitch,
Falcon "lit up," within ten seconds of being installed at the DNC. Alperovitch had his
"proof" in TEN SECONDS that Russia was in the network. This "alleged" evidence of Russian
hacking has yet to be shared with anyone.
As Donald Trump has pointed out, the FBI, the agency that should have been immediately
involved in hacking that effects "National Security," has yet to even examine the DNC system to
begin an investigation. Instead, the FBI and 16 other U.S. "intelligence" agencies simply
"agree" with Obama's most trusted "cyberwarfare" expert Dmitri Alperovitch's "TEN SECOND"
assessment that produced no evidence to support the claim.
Also remember that it is only Alperovitch and CrowdStrike that claim to have evidence
that it was Russian hackers . In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the
system and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD).
It is only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers.
Alperovitch failed to mention in his conclusive "TEN SECOND" assessment that Guccifer 2.0
had already hacked the DNC and made available to the public the documents he hacked –
before Alperovitch did his ten second assessment. Alperovitch reported that no other hackers
were found, ignoring the fact that Guccifer 2.0 had already hacked and released DNC documents
to the public. Alperovitch's assessment also goes directly against Julian Assange's repeated
statements that the DNC leaks did not come from the Russians.
The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike
naïvely flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the
DNC documents. Julian Assange implied in an interview that the murdered Democratic
National Committee staffer, Seth Rich, was the source of a trove of damaging emails the website
posted just days before the party's convention. Seth was on his way to testify about the DNC
leaks to the FBI when he was shot dead in the street.
It is also absurd to hear Alperovitch state that the Russian FSB (equivalent to the CIA) had
been monitoring the DNC site for over a year and had done nothing. No attack, no theft, and no
harm was done to the system by this "false-flag cyber-attack" on the DNC – or at least,
Alperovitch "reported" there was an attack. The second hacker, the supposed Russian military
(GRU – like the U.S. DoD) hacker, had just entered the system two weeks before and also
had done "nothing" but observe.
It is only Alperovitch's word that reports that the Russian FSB was "looking for files on
Donald Trump."
It is only this false claim that spuriously ties Trump to the "alleged"
attack. It is also only Alperovitch who believes that this hack that was supposedly "looking
for Trump files" was an attempt to "influence" the election. No files were found about Trump by
the second hacker, as we know from Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0's leaks. To confabulate that
"Russian's hacked the DNC to influence the elections" is the claim of one well-known Russian
spy. Then, 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously confirm that Alperovitch is correct
– even though there is no evidence and no investigation was ever conducted .
How does Dmitri Alperovitch have such power? Why did Obama again and again use Alperovitch's
company, CrowdStrike, when they have miserably failed to stop further cyber-attacks on the
systems they were hired to protect? Why should anyone believe CrowdStrikes false-flag
report?
After documents from the DNC continued to leak, and Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks made
CrowdStrike's report look foolish, Alperovitch decided the situation was far worse than he had
reported. He single-handedly concluded that the Russians were conducting an "influence
operation" to help win the election for Trump . This false assertion had absolutely no
evidence to back it up.
On July 22, three days before the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks dumped a
massive cache of emails that had been "stolen" (not hacked) from the DNC. Reporters soon found
emails suggesting that the DNC leadership had favored Hillary Clinton in her primary race
against Bernie Sanders, which led Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair, along with three
other officials, to resign.
Just days later, it was discovered that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
(DCCC) had been hacked. CrowdStrike was called in again and once again, Alperovitch immediately
"believed" that Russia was responsible. A lawyer for the DCCC gave Alperovitch permission to
confirm the leak and to name Russia as the suspected author. Two weeks later, files from the
DCCC began to appear on Guccifer 2.0's website. This time Guccifer released information about
Democratic congressional candidates who were running close races in Florida, Ohio, Illinois,
and Pennsylvania. On August 12, Guccifer went further, publishing a spreadsheet that included
the personal email addresses and phone numbers of nearly two hundred Democratic members of
Congress.
Once again, Guccifer 2.0 proved Alperovitch and CrowdStrike's claims to be grossly incorrect
about the hack originating from Russia, with Putin masterminding it all. Nancy Pelosi offered
members of Congress Alperovitch's suggestion of installing Falcon , the system that
failed to stop cyberattacks at the DNC, on all congressional laptops.
Key Point: Once Falcon was installed on the computers of members of the U.S.
Congress, CrowdStrike had even further full access into U.S. government accounts.
Alperovitch's "Unbelievable" History
Dmitri was born in 1980 in Moscow where his father, Michael, was a nuclear physicist, (so
Dmitri claims). Dmitri's father was supposedly involved at the highest levels of Russian
nuclear science. He also claims that his father taught him to write code as a child.
In 1990, his father was sent to Maryland as part of a nuclear-safety training program for
scientists. In 1994, Michael Alperovitch was granted a visa to Canada, and a year later the
family moved to Chattanooga, where Michael took a job with the Tennessee Valley Authority.
While Dmitri Alperovitch was still in high school, he and his father started an
encryption-technology business. Dmitri studied computer science at Georgia Tech and went on to
work at an antispam software firm. It was at this time that he realized that cyber-defense was
more about psychology than it was about technology. A very odd thing to conclude.
Dmitri Alperovitch posed as a "Russian gangster" on spam discussion forums which brought his
illegal activity to the attention of the FBI – as a criminal. In 2005, Dmitri flew to
Pittsburgh to meet an FBI agent named Keith Mularski, who had been asked to lead an undercover
operation against a vast Russian credit-card-theft syndicate. Alperovitch worked closely with
Mularski's sting operation which took two years, but it ultimately brought about fifty-six
arrests. Dmitri Alperovitch then became a pawn of the FBI and CIA.
In 2010, while he was at McAfee, the head of cybersecurity at Google told Dmitri that Gmail
accounts belonging to human-rights activists in China had been breached. Google suspected the
Chinese government. Alperovitch found that the breach was unprecedented in scale; it affected
more than a dozen of McAfee's clients and involved the Chinese government. Three days after his
supposed discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington where he had been asked to vet a
paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
2014, Sony called in CrowdStrike to investigate a breach of its network. Alperovitch needed
just "two hours" to identify North Korea as the adversary. Executives at Sony asked Alperovitch
to go public with the information immediately, but it took the FBI another three weeks before
it confirmed the attribution.
Alperovitch then developed a list of "usual suspects" who were well-known hackers who had
identifiable malware that they commonly used. Many people use the same malware and
Alperovitch's obsession with believing he has the only accurate list of hackers in the world is
plain idiocy exacerbated by the U.S. government's belief in his nonsense. Alperovitch even
speaks like a "nut-case" in his personal Twitters, which generally have absolutely no
references to the technology he is supposedly the best at in the entire world.
Dmitri – Front Man for His Father's Russian Espionage Mission
After taking a close look at the disinformation around Dmitri and his father, it is clear to
see that Michael Alperovitch became a CIA operative during his first visit to America.
Upon his return to Russia, he stole the best Russian encryption codes that were used to protect
the top-secret work of nuclear physics in which his father is alleged to have been a major
player. Upon surrendering the codes to the CIA when he returned to Canada, the CIA made it
possible for a Russian nuclear scientist to become an American citizen overnight and gain a
top-secret security clearance to work at the Oakridge plant, one of the most secure and
protected nuclear facilities in America . Only the CIA can transform a Russian into an
American with a top-secret clearance overnight.
We can see on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page that he went from one fantastically
top-secret job to the next without a break from the time he entered America. He seemed to be on
a career path to work in every major U.S. agency in America. In every job he was hired as the
top expert in the field and the leader of the company. All of these jobs after the first one
were in cryptology, not nuclear physics. As a matter of fact, Michael became the top expert in
America overnight and has stayed the top expert to this day.
Most of the work of cyber-security is creating secure interactions on a non-secure system
like the Internet. The cryptologist who assigns the encryption codes controls the system
from that point on .
Key Point: Cryptologists are well known for leaving a "back-door" in the base-code so
that they can always have over-riding control.
Michael Alperovitch essentially has the "codes" for all Department of Defense sites, the
Treasury, the State Department, cell-phones, satellites, and public media . There is hardly
any powerful agency or company that he has not written the "codes" for. One might ask, why do
American companies and the U.S. government use his particular codes? What are so special about
Michael's codes?
Stolen Russian Codes
In December, Obama ordered the U.S. military to conduct cyberattacks against Russia in
retaliation for the alleged DNC hacks. All of the attempts to attack Russia's military and
intelligence agencies failed miserably. Russia laughed at Obama's attempts to hack their
systems. Even the Russian companies targeted by the attacks were not harmed by Obama's
cyber-attacks. Hardly any news of these massive and embarrassing failed cyber-attacks were
reported by the Main Stream Media. The internet has been scrubbed clean of the reports that
said Russia's cyber-defenses were impenetrable due to the sophistication of their encryption
codes.
Michael Alperovitch was in possession of those impenetrable codes when he was a top
scientist in Russia. It was these very codes that he shared with the CIA on his first trip
to America . These codes got him spirited into America and "turned into" the best
cryptologist in the world. Michael is simply using the effective codes of Russia to design
his codes for the many systems he has created in America for the CIA .
KEY POINT: It is crucial to understand at this junction that the CIA is not solely working
for America . The CIA works for itself and there are three branches to the CIA – two of
which are hostile to American national interests and support globalism.
Michael and Dmitri Alperovitch work for the CIA (and international intelligence
corporations) who support globalism . They, and the globalists for whom they work, are
not friends of America or Russia. It is highly likely that the criminal activities of Dmitri,
which were supported and sponsored by the FBI, created the very hackers who he often claims are
responsible for cyberattacks. None of these supposed "attackers" have ever been found or
arrested; they simply exist in the files of CrowdStrike and are used as the "usual culprits"
when the FBI or CIA calls in Dmitri to give the one and only opinion that counts. Only Dmitri's
"suspicions" are offered as evidence and yet 17 U.S. intelligence agencies stand behind the
CrowdStrike report and Dmitri's suspicions.
Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys
Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who
works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and
distribution of digital certificates which are used to
verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. The PKI creates digital
certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central
repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a
cryptographic
technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure
public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures .
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key
bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user
key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is
considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the
market .
Michael's past is clouded in confusion and lies. Dmitri states that his father was a nuclear
physicist and that he came to America the first time in a nuclear based shared program between
America and Russia. But if we look at his current personal Linked In page, Michael claims he
has a Master Degree in Applied Mathematics from Gorky State University. From 1932 to 1956, its
name was State University of Gorky. Now it is known as Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni
Novgorod – National Research University (UNN), also known as Lobachevsky University. Does
Michael not even know the name of the University he graduated from? And when does a person with
a Master's Degree become a leading nuclear physicist who comes to "visit" America. In Michael's
Linked In page there is a long list of his skills and there is no mention of nuclear
physics.
Also on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page we find some of his illustrious history that
paints a picture of either the most brilliant mind in computer security, encryption, and
cyberwarfare, or a CIA/FBI backed Russian spy. Imagine that out of all the people in the world
to put in charge of the encryption keys for the Department of Defense, the U.S. Treasury, U.S.
military satellites, the flow of network news, cell phone encryption, the Pathfire (media control)
Program, the Defense Information Systems Agency, the Global Information Grid, and TriCipher
Armored Credential System among many others, the government hires a Russian spy . Go
figure.
Michael Alperovitch's Linked In Page
Education:
Gorky State University, Russia, MS in Applied Mathematics
VT
IDirect -2014 – Designing security architecture for satellite communications
including cryptographic protocols, authentication.
Principal SME (Contractor)
DISA
-Defense Information Systems Agency (Manager of the Global Information Grid) – 2012-2014
– Worked on PKI and identity management projects for DISA utilizing Elliptic Curve
Cryptography. Performed application security and penetration testing.
Technical Lead (Contractor)
U.S.
Department of the Treasury – 2011 – Designed enterprise validation service
architecture for PKI certificate credentials with Single Sign On authentication.
Comtech Mobile
Datacom – 2007-2010 – Subject matter expert on latest information security
practices, including authentication, encryption and key management.
BellSouth – 2003-2006 – Designed and built server-side Jabber-based messaging
platform with Single Sign On authentication.
Principal Software Research Engineer
Pathfire – 2001-2002
– Designed and developed Digital Rights Management Server for Video on Demand and content
distribution applications. Pathfire provides digital media distribution and management
solutions to the television, media, and entertainment industries. The company offers Digital
Media Gateway, a digital IP store-and-forward platform, delivering news stories, syndicated
programming, advertising spots, and video news releases to broadcasters. It provides solutions
for content providers and broadcasters, as well as station solutions.
Obama – No Friend of America
Obama is no friend of America in the war against cyber-attacks. The very agencies and
departments being defended by Michael Alperovitch's "singular and most brilliant" ability to
write encryption codes have all been successfully attacked and compromised since Michael set up
the codes. But we shouldn't worry, because if there is a cyberattack in the Obama
administration, Michael's son Dmitri is called in to "prove" that it isn't the fault of his
father's codes. It was the "damn Russians", or even "Putin himself" who attacked American
networks.
Not one of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies is capable of figuring out a successful
cyberattack against America without Michael and Dmitri's help. Those same 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies were not able to effectively launch a successful cyberattack against Russia. It seems
like the Russian's have strong codes and America has weak codes. We can thank Michael and
Dmitri Alperovitch for that.
It is clear that there was no DNC hack beyond Guccifer 2.0. Dmitri Alperovitch is a
"frontman" for his father's encryption espionage mission.
Is it any wonder that Trump says that he has "his own people" to deliver his intelligence
to him that is outside of the infiltrated U.S. government intelligence agencies and the Obama
administration ? Isn't any wonder that citizens have to go anywhere BUT the MSM to find
real news or that the new administration has to go to independent news to get good intel?
It is hard to say anything more damnable than to again quote Dmitri on these very
issues: "If someone steals your keys to encrypt the data, it doesn't matter how secure the
algorithms are." Dmitri Alperovitch, founder of CrowdStrike
"... And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. ..."
"... Russia was probably not one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also, government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do wholesale dumps, like, ever. ..."
"... That's what the DNC is lying about. Not that hacks happened (they undoubtedly did), but about who did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered (they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway). ..."
"... The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters: ..."
"... An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups did hack the DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities? ..."
"... And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who supposedly harmed them. level 2 ..."
"... DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the server. Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done with all this Russia shit. level 2 ..."
"... Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed. Continue this thread level 1 ..."
"... George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing Information War material as evidence for MH17: ..."
"... Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital Forensics Lab ..."
Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the
"Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian intelligence linked to the Atlantic
Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at one of his recent essays:
Since I am not very computer savvy and don't know much about the world of hackers - added
to the fact that Eliason's writing is too cute and convoluted - I have difficulty navigating Eliason's thought. Nonetheless,
here is what I can make of Eliasons' claims, as supported by independent literature:
Russian hacker Konstantin Kozlovsky, in Moscow court filings, has claimed that he did the
DNC hack – and can prove it, because he left some specific code on the DNC server.
Kozlovsky states that he did so by order of Dimitry Dokuchaev (formerly of the FSB, and
currently in prison in Russia on treason charges) who works with the Russian traitor hacker group Shaltai Boltai.
According to Eliason, Shaltai Boltai works in collaboration with the Ukrainian hacker group
RUH8, a group of neo-Nazis (Privat Sektor) who are affiliated with Ukrainian intelligence.
And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike.
Cyberexpert Jeffrey Carr has stated that RUH8 has the X-Agent malware which our
intelligence community has erroneously claimed is possessed only by Russian intelligence, and used by "Fancy Bear".
This might help explain why Adam Carter has determined that some of the malware found on
the DNC server was compiled AFTER Crowdstrike was working on the DNC server – Crowdstrike was in collusion with Fancy Bear
(RUH8).
In other words, Crowdstrike likely arranged for a
hack by Ukrainian intelligence that they could then attribute to Russia.
As far as I can tell, none of this is pertinent to how Wikileaks obtained their DNC emails,
which most likely were leaked.
How curious that our Deep State and the recent Mueller indictment have had nothing to say
about Kozlovsky's confession - whom I tend to take seriously because he offers a simple way to confirm his claim. Also
interesting that the FBI has shown no interest in looking at the DNC server to check whether Kozlovsky's code is there.
Its worth noting that Dimitri Alperovich's (Crowdstrike) hatred of Putin is
second only to Hillary's hatred for taking responsibility for her actions.
level 1
Thanks - I'll continue to follow Eliason's work. The thesis that Ukrainian
intelligence is hacking a number of targets so that Russia gets blamed for it has intuitive appeal.
level 1
and have to cringe.
Any hacks weren't related to Wikileaks, who got their info from leakers, but
that is not the same thing as no hack. Leaks and hacks aren't mutually exclusive. They actually occur together
pretty commonly.
DNC's security was utter shit. Systems with shit security and obviously
valuable info usually get hacked by multiple groups. In the case of the DNC, Hillary's email servers, etc.,
it's basically impossible they weren't hacked by dozens of intruders. A plastic bag of 100s will not sit
untouched on a NYC street corner for 4 weeks. Not. fucking. happening.
Interestingly, Russia was probably not
one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia
not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also,
government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do
wholesale dumps, like, ever.
That's
what the DNC is lying about.
Not that hacks
happened
(they undoubtedly did), but about
who
did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered
(they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway).
The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing
the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters:
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools
Yes, but that spoofed 'evidence' is not the direct opposite of the truth,
like I see people assuming. Bad assumption, and the establishment plays on that to make critic look bad. The
spoofed evidence is just mud.
An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got
hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups
did
hack the
DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities?
And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with
the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who
supposedly harmed them.
level 2
What's hilarious about the 2 down-votes is I can't tell if their from
pro-Russiagate trolls, or from people who who can't get past binary thinking.
level 1
DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the
server.
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about
from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done
with all this Russia shit.
level 2
Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this
has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for
the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed.
Continue this thread
level 1
George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing
relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing
Information War material as evidence for MH17:
Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital
Forensics Lab
Fancy Bear worked with Crowdstrike and Dimitri Alperovich Fancy Bear is
Ukrainian Intelligence
How Fancy Bear tried to sway the US election for Team Hillary
Fancy Bear worked against US Intel gathering by providing consistently
fraudulent data
Fancy Bear contributed to James Clapper's January 2017 ODNI Report on Fancy
Bear and Russian Influence. [You really can't make this shit up.]
Fancy Bear had access to US government secure servers while working as
foreign spies.*
level 1
Fancy Bear (also know as Strontium Group, or APT28) is a Ukrainian cyber espionage group. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike incorrectly has said
with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence
agency GRU . CrowdStrike
founder,
Dmitri Alperovitch , has colluded with Fancy Bear. American journalist
George Eliason has written extensively on the subject.
There are a couple of caveats that need to be made when identifying the Fancy Bear hackers.
The first is the identifier used by Mueller as Russian FSB and GRU may have been true- 10 years
ago. This group was on the run trying to stay a step ahead of Russian law enforcement until
October 2016. So we have part of the Fancy bear hacking group identified as Ruskie traitors and
possibly former Russian state security. The majority of the group are Ukrainians making up
Ukraine's Cyber Warfare groups.
Eliason lives and works in Donbass. He has been interviewed by and provided analysis for RT,
the BBC , and Press-TV. His
articles have been published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews,
the Saker, RT, Global Research, and RINF, and the Greanville Post among others. He has been
cited and republished by various academic blogs including Defending History, Michael Hudson,
SWEDHR, Counterpunch, the Justice Integrity Project, among others.
Fancy Bear is Ukrainian IntelligenceShaltai Boltai
The "Fancy Bear hackers" may have been given the passwords to get into the servers at the
DNC because they were part of the Team Clinton opposition research team. It was part of their
job.
According to Politico ,
"In an interview this month, at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing
ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely
presidential campaign. Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev
and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private
intelligence operatives. While her consulting work began surging in late 2015, she began
focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well."
[1]
The only investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence
operatives that work together in 2014-2015-2016 Ukraine are Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine
Cyber Alliance, and the Ministry of Information.
All of these hacking and information operation groups work for Andrea
Chalupa with EuroMaidanPR and Irena
Chalupa at the Atlantic Council. Both Chalupa sisters work directly with the Ukrainian
government's intelligence and propaganda arms.
Since 2014 in Ukraine, these are the only OSINT, hacking, Intel, espionage , terrorist , counter-terrorism, cyber, propaganda , and info war channels
officially recognized and directed by Ukraine's Information Ministry. Along with their American
colleagues, they populate the hit-for-hire website Myrotvorets with people who stand against
Ukraine's criminal activities.
The hackers, OSINT, Cyber, spies, terrorists, etc. call themselves volunteers to keep safe
from State level retaliation, even though a child can follow the money. As volunteers motivated
by politics and patriotism they are protected to a degree from retribution.
They don't claim State sponsorship or governance and the level of attack falls below the
threshold of military action. Special Counsel Robert Mueller had a lot of latitude for
making the attribution Russian, even though the attacks came from Ukrainian Intelligence. Based
on how the rules of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber are
written, because the few members of the coalition from Shaltai Boltai are Russian in
nationality, Fancy Bear can be attributed as a Russian entity for the purposes of retribution.
The caveat is if the attribution is proven wrong, the US will be liable for damages caused to
the State which in this case is Russia.
How large is the Fancy Bear unit? According to their propaganda section InformNapalm, they
have the ability to research and work in over 30 different languages.
This can be considered an Information Operation against the people of the United States and
of course Russia. After 2013, Shaltay Boltay was no longer physically available to work for
Russia. The Russian hackers were in Ukraine working for the Ukrainian government's Information
Ministry which is in charge of the cyber war. They were in Ukraine until October 2016 when they
were tricked to return to Moscow and promptly arrested for treason.
From all this information we know the Russian component of Team Fancy Bear is Shaltai
Boltai. We know the Ukrainian Intel component is called CyberHunta and Ukraine Cyber Alliance
which includes the hacker group RUH8. We know both groups work/ worked for Ukrainian
Intelligence. We know they are grouped with InformNapalm which is Ukraine's OSINT unit. We know
their manager is a Ukrainian named Kristina Dobrovolska. And lastly, all of the above work
directly with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.
In short, the Russian-Ukrainian partnership that became Fancy Bear started in late 2013 to
very early 2014 and ended in October 2016 in what appears to be a squabble over the alleged
data from the Surkov leak.
But during 2014, 2015, and 2016 Shaltai Boltai, the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance, and CyberHunta
went to work for the DNC as opposition researchers .
The
First Time Shaltai Boltai was Handed the Keys to US Gov Servers
The setup to this happened long before the partnership with Ukrainian Intel hackers and
Russia's Shaltai Boltai was forged. The hack that gained access to US top-secret servers
happened just after the partnership was cemented after Euro-Maidan.
In August 2009 Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department Huma Abedin
sent the passwords to her Government laptop to her Yahoo mail account. On August 16, 2010,
Abedin received an email titled "Re: Your yahoo account. We can see where this is going, can't
we?
"After Abedin sent an unspecified number of sensitive emails to her Yahoo account, half a
billion Yahoo accounts were hacked by Russian cybersecurity expert and Russian intelligence
agent, Igor Sushchin, in 2014. The hack, one of the largest in history, allowed Sushchin's
associates to access email accounts into 2015 and 2016."
Igor Sushchin was part of the Shaltai Boltai hacking group that is charged with the Yahoo
hack.
The time frame has to be noted. The hack happened in 2014. Access to the email accounts
continued through 2016. The Ukrainian Intel partnership was already blossoming and Shaltai
Boltai was working from Kiev, Ukraine.
So when we look at the INFRASTRUCTURE HACKS, WHITE HOUSE HACKS, CONGRESS, start with looking
at the time frame. Ukraine had the keys already in hand in 2014.
Alexandra
Chalupa hired this particular hacking terrorist group, which Dimitry Alperovich and
Crowdstrike dubbed "Fancy Bear", in 2015 at the latest. While the Ukrainian hackers worked for
the DNC, Fancy Bear had to send in progress reports, turn in research, and communicate on the
state of the projects they were working on. Let's face it, once you're in, setting up your
Fancy Bear toolkit doesn't get any easier. This is why I said the DNC hack isn't the big crime.
It's a big con and all the parties were in on it.
Hillary Clinton exposed secrets to hacking threats by using private email instead of secured
servers. Given the information provided she was probably being monitored by our intrepid
Ruskie-Ukie union made in hell hackers. Anthony Weiner exposed himself and his wife
Huma Abedin using
Weiner's computer for top-secret State Department emails. And of course Huma Abedin exposed
herself along with her top-secret passwords at Yahoo and it looks like the hackers the DNC hired to
do opposition research hacked her.
Here's a question. Did Huma Abedin have Hillary Clinton's passwords for her private email
server? It would seem logical given her position with Clinton at the State Department and
afterward. This means that Hillary Clinton and the US government top secret servers were most
likely compromised by Fancy Bear before the DNC and Team Clinton hired them by using legitimate
passwords.
Dobrovolska
Hillary Clinton retained State Dept. top secret clearance passwords for 6 of her former
staff from 2013 through prepping for the 2016 election. [2][3] Alexandra Chalupa was
running a research department that is rich in (foreign) Ukrainian Intelligence operatives,
hackers, terrorists, and a couple Ruskie traitors.
Kristina Dobrovolska was acting as a handler and translator for the US State Department in
2016. She is the Fancy Bear *opposition researcher handler manager. Kristina goes to Washington
to meet with Chalupa.
Alexandra types in her password to show Dobrovolska something she found and her eager to
please Ukrainian apprentice finds the keystrokes are seared into her memory. She tells the
Fancy Bear crew about it and they immediately get to work looking for Trump material on the US
secret servers with legitimate access. I mean, what else could they do with this? Turn over
sensitive information to the ever corrupt Ukrainian government?
According to the Politico article, Alexandra Chalupa was meeting with the Ukrainian embassy
in June of 2016 to discuss getting more help sticking it to candidate Trump. At the same time
she was meeting, the embassy had a reception that highlighted female Ukrainian leaders.
Four Verkhovna Rada [parlaiment] deputies there for the event included: Viktoriia Y.
Ptashnyk, Anna A. Romanova, Alyona I. Shkrum, and Taras T. Pastukh. [4]
According to CNN ,
[5] DNC sources said Chalupa
told DNC operatives the Ukrainian government would be willing to deliver damaging information
against Trump's campaign. Later, Chalupa would lead the charge to try to unseat president-elect
Trump starting on Nov 10, 2016.
Accompanying them Kristina Dobrovolska who was a U.S. Embassy-assigned government liaison
and translator who escorted the delegates from Kyiv during their visits to Albany and
Washington.
Kristina Dobrovolska is the handler manager working with Ukraine's DNC Fancy Bear Hackers.
[6] She took the Rada
[parliament] members to dinner to meet Joel Harding who designed Ukraine's infamous Information
Policy which opened up their kill-for-hire-website Myrotvorets. Then she took them to meet the
Ukrainian Diaspora leader doing the hiring. Nestor Paslawsky is the surviving nephew to the
infamous torturer The WWII OUNb leader, Mykola Lebed.
Fancy Bear's Second Chance at Top
Secret Passwords From Team Clinton
One very successful method of hacking is called
social engineering . You gain access to the office space and any related properties and
physically locate the passwords or clues to get you into the hardware you want to hack. This
includes something as simple as looking over the shoulder of the person typing in
passwords.
The Fancy Bear hackers were hired by Alexandra Chalupa to work for DNC opposition research.
On different occasions, Fancy Bear handler Kristina Dobrovolska traveled to the US to meet the
Diaspora leaders, her boss Alexandra Chalupa, Irena Chalupa, Andrea Chalupa, US Dept of State
personnel, and most likely Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich. Alperovich was working with the
hackers in 2015-16. In 2016, the only groups known to have Fancy Bear's signature tools called
X-tunnel and X-Agent were Alperovich, Crowdstrike, and Fancy Bear (Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta,
Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and RUH8/RUX8. Yes, that does explain a few things.
Alleged DNC
hack
There were multiple DNC hacks. There is also clear proof supporting the download to a USB
stick and subsequent information exchange (leak) to Wikileaks . All are separate events.
The group I previously identified as Fancy Bear was given access to request password
privileges at the DNC. And it looks like the DNC provided them with it.
the Podesta email hack looks like a revenge hack.
The reason Republican opposition research files were stolen can be put into context now
because we know who the hackers are and what motivates them.
At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal. It
is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to
State Department
servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian
Intelligence Operators.
If the leak came through Seth Rich , it may have been because he saw
foreign Intel operatives given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential
election . The leaker may
have been trying to do something about it. I'm curious what information Wikileaks might
have.
Alperovitch and Fancy Bear
George Eliason, Washingtonsblog: Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell
Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear. investigated. [7]
In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing
the 2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing
substantial to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security
firm Crowdstrike that is clearly not on
par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is an "as is"
statement showing this.
The difference bet enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of
specific parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors
that need to be investigated for real crimes. For instance, the malware used was an
out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one other interesting point is that the
Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe is from Ukraine. How did Crowdstrike miss this when
it is their business to know?
The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words
like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution. The bar Dimitri
Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking
America to trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of
Russian involvement?
information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of rumor or
unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to be
free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90's
that every private actor in the information game was radically political.
Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with
McAfee. Asked to comment on Alperovitch's discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John
McAfee had this to say. "Based on all of his experience, McAfee does not believe that
Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), John Podesta's
emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. As he told RT, "if it looks like
the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians."
How does Crowdstrike's story part with reality? First is the admission that it is
probably, maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. "Intelligence agencies do not have
specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin 'directing' the identified
individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks." The public evidence never goes
beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or using facts, Crowdstrike
insists that it's Russia behind both Clinton's and the Ukrainian losses.
NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant
for NBC. According to NBC the story reads like this."The company, Crowdstrike, was hired
by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report publicly attributing it to Russian
intelligence. One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is Shawn Henry , a former senior FBI
official who consults for NBC News.
In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian
intelligence agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers
call Cozy Bear, is believed to be linked to Russia's CIA, known as the FSB. The other,
known as Fancy Bear, is believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called
the GRU." The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above "believed to
be." According to the December 12th Intercept article "Most importantly, the Post
adds that "intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in
the Kremlin 'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to
WikiLeaks."
The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that
Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment. Although subtitles aren't on it, the former
Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine
would have been in deep trouble. How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this
wrong on easily checked detail and still get this much media attention?
Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary
Clinton the election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in
Ukraine. If Dimitri Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing
intelligence to 17 US Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?
Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If
it's done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be
investigated? If unwinding the story from the "targeting of Ukrainian volunteers" side
isn't enough, we should look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia
influencing the election and DNC hack story evolve? Who's involved? Does this pose
conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? And let's face it, a
hacking story isn't complete until real hackers with the skills, motivation, and reason
are exposed.
According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page "After
Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter to a
meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns
within the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. "That's when we knew it was the
Russians," said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal
probe into the hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, "we told her
to stop her research."" July 25, 2016
If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her
sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news.
The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by
Russian actors based on the work done byAlexandra Chalupa? That is the
conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the
Russian government connection.
How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he
should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a
presidential election in a new direction. According to Esquire.com, Alperovitch has
vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of
his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the
measures taken were directly because of his work.
Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian
propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers [show a conflict of interest]. When
it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to
influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.
The Chalupas are not Democrat or Republican. They are OUNb. The OUNb worked hard
to start a war between the USA and Russia for the last 50 years. According to the
Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, "Other
statements were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in
Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera wing) called for" What is
OUNb Bandera? They follow the same political policy and platform that was developed
in the 1930's by Stepan Bandera . When these
people go to a Holocaust memorial they are celebrating
both the dead and the OUNb SS that killed.[8] There is no
getting around this fact. The OUNb have no concept of democratic values and want an
authoritarian
fascism .
Alexandra Chalupa- According to the Ukrainian Weekly , [9]
"The effort, known as Digital Miadan, gained momentum following the initial Twitter storms.
Leading the effort were: Lara Chelak, Andrea Chalupa, Alexandra Chalupa, Constatin Kostenko
and others." The Digital Maidan was also how they raised money for the coup. This was how the
Ukrainian emigres bought the bullets that were used on Euromaidan. Ukraine's chubby nazi,
Dima Yarosh stated openly he was taking money from the Ukrainian emigres during Euromaidan
and Pravy Sektor still fundraises openly in North America. The "Sniper Massacre" on the
Maidan in Ukraine by Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottowa shows clearly detailed
evidence how the massacre happened. It has Pravy Sektor confessions that show who created the
"heavenly hundred. Their admitted involvement as leaders of Digital Maidan by both Chalupas
is a clear violation of the Neutrality Act and has up to a 25 year prison sentence attached
to it because it ended in a coup.
Andrea Chalupa-2014, in a Huff Post article Sept. 1 2016, Andrea Chalupa
described Sviatoslav Yurash as one of Ukraine's important "dreamers." He is a young
activist that founded Euromaidan Press. Beyond the gushing glow what she doesn't say
is who he actually is. Sviatoslav Yurash was Dmitri Yarosh's spokesman just after
Maidan. He is a hardcore Ukrainian nationalist and was rewarded with the Deputy
Director position for the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) in Kiev.
In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He
became the foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni
Yatsenyuk, and Oleh Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet
Dimitri Yurash you had to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found
out.
At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense
of Ukraine under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh's spokesman and can be seen
either behind Yarosh on videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to
reporters. From January 2014 onward, to speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an
appointment with Yurash.
Andrea Chalupa has worked with Yurash's Euromaidan Press which is associated with
Informnapalm.org and supplies the state level hackers for Ukraine.
Irene Chalupa- Another involved Chalupa we need to cover to do the story justice
is Irene Chalupa. From her bio– Irena Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the
Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is also a senior correspondent
at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked for more than
twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic Council,
where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor
for Ukraine's propaganda channel org She is also a Ukrainian emigre leader.
According to Robert Parry's article [10] At the forefront
of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and
especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council . Their main
goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central
and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia.
Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you
willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support
throughout the campaign.
What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the
Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship
status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite
conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground
and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or
Homeland Security?
When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that
could change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked
heavily to groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it
opens up criminal conspiracy.
If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants
a major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic
Council and clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of
his work affects the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri
Alperovitch's case, he found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a
crime.
Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence
groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and
Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.
When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the
CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and
its hackers individually. There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for
the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be
investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. Crowdstrike is
also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC hack. It closely
resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.
Crowdstrike's product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon
Overwatch and Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service
Crowdstrike offers?
In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA.
[11] They consider the
CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance
is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity,
Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the
Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency."
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he
writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This
image shows Crowdstrike in their network. Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker
network. In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The
network communication goes through a secondary source. Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for
Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence.
The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates
journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could
be on the list.
Should someone tell Dimitri Alperovitch that Gerashchenko, who is now in charge of
Peacekeeper recently threatened president-elect Donald Trump that he would put him on his
"Peacemaker" site as a target? The same has been done with Silvio Berscaloni in the
past.
Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine's Information Ministry (UA
Intelligence) tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the
Ukrainian Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter. This single
tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information
Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and
Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or
shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be
shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it
to themselves and not draw unwanted attention.
These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through
the portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded
and directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and
with to promote the story of Russian hacking.
When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article,
one of the hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh's Pravy Sektor
members by the Pravy Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor
admitted to killing the people at the Maidan protest and sparked the coup.
Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say "Let's
understand that Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very
powerful group. Ukrainian hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of
the USA I don't know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means
for this. And I don't think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp
movements in international politics."
What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it
out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored,
Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack
they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are
also laughing at US intel efforts.
The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting
a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt
Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by
Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated.
According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought
the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of
the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate
the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any
other way," he told me. "I have."
While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism
is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering
a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't
serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to
Ukraine.
The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for
conflict of interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these
hackers are the real Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in
international politics. By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment
of an outgoing President of the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of
rumor.
Obama, Brazile, Comey, and CrowdStrike
According to Obama the
hacks continued until September 2016. According to ABC, Donna Brazile says the hacks didn't stop
until after the elections in 2016. According to Crowdstrike the hacks continued into
November.
Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile said Russian hackers persisted in trying
to break into the organization's computers "daily, hourly" until after the election --
contradicting President Obama's assertion that the hacking stopped in September after he warned
Russian President Vladimir Putin to "cut it out."-ABC
This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server and
still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to
Bill
Binney , the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move off
the server that fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does
not agree with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking
ridiculous and impossible at best.
The DNC fiasco isn't that important of a crime. The reason I say this is the FBI would have
taken control over material evidence right away. No law enforcement agency or Intel agency ever
did. This means none of them considered it a crime Comey should have any part of investigating.
That by itself presents the one question mark which destroys any hope Mueller has proving law
enforcement maintained a chain of custody for any evidence he introduces.
It also says the US government under Barrack Obama and the victimized DNC saw this as a
purely political event. They didn't want this prosecuted or they didn't think it was
prosecutable.
Once proven it shows a degree of criminality that makes treason almost too light a charge in
federal court. Rest assured this isn't a partisan accusation. Team Clinton and the DNC gets the
spotlight but there are Republicans involved.
Investigative Jouralist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the
CEO Bill Larsen bought a small, Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to
Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate
to reduce NSA spying on the public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was
sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order to crack encrypted communications to write a back door
for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named
Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking
scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry
platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives.
Our leaders like to say we value human rights around the world, but what they really manifest
is greed. It all makes sense in a Gekko- or Machiavellian kind of way.
Highly recommended !
Notable quotes:
"... Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise) path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional" belief system, what is? ..."
"... A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for America's vast military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety, especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today, it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right. ..."
"... If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything, it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium. Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life. ..."
"... I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama administration too. ..."
"... Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it. ..."
"... they are not only lobbyists for MIC, but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of militarism. ..."
"... Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower. ..."
"... The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive resources. ..."
"... Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.) ..."
"... The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus, the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world. Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep! ..."
By William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor. His
personal blog is Bracing Views .
Originally published at TomDispatch
Ever since 2007, when I first started writing for TomDispatch , I've been arguing
against America's forever wars, whether in Afghanistan , Iraq , or elsewhere . Unfortunately, it's no surprise that,
despite my more than 60 articles, American blood is still being spilled in war after war across the Greater Middle
East and Africa, even as foreign peoples pay a far higher price in lives lost and cities
ruined . And I keep asking myself: Why, in this century, is the distinctive feature of
America's wars that they never end? Why do our leaders persist in such repetitive folly and the
seemingly eternal disasters that go with it?
Sadly, there isn't just one obvious reason for this generational debacle. If there were, we
could focus on it, tackle it, and perhaps even fix it. But no such luck.
So why do America's disastrous wars
persist ? I can think of many reasons , some obvious and easy to
understand, like the endless pursuit of profit through weapons sales for those very wars, and some more
subtle but no less significant, like a deep-seated conviction in Washington that a willingness
to wage war is a sign of national toughness and seriousness. Before I go on, though, here's
another distinctive aspect of our forever-war moment: Have you noticed that peace is no longer even a topic in America
today? The very word, once at least part of the rhetoric of Washington politicians, has
essentially dropped out of use entirely. Consider the current crop of Democratic candidates for
president. One, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, wants to end regime-change wars, but is otherwise
a self-professed hawk on the
subject of the war on terror. Another, Senator Bernie Sanders, vows to end " endless
wars " but is careful to express strong support for Israel and the ultra-expensive
F-35 fighter jet.
The other dozen or so tend to make vague sounds about cutting defense spending or gradually
withdrawing U.S. troops from various wars, but none of them even consider openly speaking
of peace . And the Republicans? While President Trump may talk of ending wars, since his
inauguration he's sent more
troops to Afghanistan and into the Middle East, while greatly expanding drone and other
air strikes ,
something about which he openly
boasts .
War, in other words, is our new normal, America's default position on global affairs, and
peace, some ancient, long-faded dream. And when your default position is war, whether against
the Taliban, ISIS, "terror" more generally, or possibly even Iran or Russia
or
China , is it any surprise that war is what you get? When you garrison the world with an
unprecedented 800 or so
military bases , when you configure your armed forces for what's called power projection,
when you divide the globe -- the total planet -- into areas of dominance (with acronyms
like CENTCOM, AFRICOM, and SOUTHCOM) commanded by four-star generals and admirals, when you
spend more on your military than the next
seven countries combined, when you insist on modernizing a
nuclear arsenal (to the tune of perhaps $1.7 trillion ) already
quite capable of ending all life on this and several other planets, what can you expect but a
reality of endless war?
Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the
predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise)
path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the
world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation
after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional"
belief system, what is?
If we're ever to put an end to our country's endless twenty-first-century wars, that mindset
will have to be changed. But to do that, we would first have to recognize and confront war's
many uses in American
life and culture.
War, Its Uses (and Abuses)
A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for
America's vast
military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety,
especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of
national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today,
it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right.
As the title of a book by former war reporter Chris Hedges so aptly put it , war is
a force that gives us meaning. And let's face it, a significant part of America's meaning in
this century has involved pride in having the toughest military on the planet, even as
trillions of tax dollars went into a misguided attempt to maintain bragging rights to being
the world's sole superpower.
And keep in mind as well that, among other things, never-ending war
weakens democracy while strengthening authoritarian tendencies in politics and society. In
an age of
gaping inequality , using up the country's resources in such profligate and destructive
ways offers a striking exercise in consumption that profits the few at the expense of the
many.
In other words, for a select few, war pays dividends in ways that peace doesn't. In a
nutshell, or perhaps an artillery shell, war is anti-democratic, anti-progressive,
anti-intellectual, and anti-human. Yet, as we know, history makes heroes out of its
participants and celebrates mass murderers like Napoleon as "great captains."
What the United States needs today is a new strategy of containment -- not against communist
expansion, as in the Cold War, but against war itself. What's stopping us from containing war?
You might say that, in some sense, we've grown addicted to it , which is true enough, but here
are five additional reasons for war's enduring presence in American life:
The
delusional idea that Americans are, by nature, winners and that our wars are therefore
winnable: No American leader wants to be labeled a "loser." Meanwhile, such dubious
conflicts -- see: the Afghan War, now in its 18th year, with
several more years, or even generations
, to go -- continue to be treated by the military as if they were indeed winnable, even though
they visibly aren't. No president, Republican or Democrat, not even Donald J. Trump, despite
his promises that American soldiers will be coming home from such fiascos, has successfully
resisted the Pentagon's siren call for patience (and for yet more trillions of dollars) in the
cause of ultimate victory, however poorly defined, farfetched, or far-off. American
society's almost completeisolationfrom war's deadly
effects: We're not being droned (yet). Our cities are not yet lying in ruins (though
they're certainly suffering from a lack of funding, as is our most essential infrastructure , thanks in part to the
cost of those overseas wars). It's nonetheless remarkable how little attention, either in the
media or elsewhere, this country's never-ending war-making gets here. Unnecessary and
sweeping secrecy: How can you resist what you essentially don't know about? Learning its
lesson from the Vietnam War, the Pentagon now
classifies (in plain speak: covers up) the worst aspects of its disastrous wars. This isn't
because the enemy could exploit such details -- the enemy already knows! -- but because the
American people might be roused to something like anger and action by it. Principled whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning have been imprisoned or otherwise dismissed or, in the case of Edward Snowden,
pursued and indicted for sharing honest
details about the calamitous Iraq War and America's invasive and intrusive surveillance
state. In the process, a clear message of intimidation has been sent to other would-be
truth-tellers. An unrepresentative government: Long ago, of course, Congress
ceded to
the presidency most of its constitutional powers when it comes to making war. Still, despite
recent
attempts to end America's arms-dealing role in the genocidal Saudi war in Yemen (overridden
by Donald Trump's veto power), America's duly elected representatives generally don't represent
the people when it comes to this country's disastrous wars. They are, to put it bluntly,
largely captives of (and sometimes on leaving politics quite literally go
to work for) the military-industrial complex. As long as money is speech ( thank
you , Supreme Court!), the weapons makers are always likely to be able to shout louder in
Congress than you and I ever will. \America's persistent empathy gap.
Despite our size, we are a remarkably insular nation and suffer from a serious empathy gap when it comes to
understanding foreign cultures and peoples or what we're actually doing to them. Even our
globetrotting troops, when not fighting and killing foreigners in battle, often stay on vast
bases, referred to in the military as "Little Americas," complete with familiar stores, fast
food, you name it. Wherever we go, there we are, eating our big burgers, driving our big
trucks, wielding our big guns, and dropping our very big bombs. But
what those bombs do, whom they hurt or kill, whom they displace from their homes and lives,
these are things that Americans turn out to care remarkably little about.
All this puts me sadly in mind of a song popular in my youth, a time when Cat Stevens sang
of a " peace train " that was
"soundin' louder" in America. Today, that peace train's been derailed and replaced by an armed
and armored one eternally prepared for perpetual war -- and that train is indeed soundin'
louder to the great peril of us all.
War on Spaceship Earth
Here's the rub, though: even the
Pentagon knows that our most serious enemy is
climate change , not China or Russia or terror, though in the age of Donald Trump and his
administration of arsonists
its officials can't express themselves on the subject as openly as they otherwise might.
Assuming we don't annihilate ourselves with nuclear weapons first, that means our
real enemy is the endless war we're waging against Planet Earth.
The U.S. military is also a major consumer of fossil fuels and therefore a significant
driver of climate change. Meanwhile, the Pentagon, like any enormously powerful system, only
wants to grow more so, but what's welfare for the military brass isn't wellness for the
planet.
There is, unfortunately, only one Planet Earth, or Spaceship Earth, if you prefer, since
we're all traveling through our galaxy on it. Thought about a certain way, we're its
crewmembers, yet instead of cooperating effectively as its stewards, we seem determined to
fight one another. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln pointed
out so long ago, surely a spaceship with a disputatious and self-destructive crew is not likely
to survive, no less thrive.
In other words, in waging endless war, Americans are also, in effect, mutinying against the
planet. In the process, we are spoiling the last, best hope of earth: a concerted and pacific
effort to meet the shared challenges of a rapidly warming and changing planet.
Spaceship Earth should not be allowed to remain Warship Earth as well, not when the
existence of
significant parts of humanity is already becoming ever more precarious. Think of us as
suffering from a coolant leak, causing cabin temperatures
to rise even as food and other resources dwindle .
Under the circumstances, what's the best strategy for survival: killing each other while
ignoring the leak or banding together to fix an increasingly compromised ship?
Unfortunately, for America's leaders, the real "fixes" remain global military and resource
domination, even as those resources continue to shrink on an ever-more fragile globe. And as
we've seen recently, the resource part of that fix breeds its own madness, as in President
Trump's recently stated desire to keep U.S. troops in Syria
to steal that country's oil resources, though its wells are largely wrecked (thanks in
significant part to American bombing) and even when repaired would produce only a miniscule
percentage of the world's petroleum.
If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything,
it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human
as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium.
Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life.
Despite all of war's uses and abuses, its allures and temptations, it's time that we
Americans showed some self-mastery (as well as decency) by putting a stop to the mayhem. Few
enough of us experience "our" wars firsthand and that's precisely why some idealize their
purpose and idolize their practitioners. But war is a bloody, murderous mess and those
practitioners, when not killed or wounded, are marred for life because war functionally makes
everyone involved into a murderer.
We need to stop idealizing war and idolizing its so-called warriors. At stake is
nothing less than the future of humanity and the viability of life, as we know it, on Spaceship
Earth.
I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign
policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the
State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under
Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully
controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama
administration too.
They preach “Full Spectrum Dominance” (Wolfowitz doctrine) and are not shy to
unleash the wars to enhance the USA strategic position in particular region (color revolution
can be used instead of war, like they in 2014 did in Ukraine). Of course, being chichenhawks,
neither they nor members of their families fight in those wars.
For some reason despite his election platform Trump also populated his administration with
neoconservatives. So it might be that maintaining the USA centered global neoliberal empire
is the real reason and the leitmotiv of the USA foreign policy. that’s why it does not
change with the change of Administration: any government that does not play well with the
neoliberal empire gets in the hairlines.
Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected
officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for
the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be
bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and
every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it.
Good point. But why the rise of the neocons? Why did they prosper? I'd say because of the
military-industrial complex. Or you might say they feed each other, but the Complex came
first. And of course the Complex is a dominant part of the Deep State. How could it not be?
Add in 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, the Energy Dept's nukes, and you have a
dominant DoD that swallows up more than half of federal discretionary spending each year.
I agree, but it is a little bit more complex. You need an ideology to promote the interests
of MIC. You can't just say -- let's spend more than a half of federal discretionary spending
each year..
That's where neo-conservatism comes into play. So they are not only lobbyists for MIC,
but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of
militarism.
wjastore December 2, 2019 at 12:25 PM
Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about
containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We
heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling
full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower.
The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put
their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive
resources.
Think about how no one was punished for the colossal intelligence failure of 9/11.
Instead, all the intel agencies were rewarded with more money and authority via the PATRIOT
Act.
The Afghan war is an ongoing disaster, the Iraq war a huge misstep, Libya a total failure,
yet the Complex has even more Teflon than Ronald Reagan. All failures slide off of it.
greglaxer , December 2, 2019 at 4:12 PM
There is a still bigger picture to consider in all this. I don't want to open the door to
conspiracy theory–personally, I find the claim that explosives were placed inside the
World Trade Center prior to the strikes by aircraft on 9/11 risible–but it certainly
was convenient for the Regime Change Gang that the Saudi operatives were able to get away
with what they did on that day, and in preparations leading up to it.
Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the
Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes
human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and
Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for
development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down
business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.)
Once the great majority of folks in Africa have cellphones and subscriptions to Netflix
whither capitalism? Trump denies the severity of the climate crisis because that is part of
the ideology/theology of the GOP.
The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become
ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus,
the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they
advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world.
Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere
on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that
concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep!
On Sunday, Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, was on "Meet the Press"
spreading this disinformation . "I think both Russia and Ukraine interfered," he said.
Russia may have been more aggressive and sophisticated, he allowed, but "that does not exclude
the fact that President Poroshenko actively worked for Secretary Clinton."
... ... ...
Mr. Kennedy went even further a week earlier, when he suggested on "Fox News Sunday" that,
in fact, Ukraine had hacked the Democratic computer server, obtaining emails that embarrassed
Hillary Clinton's campaign. "I don't know, nor do you, nor do any of us," he
told the host, Chris Wallace. (The next day he
told CNN's Chris Cuomo: "I was wrong. It was Russia who tried to hack the computer. I've
seen no indication that Ukraine tried to do it." It is unclear what changed his mind.
Again.)
... ... ...
The day after Dr. Hill's testimony, Mr. Trump
regaled "Fox & Friends" with wild assertions that the F.B.I. never properly examined
the hacked server because it had been handed over to a shadowy Ukrainian company called
CrowdStrike.
More broadly, the dueling Ukraine narratives are fomenting division and confusion among the
American public, an enduring goal of Mr. Putin's.
The Democrats are intent on impeaching Trump. As they have shown with the vote to launch
the impeachment inquiry, they're quite happy to do it on a purely partisan party line vote.
And they have the full support of the mainstream media and many in the bureaucracy including
serving officers in the military. The only question IMO, is how many Republican senators will
either abstain or vote to convict in the Senate trial?
The Resistance as Barr has called them are so blind with hatred for Trump that they can't
see beyond their nose. They will now create a precedent where a House majority of one party
can impeach at will the President of the opposing party while using a kangaroo court inquiry.
This must lead to complete chaos for our political system that each of our adversaries would
love. IMO, only the American voter can change this by stopping to vote the lesser evil and
electing candidates outside the duopoly. Of course that ain't happening in my life time as
most Americans are consumed with partisan warfare on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
The law doesn't matter. The IC and courts will interpret the laws however they wish.
This is the flip side of the fundamental problem in Sir Thomas More's famous formulation
of the law in "A Man for All Seasons". The laws of England or any other law are of no
protection to anyone if he cannot enforce them.
Similarly, even if the laws clearly condemn a action, even if the action is wrongful, that
is of no matter, if the people with power have decided that the law is to protect that action
regardless of what is written.
Moral: there is no such thing as law. There is only context.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your take (and I always appreciate a Thomas More
reference). However, I think where there is a widespread agreement amongst the population
that the law is just and that it is generally applied fairly to all--in that society you
empower leading voices to defend the law against would-be attackers (from either top or
bottom). But today we do not have that consensus in popular opinion, not all of us believe
the law is fair or evenly applied, and voices shouting for it to be abrogated are loud and
growing bolder.
Now, your moral is properly situated in its historical context.
Isn't the ICIG another swamp careerist?
These swamp creatures are of one ilk (NOT a big deer):
They live in the same neighborhoods, their kids go to the same schools, they go to the same
Delaware beaches.
They will NEVER seriously investigate, much less bring down, a fellow swamp creature.
I am now convinced that laws, justice, truth and honor don't amount to a hill of beans in The
Swamp. It's all wanton and vicious politics and power plays all the time. Then mountains of
BS, shoveled out by an allied scurrilous media machine to try to keep the public buying into
the Machiavellian machinations of the Swamp dwellers.
Members of the "in crowd" can do whatever they want without repercussion. If any of them
ever faces consequences it's because they fell from favor for secret reasons as opposed to
the publicly announced reason, or they got sleepy and were gunned down by a newer more
ambitious usurper.
The deep state exists to perpetuate itself. When 95% of all 2016 political contributions from
the deep state went to Clinton, trump's election created and existential crisis.
Trump promised he would expose and cleag out the deep state - look at his major2016
campaign video speech. Those were his very first words.
Deep state was put on notice even before the was elected. Apoplectic can be their only
response. Frog brains were engaged and we have these three long awful years of deep state
inflicted chaos.
Deep state = Democrats = big public sector unions How can you have $800 billion tax
dollars going to teachers union members nationwide without the teachers union deep state
doing all they can to bring Trump down. Including using K-12 students as front line storm
troopers.
You don't get it. IMO the present impeachment inquiry is illegal because the
whistleblower's complaint should not have bben allowed under the statute. If an impeachment
arrives in the senate it can be thrown out on that basis.
I do get your point, and agree, however the the legislation is deficient in that while the
whistle-blower can, and should, highlight questionable behaviour in his/her department it
does not seem to offer adequate cover against retribution from said department.
viz.
"ICWPA doesn't prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as
access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a
result of having made a disclosure"
In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act.
If your, or my, government is breaking its own laws I would like to see a clear route for
those in the know to report same to some body with the authority to act. They should be
independent of the department, have the power to investigate and protect the source. Better
that then dump it on Wikileaks and hope to stay anonymous.
On a separate point, is or should there be any restrictions on IGIC's authority to change the
scope of evidence to include hearsay, given the evidently limited intent of the whistleblower
legislation / directives?
You are referring to the change in the complaint form where the prior form required the
whistleblower to have direct knowledge of the issue complained about while the latest version
allows the whistleblower to blow the whistle using information obtained from someone else
(hearsay). The statute itself neither allowed not disallowed hearsay information. I believe
that the prior form should not have excluded hearsay. For example, if a foreign agent said
"I'm a foreign agent and taking photos of this top secret information" to a DNI employee,
that is a hearsay statement and could not be reported to the IG using the prior form. To me,
that's wrong.
Exactly right. Here is a link to the statute, 50 USC section 3033. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033
The statute allows for the appointment of an Inspector General who reports to and has the
authority to investigate any activity that falls under the authority of the Director of
National Intelligence.
While I agree that Trump's phone call does not fall under the definition of an urgent
matter that can be reported to Congress, what's worse is that because the President's
activities cannot be investigated under this statute because the President is not under the
authority of nor supervised by the DNI. Thus, the intelligence Inspector General has no
authority to consider the complaint against Trump. Congress created the IG statute and placed
the IG under the supervision of the DNI because under the law the IG is to investigate only
problems that the DNI has the ability to rectify.
As the President of the United States is not supervised by the DNI, the IG has no
authority under this law to investigate the President's activities under this statute. The
complaint and the involvement of the IG in this matter was illegal from the start.
Never forget this particular "whistleblower" statute was changed at the 11th hour to suddenly
allow 2nd hand reports instead of the prior first hand report requirement.
It stunk from day one. Throw the book at the whole pack because they did not take out the
penalty part of the statute for filing false reports. Go get 'em FBI.
Right. The entire purpose of the phony and improper IG complaint was to manufacture an excuse
to have the matter reported to Congress where it would then be leaked to the public. It never
was a proper IG complaint, but the bell cannot be unrung.
Only way out is to call for the impeachment, have a vote and either lick their wounds if
they lose (mainly Schiff and Nadler get sacrificed - Fancy Nancy has been dancing on a tight
rope so she gets a pass); or vote to pass articles of impeachment and finally send this
turkey on to the senate.
Wild card, how many Democrats not engaged in this blatant publicity stunt also want no
part in it. What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for filing
false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the
whistle-blower law.
Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint. Only
if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant.
Otherwise, all you have are the opening opinion statements in tonights DNC debate, sneered
out by Rachael Maddow, picked up with even more sneers by Kamala Harris and echoed by every
single DNC candidate as already a fait accompli.
The unocntested party line tonight is this "whistle blower" busted Trump wide open as a
crook and a self-confessed crook at that.
That political message flowing from this "irrelevant complaint "is hard to overcome as the
DNC debate crowd cheered, unless the perpetrator is brought to justice under the relevance of
this law. We shall wait patiently for that moment. As the Democrats all stated tonight - 2020
election is all about JUSTICE AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I do, which is what I meant by
"In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act."
The point I was making is that, as drafted, there is in adequate redress/protection for
those who witness acts which are clearly covered. This is not conducive to keeping government
on the straight and narrow. The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been
massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and
saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job
isn't it?
The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal destruction.
While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint of irony)
to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump alone has torn
it asunder.
Exactly right. If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower
complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence
activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires.
Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating complaints
about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect luggage at the
airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an
intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of
a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
O/T but there doesn't seem any other live thread where it can be put.
Israel is heading for a third election and is becoming politically more and more
incoherent.
Avigdor Liberman, leader of Israael's far right secular party Yisrael Beytenu has failed
in his attempts to form a government of national unity and is now denouncing the ultra
orthodox parties as "anti-semitic!"
Netanyahu continues to wobble over the void of jail.
Gantz's Blue and White party has, like Netanyahu and Liberman, failed in attempts to lead
a government of national unity.
I know there continues to be fighting in NE Syria and Yemen, and air attacks on Damascus,
riots in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon, but I suspect that a lot of M.E. leaders are using this
relative calm - due to the eclipse of Bibi - to do some serious talking.
Neo-conservatives in the US continue with his policies even if he is there no longer.
It seems to me that if Trump is serious about taking on the swamp, now might be a good time
to strike. Surely in this whole mess, there has to be one clear cut case that he could use an
excuse for strong action. Something so egregious, so requiring, dare I say, a righteous
response- one involving a highly public perp walk or something similar.
It is time to put the fear of a jury finding followed by a certain and just punishment,
perhaps a stay at Epstein's prison as a starter while awaiting a no bail trial.
I believe we are talking about the "Fruit of the poisonous tree" objection. That evidence
obtained illegally cannot be used and anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as
well.
Two questions: Was the whistle blower action illegal or just "improper"?
And if illegal, does the "attenuation doctrine" apply here?
"For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent
intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's
illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself. (United States
v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))"
Most likely, if this case were being heard in a court of law, it would be thrown out as fruit
of the poisoned tree doctrine. However, the problem here is there are no judges with the
authority to issue a ruling ordering Congress to stop these hearings.
However, it is certain that if Congress votes for impeachment, the Senate, same as the
House, can also do what it wants and the GOP majority may vote to throw the case out on the
grounds of fruit of the poisoned tree. However, I believe a full trial with witnesses
favorable to the president testifying and focusing on Biden corruption would show the
American people the impeachment process was bogus from the beginning and thus be more
favorable to Trump. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the GOP majority Senate will
provide the 67 votes necessary for impeachment.. So, at then end of the day, this is one big
show trial where the end result will be Trump serving out his elected term or terms.
I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a potential/inevitable
Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as accurately described here,
will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a master at giving his enemies
enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show appears to me to be a classic
example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are still busying themselves atop
the fagot pile.
While the Impeachment circus act was in gear, the Democrats were quietly reauthorizing The
Patriot Act in the funding resolution keeping the government afloat for another 3
months.
I am a bit puzzled with what the Democrats are doing.
In reading the Constitution, there's nothing that I can see that enumerates a specific
procedure on impeachment in the House. It also appears that there is no definition of what
High Crimes & Misdemeanors are and it would be whatever the House says it is. It appears
the House can impeach by bringing the Articles of Impeachment to the floor for a vote. Nancy
Pelosi has enough votes in her caucus to pass that with just her own party votes.
What is prompting the current process they are following? An inquiry by the Intelligence
Committee, where the majority decides which witnesses can be called and there's no
opportunity for the accused to cross-examine and provide rebuttal evidence and testimony.
They have controlled the media news cycle for most of the last few weeks. They are also
deploying and testing soundbites. Given the news from FB, Twitter and Google to limit the
ability of "political ads" to target audiences with unique adds. That's all coordinated
against Trump. The fact these hearings showed the career bureaucracy is not only out of touch
with America but contemptuous of most Americans.
The last two were prime examples. The "good immigrant" - and a woman; check a couple of
boxes for democratic party declared support groups being victimized by Trump's Tweets
(now labeled attacks, kind of like the hate speech label). Then there is wonderboy Mr.
Holmes. Do you think either know what's going on in Tupelo or Topeka, or give a damn? Mr.
Holmes was upset that two Ukrainians recently died in combat. That was last night in Detroit.
And Baltimore. And Chicago. Of course the Dynamic Duo was working to end corruption: in
Kiev.
Of course those aren't the lives that matter to the Council on Foreign Relations crowd or
those who went to that fine proletarian school: St. Andrews - in Scotland. A fine school all
middle class Americans aspire too. Yep, just regular ole American's. You are concerned about
due process and evidence faked by police? Just ask some inner city black Americans if that
happens in their neighborhood.
Once Trump RIFs 90 percent of these people they can go put their skills in corruption
fighting to good use in a country they all love. I'm sure these two fine examples of white
privelege integrity and honest governance will have no trouble getting hired in a place
like Baltimore. They hired DeRay McKesson; these well credentialed experts will have no
problems at all fixing that city. It's full of honest Americans.
Witches are devious and the nature of their witchcraft may only be apparent to the accusers.
See how at each session the Witchfinder General takes plenty of time to explain to onlookers
the nature of the witchcraft lest they mistake it for, say, a regular phone call.
Democrats reluctance to go on record impeaching a popular opposition party President is what
is driving this Democrat-led inquiry process - almost impeachment but not quite impeachment.
The intent is to wound, smear, damage, distract and distort. Typical Democrat politics of
personal destruction that we have seen in play now for three long painful years.
I live in California, so we see a lot of this 24/7/365. It has been a very effective and
intimidating tactic since now most Democrat central committee chosen candidates run u
unopposed - no one wants to face the Democrat mean machine meat grinder.
The only wild card is how tough Trump has been facing this onslaught down. He is our
favorite schmoo doll who simply cannot be knocked down. Thank you President Trump.
Winning.
blue peacock,
I am also puzzled by the Democrats - soviet style show trial like, a campaign whose
„face" now is Adam Schiff. I have asked the SST commenters, in different article, why
would DT be so viciously attacked by the very same supporters of Israel, who should be very
grateful to him for his many actions in favor of Israel. One commenter replied that DT is not
going to wage war on Iran and therefore he is not useful anymore. I disagree with that
assessment, and am still puzzled by the whole theater. Adam Schiff and his show trial is
playing in the hands of republicans, and the democrats will bitterly regret that they did not
follow once more the mantra of Nancy Pelosi - in different context - „impeachment is
off the table".
"... Billionaire investor/activist George Soros has a giant footprint in Ukraine. Similar to his operations in dozens of other nations, he has, over the past couple of decades, poured tens of millions of dollars into Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs), ostensibly to assist them in transforming their country into a more "open" and "democratic" society. ..."
Billionaire
investor/activist George Soros has a giant footprint in Ukraine. Similar to his operations in
dozens of other nations, he has, over the past couple of decades, poured tens of millions of
dollars into Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs), ostensibly to assist them in
transforming their country into a more "open" and "democratic" society.
Many of the participants in Kiev's "EuroMaidan" demonstrations were members of Soros-funded
NGOs and/or were trained by the same NGOs in the many workshops and conferences sponsored by
Soros' International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), and his various Open Society institutes and
foundations. The IRF, founded and funded by Soros, boasts that it has given "more than any
other donor organization" to "democratic transformation" of Ukraine.
The International Renaissance Foundation's Annual Report for 2012, the latest available,
states that, "IRF provided UAH 63 million in funding to civil society organizations -- more
than any other donor organization working in this field in Ukraine." The "UAH" reference used
above refers to the Ukraine Hryvnia, Ukraine's currency, which is worth about 0.11 $US, or 11
cents in U.S. currency. That translates into roughly $6.7 million that IRF provided to
Ukrainian groups in 2012; not a huge sum, by comparison to many other political and social
campaigns, but more than merely "significant." In the cash-starved Ukraine, Soros's dollars go
a long way toward seducing and co-opting all legitimate political opposition into the
Soros-approved "progressive" camp.
Over the period from 1990 to 2010 the International Renaissance Foundation provided more
than $100 million in support to numerous Ukrainian non-government organizations (NGOs),
community groups, academic and cultural institutions, publishing houses, etc.
The IRF website and annual reports make clear that the Soros funds are targeted at promoting
Ukrainian "partnership" with, and "integration" into, the EU. Soros has provided many millions
more through his other "philanthropic" spigots. However, Soros' influence in Ukraine extends
far beyond the traceable funding he provides to activist Ukrainian NGOs, academics and think
tanks. Equally, if not more, important is the influence he exerts on global opinion through his
massive propaganda network (including Project Syndicate and other Soros megaphones) and his
direct personal contacts with presidents, prime ministers, parliamentarians, central bankers,
media executives, and Wall Street titans.
In a February 26 column he penned for Project Syndicate that was carried by hundreds of
newspapers and websites, Soros argued that the EU and the IMF must initiate a new Marshall Plan
for Ukraine, meaning, of course, transfers of money from EU and U.S. taxpayers to the
politicians, organizations, and institutions approved by the globalist/socialist/corporatist
operatives running the EU and IMF. Perhaps the key point in Soros' essay, entitled, "Sustaining
Ukraine's Breakthrough," is this: "Ukraine will need outside assistance that only the EU can
provide: management expertise."
George Soros is all about management by "experts," i.e., central planning, the hallmark of
every socialist, fascist, or communist regime. In fact, he is one of the planet's premier
advocates of global central planning and control. Hence, he is a longtime fervent supporter of
the United Nations, the IMF/World Bank, the WTO, global population control through the WHO and
UNFPA, and virtually every other internationalist endeavor to subvert national sovereignty and
advance the building of an omnipotent world government.
His fetish with internationalism includes, especially, further enlarging and empowering the
EU, which has been the prime subject of concern in books and essays by Soros, as well as many
of his speeches and media interviews. Soros is a full-blown proponent of total political and
economic "integration" of the EU, meaning a complete annihilation of any residual independence
of the EU member states and the transfer of all substantive legislative, executive, and
judicial powers to EU politicians and administrators in Brussels.
Over the past several years Soros has been particularly emphatic in pushing for a central EU
Treasury, or European Fiscal Authority (EFA), which he
says is "the missing ingredient that is needed to make the euro a full-fledged currency
with a genuine lender of last resort." The European Central Bank (ECB), says Soros, has
insufficient powers to do what is needed, even though he admits it has illegally usurped powers
-- which he applauds.
When European Central Bank President Mario Draghi (a former Goldman Sachs vice chairman and
managing director) announced on August 1, 2012 that the ECB would "do whatever it takes to
preserve the euro as a stable currency," German Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann objected,
pointing out that the ECB's powers are limited by statute. Nevertheless, Draghi forged ahead,
promising that the ECB would make unlimited purchases of government bonds of indebted EU
members -- provided they put their countries under the control of executors from "the Troika"
-- the EU Commission, ECB and IMF. This is the same Troika that devastated the citizens of
Cyprus last year,
raiding their bank accounts to pay off the bonds that socialist politicians and Goldman
Sachs had saddled them with. But Soros, whose many "human rights" fronts extol the "rule of
law," "accountability," and "transparency," says that the lawless and unaccountable Troika does
not have enough power! It must be complemented by an EFA, says he, which should exercise power
over all fiscal matters.
The IMF's Managing Director Christine Lagarde and EU Commission President José Manuel
Barroso (a "former" Maoist Communist) have already lined up a multi-billion package for
Ukraine. However, many Ukrainians, all across the political spectrum, are leery of coming under
the Troika's control, and rightfully so. They do not want to trade the corruption and
oppression of Yanukovych's pro-Kremlin regime for another dictated by the EU and IMF. As we
pointed out recently , even the poll commissioned by the U.S. State Department found that
only 37 percent of Ukrainians favored joining the EU.
Economist Michael Roberts describes himself on his blogsite as "a Marxist economist."
Nevertheless, Roberts is on the mark in his February 27 column in stating: "The people of
Ukraine are left with Hobson's choice: either go with KGB-led crony capitalism from Russia or
go with equally corrupt pro-European 'democrats'." He is also correct in asserting that
Ukraine's foreign debt will soon double, if it takes IMF loans, and that the Ukrainian people
will burdened with crushing debt for a generation. He writes:
Ukraine could still stage a financial meltdown and a banking collapse. More likely, the new
government will be helped over the next few months with bridging loans until the IMF deal is
struck. Then the hardship for the people will really begin in earnest. Ukraine's foreign debt
is about to double as it takes on new debt from the IMF and the cost of existing dollar and
euro debt jumps as the hyrvnia is devalued. This burden will be on shoulders of Ukrainians for
a generation.
Only it could double several times over, and it could burden Ukrainians for much longer than
a generation; it could fasten them with debt bondage in perpetuity . Bosnian writer
Andrej Nikolaidis warns Ukrainians that massive debt and grinding poverty under Troika-managed
regime are to be expected. "It hardly comes as a surprise to us in former Yugoslavia,"
writes
Nikolaidis. "At the beginning of its dissolution, the Yugoslav foreign debt was
£9.5bn; today, after all the 'help' we got from the troika, it's more than £107bn."
He continues:
Bosnia today is a poor and divided country, even more so than it was back in 1992. Former
soldiers, hungry and sick, are gathering and protesting. "While we were bleeding, they were
stealing," says one Some Bosnians saw their future under the Bosnian and EU flag, others under
the Croatian and EU flag, and others still under the flag of The Great Serbia. Lots of flags,
but only one poverty for all.
But why must Ukraine formally join either the EU or the Kremlin-sponsored Customs Union? Are
those the only options? Is it not possible for Ukraine to adopt a neutral position of
independence and peaceful trade with both sides? Would not such a position be best for all
concerned? From the available polling, it seems that may be the view of a plurality, if not a
majority, of Ukrainians.
Ukraine's huge network of natural gas pipelines not only supplies much-needed
Russian-produced gas to EU countries, but also is the source of vital revenues to Russia from
that energy delivery system. The peoples of Russia, Ukraine, and the EU benefit from a stable,
peaceful, neutral Ukraine; forcing Ukrainians into choosing one or the other camp benefits no
one -- except the power-mad rulers of Russia and the EU, and their globalist confreres.
Why then, should Americans take direction from George Soros, Barack Obama, John Kerry,
Hillary Clinton, the New York Times , Washington Pos t, CNN, John McCain and
other internationalist voices who insist it is Ukraine that must "choose" but the only choice
considered acceptable and legitimate to the globalist choir is for Ukraine to join the EU?
Soros and his huge stable of "public intellectuals" at Project Syndicate have been flooding the
global media with propaganda to that purpose. As we've reported previously, Project Syndicate
is a project of George Soros' Open Society Foundation that has sprouted into a network of
nearly 500 newspapers in more than 150 countries with worldwide circulation of over 70 million
copies. According to the syndicate's web site, it is the largest syndication of independent
commentators in the world.
However, his great wealth, foundations, media presence, and network of activist NGOs
notwithstanding, George Soros' power and influence -- in Ukraine and elsewhere -- stem not so
much from these oft-cited trappings of power, but from the fact that he is a player, an
Insider, in the top rank of globalists who are pushing and shoving "global governance" upon the
entire planet. This was formally recognized in November 2010 when Soros received the
"Globalist of the Year Award" from the Canadian International Council (CIC).
Soros' real heft derives from the fact that he is a member of the globalist power elite.
First and foremost, he is a member of (and leader in and major financial supporter of) the
Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) , the premier globalist brain trust that has become the de facto
governing force within the executive branch of the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve
System, as well as Democrat and Republican parties, for most of the past century. His Soros
Fund Management is a President's Circle Corporate Member of the CFR and Soros himself served as
a director of the CFR for a decade (1995-2004). In addition, he has been a key participant in
many CFR events, including serving as presider at the CFR's 2000 conference, "Latin America:
Sustaining Economic & Political Reform," a major sendoff promoting the Free Trade Area of
the Americas (FTAA).
Further, he has been an activist participant with, and sometime funder of, important
globalist organizations such as the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, the World Policy Conference, the World Economic Forum, the International
Crisis Group, the Clinton Global Initiative, the Bilderberg Group, the U.S. State Department,
the Gorbachev Foundation, the United Nations, and The Good
Club (an exclusive billionaire club -- whose members include Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,
David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Michael Bloomberg, and Oprah Winfrey -- with the singular
purpose of pushing global population control). Per the UN, Soros has served on a number of
boards and advisory groups promoting a global "Tobin Tax" on financial transactions, global
controls on CO 2 to stop "Climate Change," dramatically expanding the powers and
funding of the International Monetary Fund, and massive global wealth redistribution through
the UN's Millennium Development Goals.
Many of Soros' critics on both the Left and the Right ignore these facts and treat Soros as
if he is a singular earthshaking force all on his own. Focusing solely on his grant
distributions, political donations, NGO networks, etc., they greatly exaggerate his importance,
which can act as a diversion to distract liberty-minded advocates from focusing on the bigger
picture. Taken in isolation, without his tie-ins to the CFR-globalist network of power, Soros'
global impact would be, not insignificant, but marginal. It is precisely because he is one of
many super-wealthy globalists (albeit, he is far more visible and vocal than most) acting in
concert that his impact is so remarkable.
Especially noteworthy in relation to Ukraine is his key involvement in the
American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee (AUAC). The Ukrainian Weekly of December 10, 1995,
reported :
The American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee met in New York on November 17-18 [1995] and
reiterated its strong conviction that a resilient Ukraine is in the interest of European
stability and thus also American security.
Among other things, the AUAC called upon the U.S. Congress, USAID, the IMF, the World Bank,
and the EU to shower the Ukrainian government (then run by "former" Communist Leonid Kuchma).
It also encouraged the Ukrainian government to hasten "privatization" by selling "blocks of
equity to private investors."
Kuchma followed their advice and, as in the former Soviet Union,
his false "privatization" scheme transferred enormous state assets into the hands of select
Communist Party members, creating instant billionaire oligarchs, who have dominated Ukraine
ever since. Sitting on the UAUC with Soros were one-world CFR heavyweights Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Henry Kissinger, Frank Carlucci, and Richard Burt. The same one-worlders are pushing the same
agenda today, two decades later.
Oligarchs R Us
One of the billionaire oligarchs who benefitted from the Ukraine's crony privatization
program is Victor Pinchuk, with whom Soros has been very active. Soros's foundations and The
Victor Pinchuk Foundation collaborate on funding many NGOs and projects, in Ukraine and
elsewhere. And Soros is a participant in Pinchuk's Yalta European Strategy (YES) conferences,
annual extravaganzas held in the Crimea at Livadia Palace, a summer retreat of Russian czars on
the Black Sea. The YES confabs feature current and former presidents, prime ministers,
potentates, financiers, corporate execs and celebrities.
Besides Soros, U.S. participants have included Bill Clinton, William Daley (Obama's White
House chief of staff), Robert Zoellick (Bush's trade representative, then president of the
World Bank), Newt Gingrich, and Condoleezza Rice, to name a few -- Democrats and Republicans,
CFR globalists all.
Pinchuk, a pal and funder of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, not only has generously
supported Bill's Clinton Global Initiative, but also has poured more than $13 million into the
Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Another close tie is Douglas E. Schoen (CFR), a
longtime Clinton operative and political consultant, whom, according to the New York
Times , Mr. Pinchuk hired as an adviser in 2000 -- and to whom the oligarch has been paying
a tidy retainer of $40,000 per month ever since.
One of the important ventures that Soros and Pinchuk are financing is the Ukrainian Crisis
Media Center (CMC), a collaboration of Ukrainian public relations corporations and journalists
that is headquartered in Kiev's Hotel Ukraine. Ostensibly, it was created to counter the
propaganda onslaught of Putin's Russian media cartel. Much of the "independent news" we receive
from Ukraine is produced by the CMC and stamped with the Pinchuk/Soros-approved brand of
propaganda. That includes cheering on or papering over the fact that the "new" government in
Kiev is simply the latest rotation of musical chairs, and it has ended with Pinchuk's fellow
oligarchs (virtually all of which are "former" communists) and their parliamentary blocs and
political parties occupying the most important chairs (as we
reported here ).
Pinchuk is a member of the Board of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and
sits on the International Advisory Council of the Brookings Institution, both of which Soros
has long been associated with. Another very important Soros-Pinchuk tie is their mutual
connection to the famous (or infamous, as you prefer) Rothschild banking dynasty.
In 2011, George C. Karlweis, adviser to Baron Edmond de Rothschild and his Banque Privee,
revealed that it was Rothschild who provided Soros with the startup money -- and,
undoubtedly much (illegal) insider trading intelligence -- for Soros' fabulously successful
Quantum Fund.
The full extent of Pinchuk's connections to the Rothschild's global private empire would
require a similar revelation from an insider. That could be Jean-Pierre Saltiel, who sits on
the board of Pinchuk's Yalta European Strategy, as well as the oligarch's global steel and
metallurgy conglomerate, Interpipe, Inc. He is also a longtime adviser to the Rothschilds and
the past president of Rothschild Conseil International, one of the fabled family's major bank
holding companies. Interestingly (but not so surprising), Rothschild agent Saltiel also sits on
the board of PIK Group, Russia's largest residential real estate developer, founded by Russian
oligarchs Yuri Zhukov and Kirill Pisarev (and still run by Pisarev).
Like Soros and the Rothschilds, Ukrainian oligarch Pinchuk works with and partners with a
number of Russian oligarchs. And his YES summits regularly feature Putin-allied Russian
oligarchs, as well as Putin-appointed Russian politicians and apparatchiks. Alfa Bank, Russia's
largest private bank, for example, is a YES sponsor. And Alfa Bank chairman, Mikhail Fridman, a
Putin ally and one of Russia's richest billionaires, sits on the CFR's International Advisory
Board and provided the funds to create the CFR's "Russia and Russian-American Relations
Lecture" program.
Similarly, Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch, a former
Putin-Yanukovych supporter and ally, is now a member of the new government. He is also, along
with Fridman and Soros, a YES sponsor and a business partner with Russian, EU and U.S.
Insiders. What these and dozens of other similar examples indicate is that there is much more
to all of the Sturm und Drang over the Ukraine-Russia-EU "crisis" than meets the
eye.
Soros gave a strong clue as to what the scripted outcome of the scenario would likely be.
His solution would see Russia as a "partner," and Angela Merkel (the "former" Communist from
East Germany who now runs the unified Germany) would be the broker.
"Germany should take the lead," Soros said, in his February 26 Project Syndicate column
cited above. "Chancellor Angela Merkel must reach out to President Vladimir Putin to ensure
that Russia is a partner, not an opponent, in the Ukrainian renaissance."
Instructions on the WB info says your disclosure must involve Classified Information, but not
about differences of opinions, and "please identify the agency wrongdoing".
Then you are faced with who-knows lawyer warnings by numbers/letters like "Section 2302
(a)(2)(A) of Title 5" and "threat prohibited under subsection (g)(3)(B)" .
But here's their HotLine number in case you want to Ask Them any Questions:
ICIG Hotline 855-731-3260 (Intelligence Community Inspector General)
"... Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway. ..."
Folks, this "Ukraine Whistleblower" event was a
pre-planned event. As we begin to understand the general outline of how the Schiff Dossier was
assembled, we are now starting to get into the specifics. First discovered by researcher Stephen
McIntyr e, there is now evidence surfacing showing the ICIG recently created an entirely
new 'whistleblower complaint form' that specifically allowed for the filing of complaints "
heard from others ".
... ... ...
The timing here is far too coincidental. This was a set-up .
Sean Davis from the Federalist
is also hot on the trail.
Sean Davis – Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly
eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged
wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding the
August submission of a
whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no
longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to
Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are
reporting.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until
after the transcript of Trump's July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr
Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand
knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have
zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only "heard about [wrongdoing] from
others."
The internal properties of the
newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form , which the intelligence community
inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community
Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24,
2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released
to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no
specific date of revision is disclosed. (
read more )
President Trump announced Joseph Macguire as the Acting ODNI on August 8th, 2019 . (
link ) The CIA operative "whistle-blower" letter to Adam Schiff and Richard Burr was on
August 12th ( link
). Immediately following this letter, the ICIG rules and requirements for "whistle-blowers" was
modified, allowing hearsay complaints. On August 28th Adam Schiff begins tweeting about the
construct of the complaint.
As Stephen McIntyre notes : "it
appears almost certain that, subsequent to the CIA operative "WB" complaint, the DNI introduced
a brand new Urgent Disclosure Form which offered a previously unavailable alternative to report
allegations with no personal knowledge."
The CIA whistleblower complaint is likely the VERY FIRST complaint allowed using the new
IGIC protocol and standard. Taken in combination with the timeline of the August 12th
notification letter to Schiff and Burr and the Schiff tweet of August 28th, there's little room
for doubt this Ukraine whistleblower impeachment effort was pre-planned.
Additionally, this coordinated effort ties back-in Intelligence Community Inspector General,
Michael K Atkinson .
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also the
DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901) originated.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson . ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay ' whistle-blower '
complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was " blowing-the-whistle " based on
second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie '
hearsay '.
Michael K Atkinson
was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National
Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior
legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016
when the stop Trump operation was underway.
... ... ...
Within a heavy
propaganda report from the New York Times there are also details about the Intelligence
Community Inspector General that show the tell-tale fingerprints of the ICIG supportive intent
(emphasis mine):
[ ] Mr. Atkinson, a Trump appointee, nevertheless concluded that the allegations appeared
to be credible and identified two layers of concern.
The first involved a possible violation of criminal law. Mr. Trump's comments to Mr.
Zelensky " could be viewed as soliciting a foreign campaign contribution in violation of the
campaign-finance laws, " Mr. Atkinson wrote , according to the Justice Department memo. (
read
more )
Does the " foreign campaign contribution " angle sound familiar? It should, because
that argument was used in the narrative around the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian
Lobbyist Natalia Veselnitskaya. More specifically, just like FARA violations the overused
"campaign contribution" narrative belongs to a specific network of characters, Lawfare.
The "Schiff Dossier", aka "whistle-blower" complaint was a constructed effort of allied
members within congress and the intelligence apparatus to renew the impeachment effort. The
intelligence team, including the ICIG, changed the whistleblower form to allow the CIA to
insert the Schiff Dossier, written by Lawfare.
And the irony is the jstreet/lawfare group along with congress are taking two weeks off for
Rosh Hashanah/Yom Kippur, day of repentance and day of atonement. What do you wanna make a
bet they're not atoning or repenting of their evil hearts.
The Bongino video (1076 IIRC) did a nice job of showing that Shiff had it before it was
formally filed Schiff references things in the complaint in a tweet prior to the complaint
being filed
"
The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss more news
breaking in the Ukrainegate hoax, where "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella appears to have been
acting on behalf of former CIA director John Brennan as a essentially a spy within the Trump
White House.
In April of 2019, Dan Bongino's had figured out that disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok and
his lover Lisa Page, were messaging one another about developing sources to spy within the
White House talking about sending a "CI" guy, and worried about outing "Charlie."
Bongino believes that Strzok and Page were referencing Ciaramella as being a "Confidential
Informant" (CI), or spy. Bongino notes that Paul Sperry may have dropped a hint in the way he
included a "pronunciation note" regarding the whistleblower's name (pronounced char -a-MEL-ah)
may have referred to "Charlie" in the Strzok/Page texts.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an
intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of
a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
October 4, 2019 by sundance The inspector
general for the Intelligence Community is Michael Atkinson . He is very sketchy. Atkinson was
previously legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD during the 'stop-Trump' tenure of John Carlin and Mary
McCord. As a result, Atkinson was a participant in the weaponizing of the DOJ-NSD via FISA
abuse, along with NSA database exploitation and tenuous FARA legal theories used to target
political opposition.
In short, Atkinson seems dirty. At the very least he hangs around dirty characters.
Today, according to Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge , ICIG
Michael Atkinson testified the anti-Trump CIA ' whistle-blower' , likely to be Michael
Barry, did not inform Atkinson that Barry and his legal team already contacted staff working
for HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff when he submitted his complaint. More sketchy .
After he took the complaint, ICIG Michael Atkinson then changed the rules for the ICIG
office allowing a second-hand hearsay complaint to be processed. Again, sketchy .
According to New York Times reporting
earlier this week, the 'whistle-blower' (likely CIA operative Michael Barry) first tried to
push the hearsay claims to CIA management through a colleague. Fearing CIA management would not
take the gossip seriously "the officer then approached a democrat House Intelligence Committee
aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump." Chairman Schiff never told anyone.
Buckets of sketchy .
Mr. Sketchy –
ICIG Michael Atkinson
What is occurring is becoming clear
After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the House "impeachment" strategy, House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler
hired Lawfare Group members to become committee staff.
Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (
link ), and Chairman Nadler hired Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal
defense attorney Barry Berke (
link ), all are within the Lawfare network. [You probably saw Berke questioning former
Trump campaign chairman Corey Lewandowski.]
It now looks like the Lawfare network constructed the 'whistle-blower' complaint aka
a Schiff Dossier, and handed it to allied CIA operative
Michael Barry to file as a formal IC complaint. This process is almost identical to the
Fusion-GPS/Lawfare network handing the Steele Dossier to the FBI to use as the evidence for the
2016/2017 Russia conspiracy.
This series of events is exactly what former CIA Analyst Fred Fleiz said last week . Fleitz has extensive knowledge of the
whistleblower process. Fleitz said last week the Ukraine call whistleblower is likely driven by
political motives, and his sources indicate he had help from Congress members while writing
it.
Additionally, prior to the "whistleblower complaint" the Intelligence Community Inspector
General did not accept whistle-blower claims without first hand knowledge. However, the ICIG
revised the protocol to allow this specific complaint to be registered by the CIA
whistle-blower .
Now it surfaces that the ICIG Michael Atkinson didn't even review the Trump-Zelenskyy phone
call transcript before forwarding the complaint to congress [
SEE HERE ]
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson . ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay ' whistle-blower '
complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was " blowing-the-whistle " based on second
hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie ' hearsay
'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also the
DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901) originated.
Michael K Atkinson
was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National
Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior
legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016
when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court
( Judge Rosemary Collyer )
about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA
application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political
surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD
FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the
process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.
Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate
with the Pelosi-Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective. Sketchy!
The report comes one day after Republicans on the House Intel committee released their own "
prebuttal " claiming Trump committed "no quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, or abuse of
power. The Democrats' report will be combined with the 'prebuttal' and sent to the House
Judiciary Committee, which will draft articles of impeachment following their own inquiry.
They claim there is "nothing inherently wrong" with the Trump administration's actions
toward Ukraine and justify each of them in detail, including Rudy Giuliani's direct
involvement in U.S. diplomacy.
They say any references to a quid pro quo are conjecture and hearsay -- including EU
Ambassador and Trump donor Gordon Sondland's testimony.
They question the origins of the impeachment inquiry and Democrats' motives, and they
allege that Democrats have wanted to undo the 2016 election since Trump won.
They mock Democrats for calling the impeachment inquiry a serious process, and they
characterize the speedy nature of the inquiry as proof that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is
motivated by politics rather than substance.
They use Trump's well-known skepticism about U.S. spending on foreign aid as
justification for his hesitation to give money to Ukraine.
They say there was "nothing wrong" with asking questions about Hunter Biden's role on the
board of Burisma, a Ukrainian company, or renewing unfounded allegations about who interfered
in the 2016 elections.
Neoliberal Soros is an enemy of the western civilization... He is yet another "great vampire
squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything
that smells like money." His tentacles spread to Ukraine and his money and NGO was instrumental
in EuroMaydan coup d'état. Of course, the USA agencies such as the State Delatment and CIA
played the primary role, but Soros role also should not be underestimated.
"First on Ukraine, one of the things that many people recognized about you was that you
during the revolutions of 1989 funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in
eastern Europe and Poland, the Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine?"
Zakaria
asked Soros .
"Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the
foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now," Soros
responded.
It is well-known, although forbidden for the establishment media to mention, that Soros
worked closely with USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (now doing work formerly
assigned to the CIA), the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute
for International Affairs, the Freedom House, and the Albert Einstein Institute to initiate a
series of color revolutions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia following the engineered
collapse of the Soviet Union.
"Many of the participants in Kiev's 'EuroMaidan' demonstrations were members of Soros-funded
NGOs and/or were trained by the same NGOs in the many workshops and conferences sponsored by
Soros' International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), and his various Open Society institutes and
foundations. The IRF, founded and funded by Soros, boasts that it has given 'more than any
other donor organization' to 'democratic transformation' of Ukraine," writes
William F. Jasper .
This transformation led to fascist ultra-nationalists controlling Ukraine's security
services. In April it was announced Andriy
Parubiy and other coup leaders were working with the FBI and CIA to defeat and murder
separatists opposed to the junta government installed by Victoria Nuland and the State
Department. Parubiy is the founder of a national socialist party in Ukraine and currently the
boss of the country's National Security and Defense Council.
Now that the billionaire "chocolate king" Petro Poroshenko is president of Ukraine, the
effort to wipe out all opposition in eastern Ukraine will pick up steam. Poroshenko is a near
perfect choice for the globalists and EU apparatchiks. He sat on the Council of the National
Bank of Ukraine and collaborated with the IMF, Wall Street and the European Commission.
Poroshenko and the February coup leaders are now
killing civilians in Donetsk as the effort continues to dislodge and eradicate "pro-Russian
militants" and "terrorists," i.e., armed resistance fighters going up against Right Sector
enforcers possibly accompanied by American mercenaries with the help of the CIA. Civilians are
also victims in "rebel"-held Slovyansk and neighboring Kramatorsk as retaliation against
resistance to the junta in Kyiv intensifies.
The military response with its overly fascist character, including the
terrorist torching of a trade union building in Odessa by "pro-regime rioters" (i.e., Right
Sector paramilitaries), can be directly attributed to the activism of George Soros and the
hands-on approach of the U.S. State Department, various NGOs (which are, in fact, government
and Wall Street fronts), and USAID, NED, and the malattributed "Freedom House," etc.
Following the murder and expulsion of those opposed to the IMF lording over the government
and the people of Ukraine, Russia can expect further provocation, especially now that it has
stepped away from supporting the resistance. The financial elite and their EU collaborators are
determined to diminish and ultimately eliminate any challenge by Russia and the BRICS as these
countries move to counter the neoliberal financial agenda.
"The buildup of NATO air and ground forces along the borders of Russia in eastern Europe and
President Barack Obama's American power-influencing trip to Asia have a single purpose,"
Wayne Madsen wrote earlier this month. "The seen and unseen forces who dictate policy to
their political puppets in Washington, London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, and other vassal
capital cities have decided to smash BRICS – the emergent financial power bloc
encompassing Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa."
In his foreign policy Trump looks like a Republican Obama, save Nobel Peace Price. If Obama was/is a CIA-democrat, this guy
is a Deep State controlled republican. Why is the Deep State is attacking him is completely unclear. May be they just do not like unpredictable,
inpulsive politicians
Despite his surrender "Neocon crazies from the basement" still attack his exactly the same way as they attacked him for pretty
mundane meeting with Putin and other fake "misdeeds" like Ukrainegate
And that means that he lost a considerable part of his electorate: the anti-war republicans and former Sanders supporters, who voted
for him in 2016 to block Hillary election.
And in no way he is an economic nationalist. He is "national neoliberal" which rejects parts of neoliberal globalization based on
treaties and prefer to bully nations to compliance that favor the US interests instead of treaties. And his "fight" with the Deep state
resemble so closely to complete and unconditional surrender, that you might have difficulties to distinguish between the two. Most of
his appointees are rabid neocons. Just look at Pompeo, Bolton, Fiona Hill. That that extends far beyond those obvious crazies.
Washington Post stating that he "has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details" of his discussions with Russian President
Vladimir Putin - telling Fox News host Jeanine Pirro in a phone interview that he would be willing to release the details of a private
conversation in Helsinki last summer.
"I would. I don't care," Trump told Pirro, adding: "I'm not keeping anything under wraps. I couldn't care less."
"I mean, it's so ridiculous, these people making up," Trump said of the WaPo report.
The president referred to his roughly two-hour dialogue with Putin in Helsinki -- at which only the leaders and their translators
were present -- as "a great conversation" that included discussions about "securing Israel and lots of other things."
"I had a conversation like every president does," Trump said Saturday. "You sit with the president of various countries. I
do it with all countries." -
Politico
In July an attempt by House Democrats to subpoena Trump's Helsinki interpreter was quashed by Republicans. "The Washington Post
is almost as bad, or probably as bad, as the New York Times," Trump said. When Pirro asked Trump about a Friday night New York
Times report that the FBI had opened an inquiry into whether he was working for Putin, Pirro asked Trump "Are you now or have you
ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?" "I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked," Trump responded. "I think
it's the most insulting article I've ever had written."
Trump went on an
epic tweetstorm Saturday following the Times article, defending his 2017 firing of former FBI Director James Comey, and tweeting
that he has been "FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, &
as I have often said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday we will have good relations
with Russia again!"
The early winter holidays are notorious for giving people the blues, but as the last
Thanksgiving leftovers slide into the stockpot, the Democratic Party was put on suicide watch .
Is the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein in charge? It's a little late to call an exorcist.
The gun pointed at the Democrats' head now is a stubby little low-caliber weapon in the
person of Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who has only grazed the
party's skull in two previous misfirings. The third time, the old saying goes, may be the
charm.
When Mr. Nadler entertained Special Counsel Robert Mueller in July, he succeeded
spectacularly in discrediting Mr. Mueller, and the inquisition he rode in on . It was the worst
public demonstration of aphasia since William Jennings Bryan had a stroke at the Scopes Trial
in 1925. Mr. Mueller's pitiful performance put to rest the last sticky tendril of hope that his
tortured report might avail to cast out the arch-demon in the White House. Even the Republicans
on the dais seemed to feel sorry for him. True to his character as a schoolyard sap wearing a
"kick me" sign on his back, Mr. Nadler just waddled away in a fog of bamboozlement, hitching
his pants up to his sternum, to plot his next foolish move .
Which was to haul former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski into the committee in
September. Mr. Lewandowski's performance was the equivalent of watching poor Mr. Nadler get
hitched to the rear bumper of a Lincoln Navigator and dragged over several miles of broken Coke
bottles. And yet, ever-sturdy, like one of those plastic punching dummies with all its weight
on the bottom, Mr. Nadler just popped back up, adjusted his "kick me" sign, and moved on to his
next folly: the current comedy of errors around impeachment.
Really, the only question now is what new way will Mr. Nadler find to humiliate himself and
mortify his party? Opening testimony this week will be supplied by a panel of Woke
constitutional law professors who will attempt to tease out some hermeneutic legal basis for an
impeachment other than actual misdeeds. They'll surely settle on thought-crime, since there is
nothing else. Whose idea was it to hit the snooze button just as the curtain goes up on the
show?
Next will come a mighty hassle over whether the minority can call witnesses of its own
choosing. Ranking member Doug Collins (R-GA) has already asked for an appearance by Adam
Schiff, chair of the House Intel Committee, whose procedural shenanigans last month embarrassed
anyone with a vestigial memory of Anglo-American due process. Some folks think that Mr. Schiff
has got some 'splainin' to do about the predicating circumstances of his star chamber
spectacle. He is, in fact, a fact-witness to all that, on top of being the issuer today of his
own committee's report on all that, and therefore susceptible to public examination --
especially in a train of proceedings as grave as impeachment. If Mr. Nadler enables Mr. Schiff
to slither out of testifying, there will be hell to pay, and in the not-so-likely prospect of
an actual impeachment trial in the senate, it would be paid there as an unleashed defense goes
for Mr. Schiff with pithing needles and thumbscrews of genuine interrogation.
NEVER MISS
THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
Then there is the "Whistleblower," this would-be pimpernel of perfidy hiding behind Adam
Schiff's apron under the false assertion that he is entitled to everlasting anonymity. What an
idea under our system of jurisprudence! In fact, contrary to Mr. Schiff's public
pronouncements, there is no law that states what he claims -- one of several things Mr. Schiff
can be called to account for. And that is even if you accept the dishonest proposition that the
fugitive who started this fiasco even was a whistleblower, rather than a rogue CIA officer
acting on explicitly illegal political motives to interfere in the 2020 election . The CIA, you
must know, is forbidden by charter and statute from operating against American citizens,
including the president of the United States. Under the circumstances, the so-called
"Whistleblower" might fairly be accused of treason.
Has anyone failed to notice that one of the "Whistleblower's" attorneys, Mark Zaid, tweeted
notoriously on January 30, 2017 that " Coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion.
#impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers ." Mr. Zaid later explained, "I was referring to
a completely lawful process." Yeah, sure. I think he meant a completely Lawfare process . Of
course, the engineered "Whistleblower" escapade was only the latest (perhaps the last) chapter
in the annals of nefarious events and actions carried out far-and-wide by several government
agencies for three years, and by many officials working within them, and not a few freelance
rogues in their service. There is no more accurate way to describe all that except as a coup.
The authorities looking into all that have not been heard from yet. The portentous silence is
making a lot of people in Washington edgy.
If the various House committees have put the Democratic Party on suicide watch, then
something even more deadly is lurking just offstage. Hillary Clinton is making noises about
jumping into the 2020 election. She senses opportunity as Joe Biden goes pitifully through the
motions of running for office to avoid prosecution for his international grifting operations as
Veep. Think of Hillary as the cyanide capsule that the party might actually choose to bite down
on as the year ominously turns.
Not really a death wish,just ignorance.Walter Hooper told CS Lewis about the epitaph of a
notable atheist'All dressed up and no place to go'To which Lewis replied,'I'll bet he wishes
that were so...'
People who believe that the democrats are doomed are ignoring a very important and large
part of the equation---the democrat base is the most ignorant, brainwashed and insane group
of people the world has ever seen.
Sure, the DNC is a clown show and tragedy of errors. But it doesn't matter when a
significant % of the population is incapable of perceiving anything close to reality.
It is not going to work any longer. Talk of "Democrats" or "Republicans". The world is
rapidly getting wise. It is the Zionists who own and run both parties...
Republicans instead want to mire Democrats in a sloppy fight, making the hearings into such
a confusing mishmash of competing information that even Republicans troubled by Mr. Trump's
actions see no upside in breaking with him. They plan to take advantage of early impeachment
advocacy by Mr. Nadler and Democrats on the panel to portray the Ukraine matter as simply
another attempt by Mr. Trump's critics to take him down.
"Any article to come out of this? There is no world in which a Republican, especially on the
Judiciary Committee, will accept this," Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the panel's top
Republican, said in an interview. "We have seen this sideshow up close all year."
Joining Mr. Collins on Republicans' side of the dais are some of the most ardent culture
warriors and defenders of Mr. Trump: Louie Gohmert of Texas, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Andy Biggs
of Arizona and Jim Jordan of Ohio, who led
the president's defense in the Intelligence Committee . They have already shown a flair for
the dramatic, organizing conservative lawmakers to
storm the Intelligence Committee's secure chambers in a stunt to stall the proceedings,
which they called a "kangaroo court."
Mr. Collins, a Georgia lawyer with an auctioneer's cadence and a lawyer's knack for tripping
up committee business with time-consuming parliamentary tactics, is ready to make the
proceedings as painful as possible for Democrats. He warned that if Mr. Nadler intended to jam
articles of impeachment through the committee, he would go down in history as "a giant rubber
stamp" for Ms. Pelosi and Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the Intelligence
Committee chairman.
Trump called the Democrats bluff when he released the transcript. That changed their
narrative and destroyed their strategy. Now they can impeach and take it to the Senate. They
won't. They know that is where their continuous charade will be exposed for what it really
is. Nothing more than the slander that was Stormy, Mueller, obstruction, Blasey-Ford, racism,
homophobia, misogyny, collusion, et. al.
I'm beginning to see this impeachment circus as it was practiced in the Soviet Union; present
an obvious political accusations to rub out an opponent and have the rest of the minions pile
on to approve an beforehand agreed upon verdict. Yes this is and will be a circus made for
MSNBC.
So, "this spring", Representative Nadler was asking his (Democratic) colleagues on the
Judiciary panel whether "given the facts before us", they were "heading toward" impeaching
the President. This question was put, of course, weeks if not months before the presidential
conversation with the Ukrainian President that now has them all in a partisan froth. This
proves that for the Democrats, impeachment has always been more a political cause looking for
a reason, than a response to high crimes. That makes this the equivalent to the Clinton
impeachment, generally now acknowledged to have been a political mistake for the Republicans.
That's why the Speaker has been reluctant to allow this process to go forward, and should be
something to keep in mind for Representative Nadler as well.
The GOP line of defense - that the deep state is out to get him - is both nonsense and true.
There is the old saying that it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. In that
context Trump and his minions do have a point. We really are out to get him. From the
beginning of his bizarre, crude, confabulating campaign, a majority of Americans have opposed
him. That's called democracy, not a deep state conspiracy. Trump's lack of fitness,
temperament and preparation are self-evident. Robert Mueller's report cited broad cooperation
with a foreign power in election tampering and highlighted at least 10 instances of
obstruction of justice that might be prosecuted if not for the Justice Department memo
suggesting that a sitting president may not be indicted. It is not a stretch to compare this
bizzaro world to a story of organized crime figures whining that the cops are just out to get
them and those darned reporters just keep printing photos of the bodies and blood. It's just
so unfair!
Here's an an interesting idea for Democrats to ponder: Suppose Trump is impeached and then
Pelosi did NOT immediately send the case to the Senate, but instead declared it would be
wrong to hold a trial in a hot election year, but that it could be picked up later. Of
course, Trump would yell bloody murder about his "right" to a speedy trial but no such right
exists, and besides, didn't McConnell invoke the same in the Merrick Garland case? This would
leave Trump twisting in the wind while the Dems pursued their winning kitchen table agenda.
Of course, a Democratic victory would make the case moot while a Democratic defeat would
still leave the option open to try and remove him. Your thoughts?
How can the White House put up a defense when it's unclear what the charges are? While
witnesses who testified during the impeachment inquiry presented many reasons why they think
Americans should not vote for Trump in 2020, none of them alleged the president committed
treason, bribery or a high crime or misdemeanor. (People who disagree should cite testimony.)
Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified that he put "two and two together" and "presumed" that
the president would refuse to meet with President Zelensky at the White House unless Zelensky
publicly announced he was investigating Burisma and the Bidens. The two presidents met at the
United Nations instead of the White House. The expectation that the Senate will remove the
president from office for meeting Zelensky at the UN instead of the White House is
delusional. Committee Chairman Adam Schiff coaxed witness Fiona Hill into recounting a
childhood incident in which her classmates set her pigtails ablaze, but it's unclear whether
the articles of impeachment will alleged Trump had anything to do with the incident.
"When all is said and done, given the facts before us, are we heading toward impeaching this
president?" You tell lies: The Democratic Party, and its supporters, have called for
impeachment since the day after Trump's election. It's not based on "facts." The premise of
this article is that the Democrats were struggling with a decision about whether to impeach
or not. The premise is false and insincere because the decision to impeach the president was
made before he ever took office. In addition, "The Blue Wave" Democrats ran on impeaching the
president. It was a campaign promise. So there was no struggle to decide. The only "struggle"
was how to present it so it would succeed.
With a Senate acquittal guaranteed, and McConnell skilled at putting on a circus, it's crazy
to impeach Trump and hand the torch to the GOP. The smarter path would be to broadcast to the
public that we know the game is rigged and we're not playing. Pass a strong censure and get
back to campaigning on the kitchen table issues that won the House in 2018. We have both a
winning and a losing formula. Choose to win!
"... "The cost cannot be measured only in lost opportunities, lives and money. There will be a long hangover of shame. Its essence was summed up by Col. Ted Westhusing, an Army scholar of military ethics who was an innocent witness to corruption, not a participant, when he died at age 44 of a gunshot wound to the head while working for Gen. David Petraeus training Iraqi security forces in Baghdad in 2005. He was at the time the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq." ..."
"... " 'I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars,' Colonel Westhusing wrote, abbreviating the word mission. 'I am sullied.' " ..."
In my opinion the most under-reported event of the Iraq war was the suicide of military Ethicist Colonel Ted Westhusing. It was
reported at the end of a Frank Rich column that appeared in the NY Times of 10-21-2007:
"The cost cannot be measured only in lost opportunities, lives and money. There will be a long hangover of shame. Its essence
was summed up by Col. Ted Westhusing, an Army scholar of military ethics who was an innocent witness to corruption, not a participant,
when he died at age 44 of a gunshot wound to the head while working for Gen. David Petraeus training Iraqi security forces in
Baghdad in 2005. He was at the time the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq."
"Colonel Westhusing's death was ruled a suicide, though some believe he was murdered by contractors fearing a whistle-blower,
according to T. Christian Miller, the Los Angeles Times reporter who documents the case in his book "Blood Money."
Either way, the angry four-page letter the officer left behind for General Petraeus and his other commander, Gen. Joseph Fil,
is as much an epitaph for America's engagement in Iraq as a suicide note."
" 'I cannot support a msn that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars,' Colonel Westhusing wrote, abbreviating
the word mission. 'I am sullied.' "
"The tiny pink candies at the bottom of the urinals are reserved for Field Grade and Above." --sign over the urinals in the "O"
Club at Tan Son Nhut Airbase, 1965.
Now that sentiment, is Officer-on-Officer. The same dynamic tension exists throughout all Branches and ranks.
My background includes a Combat Infantry Badge and a record of having made Spec Four , two times. If you don't know what that
means, stop reading here.
I feel that no one should be promoted E-5 or O-4, if they are to command men in battle, unless they have had that life experience
themselves. It becomes virgins instructing on sexual etiquette.
Within the ranks, there exists a disdain for officers, in general. Some officers overcome this by their actions, but the vast
majority cement that assessment the same way.
What makes the thing run is the few officers who are superior human beings, and the NCOs who are of that same tribe. And there
is a love there, from top to bottom and bottom to top, a brotherhood of warriors which the civilian population will forever try
to discern, parse and examine to their lasting frustration and ignorance.
It is the spirit of this nation [Liberty, e pluribus unum and In God We Trust ] that is the binding filament of it all. The
civilians responsible for the welfare of the armed services need to be more fully aware of that spirit and they need to bring
it into the air-conditioned offices they inhabit when they make decisions about men who know sacrifice.
"The Ukrainian Office of the Prosecutor General has drawn up an indictment against the
owner of the Burisma Holdings energy company, ex-Ecology Minister Nikolai Zlochevsky, that
contains information that the son of former US Vice President Joe Biden, Hunter, as a Burisma
board member along with his partners, received $16.5 million for their services, Ukrainian
Verkhovna Rada MP from the ruling Servant of the People party Alexander Dubinsky told a press
conference on Wednesday, citing the investigation's materials. According to him, the money
came from duplicitous criminal activity."
The
corruption in ukraine is off the charts.
The article discusses land privatization but reveals a truly diabolical
purpose for the $7.4 billion that was stolen from ukraine.
"... The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. ..."
"... I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out. ..."
Stephen Kinzer
comments on the creation of a new think tank, The Quincy Institute, committed to promoting a foreign policy of restraint and
non-interventionism:
Since peaceful foreign policy was a founding principle of the United States, it's appropriate that the name of this think tank
harken back to history. It will be called the Quincy Institute, an homage to John Quincy Adams, who in a seminal speech on Independence
Day in 1821 declared that the United States "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom
and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." The Quincy Institute will promote a foreign policy
based on that live-and-let-live principle.
The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats,
sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and
this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. The lack of institutional support has put advocates of peace and restraint
at a disadvantage for a very long time, so it is encouraging to see that there is an effort underway to change that. The Quincy Institute
represents another example of how antiwar progressives and conservatives can and should work together to change U.S. foreign policy
for the better. The coalition opposed to the war on Yemen showed what Americans opposed to illegal and unnecessary war can do when
they work towards a shared goal of peace and non-intervention, and this institute promises to be an important part of such efforts
in the future. Considering how long the U.S. has been
waging war without end
, there couldn't be a better time for this.
TAC readers and especially readers of this blog will be familiar with the people involved in creating the think tank:
The institute plans to open its doors in September and hold an official inauguration later in the autumn. Its founding donors
-- Soros's Open Society Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation -- have each contributed half a million dollars to fund its
takeoff. A handful of individual donors have joined to add another $800,000. By next year the institute hopes to have a $3.5 million
budget and a staff of policy experts who will churn out material for use in Congress and in public debates. Hiring is underway.
Among Parsi's co-founders are several well-known critics of American foreign policy, including Suzanne DiMaggio, who has spent
decades promoting negotiated alternatives to conflict with China, Iran and North Korea; the historian and essayist Stephen Wertheim;
and the anti-militarist author and retired Army colonel Andrew Bacevich.
"The Quincy Institute will invite both progressives and anti-interventionist conservatives to consider a new, less militarized
approach to policy," Bacevich said, when asked why he signed up. "We oppose endless, counterproductive war. We want to restore
the pursuit of peace to the nation's foreign policy agenda."
Trita Parsi and Andrew Bacevich are both TAC contributors and have participated in our foreign policy conferences in recent
years. Parsi and I were on the same panel last fall at our most recent conference. I have also cited and learned from arguments made
by Suzanne DiMaggio and Stephen Wertheim in my
posts here . Their involvement is a
very good sign, and it shows both the political breadth and intellectual depth of this new institution. I look forward to seeing
what they do, and I wish them luck.
Good luck. I hope you will be invited on cable shows. I am tired of seeing the beard from the Foundation of the Defense of Democracies
and his clones.
Once in a while the hosts mess up and they interview someone who doesn't give the correct answer about the M.E., or somewhere
else and I see the blank look on their face as they thank the guess as since it is obvious they cannot process the information.
I generally do not see those guests ever again.
The guidelines are, the world is divided into those who crave U.S. leadership and the evildoers who are constantly testing
our leadership. We must always be vigilant against the latter. It is inconceivable that anyone merely act in their own interest.
It is all about us.
I also am looking forward to reading their thoughts and ideas about a foreign policy that doesn't include the US invading yet
another country under the ridiculous notion that we are somehow being threatened by them. We have the largest military on earth.
It's also telling that we pick on and invade countries that can't actually hurt us. That makes us all the more the bully on the
block. It's to our shame that we even consider these shameful actions.
Exciting news. An early endeavor , if not already accomplished, should be consideration of relevant theoretical models for understanding
competition and cooperation. Since the Cold War and to the present day, variants of the Prisoners Dilemma serve this function.
Prior to that, misconceptions of survival of the fittest led to the disasters of eugenics and WW2. Maybe the new think tank will
outline or draw inspiration from a new theory.
Re: "I look forward to seeing what they do, and I wish them luck."
So do I. Very much so. However, the most prominent realist Washington Think Tank is the Cato Institute. It has well spoken
advocates of realism and restraint including Christopher Preble, Doug Bandow and Ted Galen Carpenter. Unfortunately, the thoughtful
Cato scribes get very little exposure on the MSM compared to the atrocious Heritage, AEI and Brookings nests of go along to get
along Neocon / Neoliberal lackeys. It's not clear to me how and why the Quincy Institute will generate any more leverage.
I've argued many times before that the linchpin of the busted U.S. Global Cop foreign policy model is the Pentagon. As long
as the Pentagon hacks are considered the paragons of Olympian insight and wisdom by the political class and the MSM, nothing will
change.
Related to that though, there actually was a hopeful article in the Atlantic about the newest Pentagon Big Mouth, CENTCOM Commander
General General Kenneth McKenzie:
Hopefully, that is a crack in the wall of Military Exceptionalism. The sooner others start taking a 2x4 to the sanctified occupants
of the 5-Sided Pleasure Palace, knocking them off of their pedestals, the better.
BTW, the new Acting Defense Secretary and MIC Parasite Mark Esper is no friend of the taxpayers. Expect that failed Pentagon
audit that was deep-sixed by Mad Dog Mattis to stay deep-sixed with Esper in the Big Seat.
I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out.
Jeez, who can believe this amongst the "think" tanks: "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than
threats, sanctions, and bombing"
Adam Schiff, the man who every time he talks, shows his incompetence and lack of integrity, but he is the chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee.
"... Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran's Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey's newspaper Yeni Safak , "Bolivia's Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran's Mosaddeg" , and he presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too -- which had occurred on November 10th -- had been a U.S. operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine when Trump's own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist dictatorship. One criminal U.S. President won't publicly expose the crimes of another criminal U.S. President who was his predecessor. ..."
"... The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on the front line of America's war to conquer Russia . Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy, but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or else America's for withdrawing America from Obama's war against Russia) suitable reason for Congress to force Trump out of office. ..."
"... a policy of Obama's that Trump should instead firmly have abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies, whom Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn't simply extended Obama's neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable. ..."
"... But right and wrong won't determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship. ..."
And you know, I'll say this to President Trump. You want to investigate Joe Biden? You
want to investigate Hunter Biden? Go at it. Do it. Do it hard. Do it dirty. Do it the way you
do, do it. Just don't do it by asking a foreign leader to help you in your campaign. That's
your job, it's not his.
My goal in these hearings is two things. One is to get an answer to Colonel Vindman's
question ["Is it improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign
government investigate a United States citizen and political opponent?"] . And the second
coming out of this is for us as a Congress to return to the Ukraine policy that Nancy Pelosi
and Kevin McCarthy both support, it's not investigations, it's the restoration of democracy
in Ukraine and the resistance of Russian aggression.
He wants a return to Obama's anti-Russian Ukraine-policy. Though Zelensky had won Ukraine's
Presidency by a record-shattering 73% because he had promised to end the war (which the U.S.
had started), America's Deep State are refusing to allow that -- they want to force him to
accept more U.S.-made weapons and more U.S. training of Ukraine's troops in how to use them
against its next-door neighbor Russia.
Furthermore, in some respects, Trump is even more neoconservative than Obama was. Trump
single-handedly nullified Obama's only effective and good achievement, the Iran nuclear deal.
Against Iran, Trump is considerably more of a neocon than was Obama. Trump has squeezed
Iranians so hard with his sanctions as to block other countries from buying from and selling to
Iran; and this blockade has greatly impoverished Iranians, who now are rioting against their
Government. Trump wants them to overthrow their Government. His plan might succeed. Trump's
biggest donor, Sheldon
Adelson , hates Iranians, and Trump is his man. On Iran, Trump remains a super-neocon.
Perhaps Adelson doesn't require him to hate Russians too.
Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran's
Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey's newspaper Yeni Safak ,
"Bolivia's Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran's Mosaddeg" , and he
presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too -- which had occurred on November
10th -- had been a U.S. operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine
when Trump's own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist
dictatorship. One criminal U.S. President won't publicly expose the crimes of another criminal
U.S. President who was his predecessor.
The next much-discussed witness that the Democrats brought forth to testify against Trump
was America's Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, on November 20th. Sondland was a hotels
and real-estate tycoon like Trump. Prior to Trump's becoming President, Sondland had had no
experience in diplomacy. At the start of 2017, "four companies registered to Sondland
donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee" ; and, then, a year later,
Trump appointed him to this Ambassadorial post. Sondland evasively responded to the aggressive
questioning by Senate Democrats trying to get him to say that Trump had been trying to "bribe"
Zelensky. Then, the Lawfare Blog of the staunchly neoconservative Brookings Institution's
Benjamin Wittes headlined "Gordon Sondland
Accuses the President of Bribery" and Wittes asserted that "today, Amb. Gordon Sondland,
testifying before the House in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, offered a crystal clear account
of how President Trump engaged in bribery." But Sondland provided no evidence except his
opinion, which can be seen online at "Opening Statement before
the United States House of Representatives" , when he said:
Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for
arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make
a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr.
Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that
these investigations were important to the President.
I asked the President, what do you want from Ukraine? The President responded, nothing.
There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro. No quid pro quo multiple times.
This was a very short call. And I recall that the President was really in a bad mood. I tried
hard to address Ambassador Taylor's concerns because he is valuable and [an] effective
diplomat, and I took very seriously the issues he raised. I did not want Ambassador Taylor to
leave his post and generate even more turnover in the Ukraine Mission."
The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and
was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on
the front line of America's war to conquer
Russia . Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy,
but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his
express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or
else America's for withdrawing America from Obama's war against Russia) suitable reason for
Congress to force Trump out of office.
Given that Trump, even in Sondland's account, did say
"The President responded, nothing. There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro.
No quid pro quo multiple times," there is nothing that's even close to a "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard which is provided by their personal feelings that Trump had a quid-pro-quo
about anything regarding Ukraine -- a policy of Obama's that Trump should instead firmly
have abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies,
whom Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn't simply extended Obama's
neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable.
But
right and wrong won't determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a
two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship.
This is what happens when billionaires control a
country . It produces the type of foreign policies the country's billionaires want, rather
than what the public actually need. This is America's Government, today. It's drastically
different than what America's Founders had hoped. Instead of its representing the states
equally with two Senators for each, and instead of representing the citizens equally, with
proportional per-capita representation in the U.S. House, and instead of yet a third system of
the Electoral College for choosing the Government's Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, it
has become thoroughly corrupted to being, in effect, just one-dollar-one-vote -- an aristocracy
of wealth controlling the entire Government -- exactly what the Founders had waged the
Revolution in order to overthrow and prevent from ever recurring: a dictatorial aristocracy, as
constituting our Government, today.
Trump can easily turn the table on his impeachment assuers calling Ukranian "Revolution of
Dignity" what it was: the smashing of constitutional order and installing far right junta. But he
will never do that.
New
York Times is reporting that Trump was aware of the whistleblower memo when he decided to
resume military aid to Ukraine. But after hearing the testimonies of William B. Taylor,
Alexander Vindman, and Fiona Hill, it appears few, if any, Americans changed their mind about
the conclusions they had already reached. Support and opposition to impeachment is the same as
it was before two weeks of public testimony about Ukraine and Trump. According to CNN , nine
in every ten Americans polled say they feel "very strongly" about their opinion.
Trump has been making several moves to try and insulate himself from the inquiry. For one
thing, he is seeking to distance himself from his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, telling Bill
O'Reilly in an interview that he was not aware of his activities in Ukraine: "No, I didn't
direct him. But he's a warrior. Rudy's a warrior. Rudy went. He possibly saw something." He
added, "Rudy has other clients, other than me." The Justice Department has also asked for a
stay on the ruling that former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress.
Most importantly, the Republican base shows no signs of abandoning Trump. "They're pushing
that impeachment witch hunt. A lot of bad things are happening to them. You see what's
happening in the polls? Everybody said, 'That's really bullshit!'" Trump
said at a campaign rally last night in Sunrise, Florida. The crowd cheered and responded
with chants of "Bullshit! Bullshit!"
Since the beginning of October, polls show no less than 80
percent of Democrats have supported impeachment, no more than 48 percent of independents have,
and no more than 10 percent of Republicans have. Absent a major revelation expect these numbers
to stay right where they are. The presidential election, not impeachment, is what's likely to
determine Trump's fate in 2020.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter at the National Interest .
Will Democrats actually impeach a president of the US without cause/crime? DC's unholy
trinity, (Democrats, media, and the Deep State) don't want their coup to look like a
coup, so they gin up plausible offenses that fall short of treason, bribery, or other
high crimes and misdemeanors. The problem? The left's media narrative relies on nothing
but opening statements from their hearings -- and leaks from Democrats themselves. The
self-described goal of Mr. Schiff's hearings is to impeach and remove from office a
President elected by 63 million Americans. This requires more transparency and public
scrutiny than Mr. Schiff's unprecedented process of secret testimony, followed by
selective leaks to the friendly media to put everything in the most anti-Trump light, in
order to sway public opinion. But a process that denies the president his rights and
pushes through impeachment without a crime, to exert control over the president, will
effectively subjugate the Executive Branch to the Legislative Branch. Once Congress can
remove a president from office without cause, they will call the shots. Any future
president will govern under the threat of losing the Oval Office unless he goes along
with congressional oversight. Presidents will be commander in chief in name only, because
military/ foreign policy decisions will be subject to congressional review and approval,
Judicial appointments will not be limited to Senate approval, and presidential vetoes
will be a thing of the past. Impeachment without just cause would be a precedent for
Congress to overturn presidential elections at will, revoking the separation of powers,
checks and balances, and will have achieved tyranny.
The minority Republicans are not allowed to speak, call witnesses, or issue subpoenas.
They're powerless, have no legal options, and aren't part of this impeachment effort.
Stand up and walk out of the hearings. Expose the show trial for what it is, a Democrat
plot against the president, and a move to dismantle our Republic. As long as Republicans
allow themselves to be sidelined in these hearings, they make it appear a bipartisan
process, giving an air of legitimacy to this kangaroo court.
I am sick to death of our country, our freedom, and our Republic being used as political
capital. Walk out as an American to uphold your oath to "support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. "Liberty,
once lost, is lost forever." -- John Adams
Speak now, Republicans, or forever hold your peace.
Impeachment with flop like a boneless fish, just like Russiagate did. Of course, the
die-hard liberast progressive lunatics infesting the DNC won't admit to this, but then
why should they start embracing reality now?
Looking forward to another round of autistic screeching when Trump takes it again in
2020. I wonder who the demo-rats (and the Deep State) will choose to blame next time?
Maybe the Chinese? Maybe the "Proud Boys" and other so-called "White Extremists"? Maybe
anyone who doesn't "celebrate" LGBT degeneracy?
As the impeachment inquiry moves from the House Intelligence Committee chaired by Rep. Adam
Schiff (D-CA) to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), top House
Judiciary Republican Rep. Doug Collins (GA) says Schiff is the most important witness the GOP
wants to interview - after the whistleblower who sparked the entire affair approached Schiff's
committee before filing an official complaint.
"My first and foremost witness is Adam Schiff," Collins told "Fox News Sunday," adding that
Schiff had "compared himself in the past to a special counsel," while noting that former
special prosecutor Kenn Starr testified during the GOP-controlled House's impeachment of
President Clinton, according to
The Hill .
" [Schiff] has put himself into that position ," added Collins. "If he chooses not to
[testify], then I really have to question his veracity in what he's putting in his report."
"Why are they hiding the stuff from us? If they think they have such a case, give us all the
materials and don't let Jerry Nadler write a crazy letter that says on the 6th, let us know who
your witnesses are. We don't even have the information from the Intel Committee yet. This is
why this is a problematic exercise and simply a made-for-TV event coming on Wednesday. "
According to Politico
, Schiff will begin circulating a report on Monday within the House Intelligence Committee
which will contain the conclusions of his panel's investigation of President Trump's request
that Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
An Australian professor has been charged with implementing a bogus harassment campaign
against herself following the controversial cancellation of a degree program.
Dianne Jolley, a professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology at the University of
Technology Sydney, allegedly sent threatening letters to herself between May and September as a
protest against abolition of the degree in traditional Chinese medicine, university officials
believe.
According to Stuff.com, Jolley, who's also the school's Dean of Science, claimed that in
addition to the letters, various articles of clothing had been sent to her ... had clothes
stolen from her backyard.
As a result, "significant security measures" were put in place to protect the professor. But
after an investigation by Sydney Police, officials ended up charging Jolley with "obtaining a
financial advantage by deception, giving false information about a person or property in
danger, and making false representations resulting in a police investigation."
Jolley attorney Aaron Kerneghan said his client would plead "not guilty" to all charges.
"... Vindman appears to believe the national security bureaucracy's account of America's national interests should be immune from civilian challenge. ..."
"... After all, the idea that the United States has a "national security" interest in preventing Russian hegemony in the Donbass region is not obvious, to say the least. American media paints Russia as the unambiguous aggressor in the Ukraine conflict. But as the Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter has written , the truth of the matter is far more complicated: ..."
"... Washington's roster of provocations is long and damaging . With strong U.S. encouragement, NATO's membership has crept inexorably eastward, reaching the western border of the Russian Federation and even incorporating the three Baltic republics, which had been constituent parts of both Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union. Beginning with George W. Bush's administration, Washington has pressed NATO to expand still farther and offer membership to both Georgia and Ukraine. The United States and its allies have greatly increased the number and scope of their military deployments and war games in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. Barack Obama's administration interfered blatantly in Ukraine's internal political affairs to unseat a democratically elected, pro-Russian government and replace it with a pro-Western regime in 2014. Since then, Washington has made Ukraine a de facto military ally , training and conducting joint military exercises with Ukrainian forces and concluding two significant arms sales to Kiev. ..."
"... John Mearsheimer argues that Putin's annexation of Crimea is best understood as a defensive maneuver: ..."
"... Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a "coup" -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West. ..."
"... In his statement, Vindman suggests that he does not want Americans to have that argument. He posits a Western-aligned Ukraine as self-evidently critical to our national security, and the maintenance of bipartisan support for that premise a duty of a uniformed officer. ..."
"... And Democrats have tacitly affirmed his analysis. From the very beginning of its impeachment inquiry, Nancy Pelosi's caucus has framed Trump's malfeasance in Ukraine as, above all, an affront to America's "national security." ..."
"... Democrats should not let their witnesses (or vestigial attachment to Cold War politics) lead them astray. The notion that America has a clear national security interest in arming Ukraine is dubious on the merits. ..."
...conservatives mustered something approaching a point: that Vindman appears to believe
the national security bureaucracy's account of America's national interests should be immune
from civilian challenge. Or, in the hysterical (and fundamentally
misleading) phrasing of Daily Caller deputy editor J. Arthur Bloom, "This impeachment stuff
is textbook imperial liberalism: the president is accused of thwarting U.S. foreign policy,
because they think foreign policy should not be subject to political control."
Now, there are a few problems with the claim, "Donald Trump is being impeached for nothing
more than challenging the national security Establishment's policy preferences." The biggest,
perhaps, being that Trump has actually done very little to challenge those preferences.
...In explaining why he found Trump's requests of Zelensky alarming enough to merit
reporting, Vindman said:
It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government
investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued
an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as
a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support,
undermine U.S. national security, and advance Russia's strategic objectives in the region.
[my emphasis]
Vindman's analysis here is tendentious in several respects. For one, his assertion that an
investigation of Biden would "undoubtedly" result in the Democratic Party adopting a dovish
posture toward Russia is mere punditry (and given
the many partisan reasons Democrats have for adopting a hawkish policy toward Vladimir
Putin's regime, it's not even very good punditry). More critically, Vindman's statement
suggests that one of his objectives, as an active military officer, was to safeguard
"bipartisan support" for existing U.S. policy in Ukraine. Which is to say: He felt an
obligation to prevent partisan conflict from producing a change in the orders he received from
civilian leadership. That sentiment is genuinely anti-democratic. It's a forthright assertion
that U.S. policy in the region should not be subject to democratic dispute.
This is a contemptible notion in the abstract. And it's even more so in this particular
context. After all, the idea that the United States has a "national security" interest in
preventing Russian hegemony in the Donbass region is not obvious, to say the least. American
media paints Russia as the unambiguous aggressor in the Ukraine conflict. But as the Cato
Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter has
written , the truth of the matter is far more complicated:
Washington's roster of provocations is long
and damaging . With strong U.S. encouragement, NATO's membership has crept inexorably
eastward, reaching the western border of the Russian Federation and even incorporating the
three Baltic republics, which had been constituent parts of both Czarist Russia and the
Soviet Union. Beginning with George W. Bush's administration, Washington has pressed NATO to
expand still farther and offer membership to both Georgia and Ukraine. The United States and
its allies have greatly increased the number and scope of their military deployments and war
games in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. Barack Obama's administration interfered
blatantly in Ukraine's internal political affairs to unseat a democratically elected,
pro-Russian government and replace it with a pro-Western regime in 2014. Since then,
Washington has made Ukraine
a de facto military ally , training and conducting joint military exercises with
Ukrainian forces and concluding two significant arms sales to Kiev.
In this context of persistent Western interference in its border regions, John Mearsheimer
argues that Putin's annexation of Crimea is best understood as a defensive maneuver:
Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in
recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically
important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of
Ukraine's democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a
"coup" -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would
host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to
join the West.
... one can also argue that America has no significant security or economic interests in who
governs a relatively small, poor country on Russia's border. Or that intervening against Russia
in Ukraine's civil war -- when our country will never be willing to invest as much blood and
treasure into that conflict as Moscow will -- is only going to prolong the fighting and get
more innocent people killed. Or that the U.S. government's finite resources would be better
spent on more classrooms for American children than anti-tank missiles for Ukrainian
soldiers.
In his statement, Vindman suggests that he does not want Americans to have that
argument. He posits a Western-aligned Ukraine as self-evidently critical to our national
security, and the maintenance of bipartisan support for that premise a duty of a uniformed
officer.
And Democrats have tacitly affirmed his analysis. From the very beginning of its
impeachment inquiry, Nancy Pelosi's caucus has framed Trump's malfeasance in Ukraine as, above
all, an
affront to America's "national security." This emphasis is likely dictated by
Democrats' desire to attach impeachment to a maximally nonpartisan cause. For the bulk of
elected Democrats' lifetimes, countering Russian aggression has been the transpartisan national
purpose par excellence. Further, the national security officials willing to blow the whistle on
Trump tend to be more comfortable denouncing the president's activities on Ukraine's behalf
than on Joe Biden's. Like Vindman, acting Ukraine ambassador
Bill Taylor framed his objections to Trump's "quid pro quo" around the needs of the
Ukrainian military, rather than the constitutional authorities of the U.S. Congress.
But Democrats should not let their witnesses (or vestigial attachment to Cold War politics)
lead them astray. The notion that America has a clear national security interest in arming
Ukraine is dubious on the merits. And premising the case for Trump's impeachment on that notion
is politically misguided.
Warren Wealth Tax Has Wide Support, Except
Among One Group https://nyti.ms/37OZEEH
NYT - Ben Casselman and Jim Tankersley
Nov. 29, 2019, 5:00 a.m. ET
(graphs at the link)
Senator Elizabeth Warren's plan to tax the assets of America's wealthiest individuals
continues to draw broad support from voters, across party, gender and educational lines. Only
one slice of the electorate opposes it staunchly: Republican men with college degrees.
Not surprisingly, that is also the profile of many who'd be hit by Ms. Warren's so-called
wealth tax, which has emerged as the breakout economic proposal in the Democratic
presidential primary race.
Nearly a year after Ms. Warren proposed it, the wealth tax has the support of six in 10
Americans, according to a new nationwide poll conducted by the online research firm
SurveyMonkey for The New York Times. That support has dipped slightly since July, but Ms.
Warren's plan remains more popular than most proposed tax increases, and its appeal across
coalitions is unusual among high-profile campaign proposals.
(The link provided to the 'new poll' is non-functional.)
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has also proposed a wealth tax, which would hit more
taxpayers than Ms. Warren's version, and several other candidates have announced their own
plans to raise taxes on the rich, with varying degrees of detail.
The other policy plan dominating the primary debate so far -- the conversion to a
government-financed health care system known as "Medicare for all" -- enjoys narrower support
that breaks much more cleanly along party lines. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose it.
Independents favor it two to one, and Democrats support it by an even higher ratio.
As the Democratic contest barrels toward the first caucuses in Iowa and beyond, the
polling continues to show a racial fissure on the subject of the economy, with nonwhite
Democrats expressing more concern about their economic situations than white Democrats. Those
more anxious voters are less likely to support Ms. Warren, or her wealth tax, a dynamic that
could prove consequential as Democrats winnow their field.
Here are three takeaways on Democratic voters, policy proposals and the role of the
economy in the campaign.
College-educated Republican men take exception to a wealth tax.
The wealth tax has lost a few points of support since the last time The Times asked about
the issue, in July. But it remains broadly popular, even more so than it was in February.
Three-quarters of Democrats and more than half of Republicans say they approve of the idea of
a 2 percent tax on wealth above $50 million.
Support for a wealth tax cuts across many of the demographic dividing lines in American
politics. Men and women like it. So do the young and the old. The proposal receives majority
support among every major racial, educational and income group.
College-educated Republican men, though, disapprove of it by a 15-point margin -- though a
vast majority of Republican men with college degrees would have a net worth below the tax
threshold. (College-educated Republican women approve of the policy by an even wider margin
than their male counterparts oppose it.)
One note that might give Republicans pause: The wealth tax is much more popular than the
tax-cut package that President Trump signed in 2017, which only 45 percent of Americans in
this Times survey said was a good move. That's a decline from April, when the law was drawing
slightly more approval than disapproval.
The movement against the Trump tax cuts since then has been powered, oddly enough, by
Republicans. They largely still back the law -- by 76 percent over all, compared with 20
percent of Democrats -- but that support has dropped six percentage points since April.
The shift appears most pronounced among high-earning Republicans, and it contributes to a
striking contrast in tax-plan approval: Americans earning more than $150,000 a year are far
more likely to favor a tax increase on the very wealthy than a package of tax cuts that
delivered the bulk of its benefits to the rich.
Education and race divide Democrats on economic policy.
Among Democrats, education has emerged as a key dividing line on economic policy. Ms.
Warren's tax is overwhelmingly popular (86 percent support) with Democratic voters who have
graduate degrees. Among voters with a high school diploma or less, the policy is still
popular, but meaningfully less so, drawing 75 percent support.
Accordingly, less-educated voters are also less likely to say they favor Ms. Warren on the
economy. That fits with other polling that has found the Massachusetts senator struggling to
win over voters without a college degree.
Strikingly for a candidate who has put so much emphasis on the economy, Ms. Warren is
viewed with caution by voters who care the most about the economy, and by those who are most
worried about it. Among Democrats who say they are "very concerned" about losing their job,
for example, 15 percent say they would trust Ms. Warren most on the economy out of all the
Democratic candidates, compared with 23 percent of other Democratic voters.
Those struggles for Ms. Warren may partly reflect another important divide in the
Democratic electorate: race. Black and Hispanic voters tend to rate the economy more highly
as an issue than their white counterparts. They are also less likely to trust Ms. Warren on
the economy.
Black and Hispanic voters are more likely to choose former Vice President Joseph R. Biden
Jr. as the candidate they would trust on the economy. So are voters who say they are
concerned about their jobs or their economic prospects. But voters' preferences don't fall
neatly along ideological lines: Those same groups also tend to give high ratings to Mr.
Sanders, who is closer to Ms. Warren than to Mr. Biden on most policy matters.
The survey suggests that the newest member of the Democratic field, former Mayor Michael
R. Bloomberg of New York, may have at least a narrow opening with voters on economic issues.
About 6 percent of Democrats said they trusted Mr. Bloomberg most on the economy, putting him
outside the four-person top tier (Mr. Biden, Ms. Warren, Mr. Sanders and Mayor Pete Buttigieg
of South Bend, Ind.) but ahead of the rest of the field.
Mr. Bloomberg drew less support on his handling of health care and international affairs,
however. The other late entrant to the race, former Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, was
well outside the top tier of candidates on all three issues. The findings on that question
came after Mr. Patrick entered the race and after Mr. Bloomberg filed paperwork for a
presidential bid; he formally announced his candidacy later in the month.
Health care remains a partisan issue.
Apart from taxes, health care policy has been perhaps the most significant point of
disagreement among the Democratic candidates. Among the top tier of candidates, Mr. Sanders
and Ms. Warren have emphasized their support for a government-run insurance system that they
call Medicare for all, while Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg have argued for less significant
changes to the existing system.
Compared with the wealth tax, Medicare for all is a much more partisan issue. Republicans
strongly oppose the idea; Democrats even more strongly support it. (Independents support it,
too, but by a narrower margin.)
And Medicare for all doesn't divide Democrats the way the wealth tax does. Democrats of
all ages, races and education and levels support the policy by similar margins.
Warren Wealth Tax Could Slow Economy,
Early Analysis Finds https://nyti.ms/379cpJZ
NYT - Jim Tankersley - Nov. 14, 2019
WASHINGTON -- Senator Elizabeth Warren's proposed wealth tax would slow the United States
economy, reducing growth by nearly 0.2 percentage points a year over the course of a decade,
an outside analysis of the plan estimates.
The preliminary projection from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which was unveiled on
Thursday in Philadelphia, is the first attempt by an independent budget group to forecast the
economic effects of the tax that has become a centerpiece of Ms. Warren's campaign for the
Democratic presidential nomination.
The assessment found that if the tax raised as much new federal revenue as Ms. Warren
intends, and if the proceeds went toward reducing the federal debt, annual economic growth
would slow from an average of 1.5 percent to an average of just over 1.3 percent over a
decade.
The model did not assess growth effects from Ms. Warren's spending plans, which critics
said undercut its findings. Economists who favor Ms. Warren's plan said the analysis did not
accurately account for the economic boost from programs she would fund with the tax revenue,
including universal child care, increased education funding and student loan forgiveness.
Instead, it assumed that the tax revenue would be used to reduce the national debt, a move
that encourages growth in the Penn Wharton simulation. Had the Penn Wharton model factored in
the money's going into programs rather than paying down debt, it most likely would have
produced an even larger drag on growth from the wealth tax.
The model builds on the one that Penn Wharton used to evaluate the tax cuts that President
Trump signed in 2017. That model estimated that the tax cuts would increase economic growth
by roughly 0.06 percentage points per year over a decade, an effect that was much smaller
than White House officials predicted.
Its estimate of Ms. Warren's policy implies the wealth tax would have an effect that is
three times as large as the Trump tax cuts -- but in the opposite direction.
Ms. Warren's plan would impose an annual tax of 2 percent on assets held by Americans,
including stocks and real estate, that total more than $50 million. It would add an
additional 1 percent tax on assets of more than $1 billion. Ms. Warren has said her plan
would raise nearly $3 trillion over a decade.
The proposal has drawn fierce criticism from wealthy Americans, including several titans
of Wall Street. Ms. Warren has delighted in those complaints, splicing some of them into a
campaign commercial that she is set to air on the financial news network CNBC this week.
"I've heard that there are some billionaires that don't support this plan," Ms. Warren
says in the ad, which proceeds to deride several of the plan's critics for financial ties to
Republicans. "All we're saying," she says in conclusion, "is when you make it big, pitch in
two cents so everybody else gets a chance to make it."
Ms. Warren's campaign worked with Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two economists at the
University of California, Berkeley, who support a wealth tax, to estimate how much money it
could raise over a decade. But they did not produce what economists call a dynamic analysis,
which estimates how the proposal would ripple through the economy and affect growth. ...
'Nearly a year after Ms. Warren proposed it,
the wealth tax has the support of six in 10
Americans, according to a new nationwide poll
conducted by the online research firm SurveyMonkey
for The New York Times.'
'Nearly a year after Ms. Warren proposed it,
the wealth tax has the support of six in 10
Americans, according to a new nationwide poll
conducted by the online research firm SurveyMonkey
for The New York Times.'
Stephen Cohen (one of the few pundits who actually knows something about Russia:)
"Almost daily for three years, Democrats and their media have told us very bad things
about Donald Trump's life, character, and presidency. Some of them are true. But in the
process, we have also learned some lamentable, even alarming, things about the Democratic
Party establishment, including self-professed liberals. Consider the following:
The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia
attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an
"attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. But there was no "attack"
in 2016, only, as I have previously explained, ritualistic "meddling" of the kind that both
Russia and America have undertaken in the other's elections for decades. Little can be more
phobic than the allegation or belief that one has been "attacked by a hostile" entity. And
yet this myth and its false narrative persist in the Democratic Party's discourse,
campaigning, and fund-raising.
We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under President
Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National
Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy
and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this operation
"Intelgate," and it has since been well documented by other writers, including Lee Smith in
his new book. Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain leading, and equally
Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed such transgressions.
This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will leave power, but
these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain.
We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be
fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream media --
leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to cover and
report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of Russiagate
allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The New York
Times seem eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and his
appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's critics
accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and
the Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert
Mueller report.
And we have learned, or should have learned, that for all the talk by Democrats about
Trump as a danger to US national security, it is their Russiagate allegations that truly
endanger it. Consider two examples. Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can elude US
missile-defense systems, make new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative and
urgent. If only for the sake of his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so. But even if he
is able to, will Trump be entrusted enough to conduct negotiations as successfully as did his
predecessors in the White House, given the "Putin puppet" and "Kremlin stooge" accusations
still being directed at him?"
The Russia thingie/falsehoods are part of corrupt demrats assault on the US constitution.
They are even now predicting their loss in 2020 due to "interference" and people wanting to
know how corrupt the DNC [front running] select has been!
Demrat allies in the shadow revolving door government of neocon humbug factories are
denouncing Trump for his ignoring their war mongering imperial objects.
[Adding assault to injury? The US Constitution was damning enough on its own. What are
they thinking inside the deep state apparatus? Don't they know that power and privilege is
reserved for holders of wealth by the US Constitution? Who do they think that they are really
working for?]
Friend ilsm may be less nuts than it appears, but friend ilsm is not less incomprehensible
than it appears. Would it be out of place to thank you for ilsm's sake?
Our two-party system was largely useless after FDR, but our two-party system has been
largely destructive since 1968. Let me know if anything really changes.
not that I would be ordinarily predisposed to defend her. The problem with delusions is that
they can easily become self-perpetuating, even easier with the right hand on the tiller.
I have just come back from the land beyond the mountain
This is not a story I was told
When all the people are made out of wood
They build their houses of bones
Sail away, Oh sail away
The edge of the world is near
Sail away, Oh sail away from here
I have just come back from the land beyond the mountain
All the cigarettes are hand rolled
Nothing is bought and nobody is sold
And everything's made of gold
I have just come back from the land beyond the mountain
There a man with wounds I did see
Said: I do not want to escape from reality
I want reality to escape from me
"... If you look at Manafort's history, he seems to work for sleazy dictators.who were either put into power by the CIA or taken out of power by the CIA. I would suggest that his ultimate employer was the CIA. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has finally released his conclusions of the investigation into
Russia's role in the US Presidential Election 2016. The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump
campaign conspired or coordinated with Russians, the press reported.
But there is a curious detail: most people charged have no connection to Russia, as in Manafort's case. The former
Trump campaign manager has been accused of money laundry and illegal foreign lobbying for Ukraine.
Thus, the Mueller investigation findings are leading to Kiev, not Russia. Moreover, Ukraine did admit to
interfering in the 2016 US election helping the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.
In this regard, there are fair questions to raise: why American citizens are indicted and sentenced with less
charges while the evidence of a foreign conspiracy is omitted? Where are fair debates over the issue? Why there were
no special committee hearings to determine the truth?
It is clear: a new investigation is coming. The US prosecutors need to interrogate Ukrainian politicians and
members of the Clinton campaign as well as to probe the activity of Ukrainian lobbyists in Washington.
Thus, the audio recording made public in the Ukrainian media was one piece of evidence of Ukraine's interference.
According to it, a person with a voice similar to the voice of the head of Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau
(NABU), Artem Sytnyk, admitted that he had supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US election.
His office was responsible for publicly disclosing the contents of the Ukrainian "black ledger", which implicated
Paul Manafort, to the media. The document contained a list of secret payments made by Ukraine's Party of Regions to
Manafort.
Earlier, the county administrative court of Kyiv had pledged the director of the NABU Artem Sytnyk, and a member
of the Ukrainian Parliament Sergey Leshchenko guilty of publicizing the pre-trial investigation materials concerning
Paul Manafort and election interference. The information was spread illegally and inflicted damage on the foreign
policy of Ukraine.
Translation:
Admit unlawful acts of the director of the NABU A. Sytnyk and the Ukrainian MP S. Leshchenko concerning the
disclosure and distribution of the information about D. Trump's campaign chairman P. Manafort and the presence of
P.Manafort's name and signatures in the lists of "The Party of Regions' black ledgers" in the materials of the
pre-trial investigation, which was the result of interference in the electoral processes of the United States of
America in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine.
Eventually, a slew of incriminating information forced Paul Manafort to resign as Donald Trump's campaign chairman
in August 2016, just in the middle of election campaign. Serhiy Leshchenko, the Ukrainian MP, intended to share his
gloat with his Facebook followers by posting a message stressing that "after such a blow Trump would not recover".
Translation:
"The Party of Regions' black ledgers" saved the world. Manafort, who was fed from Yanukovich's hands,
leaves with dishonor. Guess, after such a blow Trump will not recover.
P.S. We can clearly see the reaction of the Ukrainian politicians involved in "Yanukovich's black ledgers".
Political culture – you've either got it or you haven't".
Another confirmation of the Ukrainian officials' overt support of Hillary Clinton was the anti-Trump publications
on social media. However, as soon as the Republican had won, the Ukrainian politicians, in particular, the Minister
of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Arsen Avakov and Ukrainian MP Oleg Lyashko began to remove massively their anti-Trump
narratives from their social media pages.
Certainly, the US President did not forgive the Ukrainian leadership actions. On his Twitter page, Donald Trump
criticized the Ukrainian efforts to "sabotage" his campaign.
Moreover, in August 2017, it became clear that on the election day Petro Poroshenko sent Hillary Clinton a
telegram, in which he congratulated her on the victory in the elections even before the announcement of the voting
results. The then Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavel Klimkin personally delivered it. The president
himself did not comment on this at all. His assistants strongly rejected all the suspicions of illegal actions during
the election campaign. However, all these facts speak for themselves.
Despite this, Washington does not refuse financial assistance and cooperation with Ukraine. The intervention in
the US Presidential Campaign 2016 and the leverages issues undoubtedly overshadow the current position of Petro
Poroshenko. Moreover, the growing scandal related to accusations against our diplomat gives us reason to doubt the
trustworthiness of the head of state and his future plans as a presidential candidate for the second term.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest
amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Gmason
,
Why is ok to expose Manafort's corruption to take down Trump, but not ok to expose Hunter Biden's?
That is inconsistent and hypocritical.
Robbobbobin
,
Perhaps loads of nation states, as well as busy international bodies like the UN, more or less
continually interfere in the affairs of other states and some of the time those ongoing programs of
continual interference are congruent with elections being held in the interfered-with states and on
some of those occasions those elections provide an exceptional opportunity that's just too good to
pass up?
summitflyer
,
I should send this information to Chrystia Freeland, our illustrious foreign affairs minister for
casual reading .Would love to see her reaction upon reading it .
Paul
,
There was one man – backed by a very powerful organisation who worked tirelessly to prevent Trump
becoming President. That was Christopher Steele ...
Jen
,
Paul Manafort was working as Donald Trump's campaign manager until he had to resign halfway through
the campaign when Ukrainians and Ukrainian Americans linked to the Democratic National Committee
and Hillary Rodham Clinton's election campaign released information that Manafort had done work for
former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his party The Party of Regions, whose main support
base was in the Russian-speaking eastern part of Ukraine.
The MSM has played up the notion that
Yanukovych was supported by or was drawing close to Vladimir Putin and Russia, and that he rejected
the EU / Ukraine Association Agreement in late 2013. So by bringing up Manafort's past connection
with Yanukovych, the Democrats were trying to tie the Trump campaign to Moscow.
Ben Trovata
,
It's no mystery;the Russians made a better offer! One that included continuing to supply Ukraine
gas ( even they were woefully behind in their payments)! As far as I can tell, this was almost
totally ignored in corporate medIa.( I learned it from David Pear in a BTL comment.)
summitflyer
,
Yes that is what I heard and read also at the time .That was before the coup .
Mistaron
,
Russia had also arranged a $3 billion loan to Yanukovych govt.
Jen
,
The issue I was alluding to is not whether the Yanukovych government really was drawing
closer to the Russian government and its offer to Ukraine of joining a competing Eurasian
Customs Union – the issue was that the Yanukovych government was made out by Western media
to be subservient to Russia by supposedly rejecting the EU / Ukraine association
agreement.
The Yanukovych government had actually asked for more time to study the EU /
Ukraine AA and its fine print. Moscow had apparently tipped off Yanukovych's government
that complying with the AA would have meant (among other things) a complete overhaul of
Ukraine's entire railway-line network to conform with EU railway gauge standards. This in
spite of the fact that some EU member nations like Finland and Spain don't have
EU-compliant railway track gauges themselves (Finland uses Russian gauge as Ukraine does)
– but then, they joined the EU over 20 years ago. Imagine the billions of euros required
to replace the entire railway-line network and railway carriage stock to conform to EU
standards!
There was also no guarantee in the EU / Ukraine AA that full EU membership and its
attendant benefits would accrue to Ukraine if the country complied with the agreement.
It was probably never Yanukovych's intention not to join the EU but instead to be a
member of both the EU and the Eurasian Customs Union. How that would have worked out, I
don't wish to guess – I can only imagine a lot of juggling would be involved if that had
transpired the way I think Yanukovych might have wished.
Ben Trovata
,
Thanx,for above .btw,it was Ukraine that refused that two-direction trade action.It's
presumed( by me ) that the War Party in Washington D.C. would not have this.Oddly,the
R.F. was okay with it,and,as mentioned above,Ukraine owed the R.F. a lot of money for
what had been keeping them warm all winter!
Savorywill
,
I think the gist is that Ukrainian support for Hillary was behind the disclosure of Manafort's
financial misdealing in Ukraine, to embarrass the Trump campaign as Manafort was the Trump campaign
manager at that time. In addition, Hillary was far more pugnacious to Russia than Trump, and her
assistant, Victoria Nuland seems to have more or less orchestrated the coup against the sitting
president, who wanted to accept Russian help, rather getting funds from the IMF (or something like
that). So, it makes sense the the Ukraine powers that be wanted Hillary to win.
Bob In Portland
,
If you look at Manafort's history, he seems to work for sleazy dictators.who were either put into
power by the CIA or taken out of power by the CIA. I would suggest that his ultimate employer was
the CIA.
After Yanukovich was ousted in a US-backed coup in Ukraine Manafort stuck around there and
helped the people who ousted. Just to refresh anyone's memory William Barr worked for the CIA in
the seventies until he got his JD. He was named Attorney General by President Bush (the first)
during congressional and court investigations of Iran-contra, which was a CIA operation to
illegally support the contras attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan government while illegally arming
both Iraq and Iran, allegedly in exchange for releasing hostages in Beruit .
The interagency team
investigating the kidnappings in Beruit was on Pan Am 103 and perished returning to the US.
Robert Swan Mueller III has never himself been specifically identified as being a CIA employee.
However, his uncle, Richard Bissell, was an officer high in the CIA. His wife, Ann Cabell Standish,
was the granddaughter of Charles Cabell, Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the Bay of Pigs
fiasco, who was fired by JFK along with the above-mentioned Bissell and Allen Dulles. Ann Mueller's
granduncle, Earle Cabell, the mayor of Dallas at the time of President Kennedy's assassination
there, was revealed to have been a CIA asset.
Curiously, Mueller's career has been marked with prosecuting cases that touch on CIA covert
activities. He prosecuted John Gotti, who was on trial for distribution of cocaine which has been
identified as having arrived in Mena, Arkansas. He prosecuted Noriega, who was the CIA's point man
in Panama, where the CIA laundered money, moved cocaine and moved weapons for the contras. Mueller
prosecuted BCCI (the international bank which laundered mob and intelligence money). Mueller became
the Director of the FBI a week before 9/11.
Clone
,
Australia gave something like $50 million to the Clinton racket prior to the election. There was no
choice. The next president of the most exceptionally useless nation was scooping up money from
everywhere Hillary and Bill are rotten to the core but heck slipping them $50M under the table was
seen as a nice way to stay on their good side.
Petro 'the pig' Poroshenko and his mate Manafort
lavished cash and black ops media favours on Hillary to buy her support.
The crimes are (1) Hillary selling her prospective presidency, and (2) Petro 'the pig' Poroshenko
conspiring with the Clinton's to assault the democratic process.
They will end up dragging 'the pig' around the streets of Kiev behind a truck with his guts hanging
out. Filthy stinking creature he is.
Graham Hooper
,
John Key the Then PM of NZ Gave them a Big Donation to the Clinton Foundation Pre Elections an
Investment in Future Favours of Meetings ,Trade,5 Eyes,Military Sharing and Service to Protect Each
Other.
bevin
,
The Italian government, defeated in the last elections, also made an enormous 'donation' to the
Clinton Foundation.
Chris Williams
,
Clone – and of course these crimes are ones that need to be listed against the Donbass bloodshed
and the downing of MH17, which the all the governments with victims including Australia have now
gone silent on, knowing that it was a Ukrainian operation.
Michael Cromer
,
Hillary Clinton has actually been 'Bad Mouthing' Assange this week – Beggars belief.
Let us not forget Tony Blair – Teflon Tony aka T B. Liar – How is he able to walk free amongst law
abiding citizens?
Michael McNulty
,
He is free but he can't walk amongst law-abiding citizens. The last time I heard of somebody saying
he was making a citizens arrest of Blair it was a young waiter, serving Blair's family in the
closed-off upstairs of a restaurant with his bodyguards around. That was maybe seven years ago but
I forget where. So he won't even sit amongst diners on a family night out. I suspect others do tell
him he should be in prison.
Actions connected with Kiev may well have influenced US voters, as a key part of the anti-Russian
disinfo networks was "Stop Fake" based in Kiev. That was only the latest in a whole campaign of
propaganda to distort the views of Americans about Russia, and about anyone who wanted to improve
relations with Russia. You can only say it didn't influence voters because Trump won – but if Russia's
knowledge about Clinton had gained more attention he'd probably have won even more convincingly!
As the photo for the article nicely indicates war criminals help each other out.
By hook or by crook
as they say.
By the way did Poroshenko ever sell Roshen chocolate as he promised in his last election campaign?
OK. How did Ukraine interfere with the election? We see another string of allegations that show what?
How did anything done by Ukraine have an impact on the 2016 election outcome? (I would have expected
some focus on the role of the Clintons' business interests in Ukraine on the anti-Russian allegations,
in view of conflicts between Russia and Ukraine.) As for whatever happened in Ukrainian social media,
it had no influence on US voting choices. There was no surge of voters switching parties. We weren't
inundated with foreign propaganda. Americans just can't concede that when their candidate of choice
loses, it might not be due to some "outside factor."
Go back to the election results. Both candidates were opposed by much of their own voting bases,
for some of the same reasons. Roughly half of all registered voters rejected both Clinton and Trump.
They either voted third party or withheld their votes.In the end, Clinton did get more votes, but
Trump got the most electoral votes. All we can say for certain is that a good chunk of the population
forgot what they learned in school about the electoral college process.
Alfred (Cairns)
,
You are saying that Ukraine's so-called government – which was the outcome of a US-orchestrated
putsch – did not succeed in influencing the voting in the USA. I am quite happy with that. However,
they did try to influence the US election and that is another matter entirely.
It's probably money, US and IMF money for which Manafort got a kickback.
He must have operated like that in the Philippines and the Congo to be so sure that he did not
have to register. Even though Manafort was always helping the Republicans only in election
campaigns, the Ukrainians would have been anxious to keep at the $$$teet; so for them Clinton – no
change – was more attractive.
Francis Lee
,
For the purpose of analysis it might be useful to start with US interference in Ukraine rather than
the other way around. The role of US NGOs was one of the key factors in this process. The National
Endowment for Democracy (NED) which was operating quite openly in Ukraine prior to the coup, is
funded by the US government, so strictly speaking it is a GO not an NGO. Also involved was Human
Rights Watch another American NGO.
On the ground in Kiev during the run up and during the Maidan
events, Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine and his neo-con sidekick Victoria Nuland,
Assistant Secretary of State for East European and Eurasian Affairs, strolled around Independence
Square in Kiev offering solace, cookies and support to the insurrectionists. Subsequent to this
Victoria 'f*** the EU' Nuland gave a talk at the press club in Washington openly stating that the
US had funded the whole Ukrainian imbroglio – $5 million was apparently the going rate for this
particular 'colour revolution'. There is also talk that Soros was involved.
The fact that Poroshenko, owed the US and the EU, in the overturning of a democratically elected
government Ukraine is not in dispute. And the fact that Porky made this perfectly clear with his
support for Hilary confirms this.
The degree to which the Ukrainian government meddled in the US election is difficult to gauge,
but what seems clear is that such meddling had no immediate or long term effect on the outcome as
Trump was duly elected.
Jen
,
Victoria Nuland is married to Robert Kagan.
I'll let Wikipedia tell folks all they need to
know about Kagan; I'm too busy holding my nose to stop breathing in the toxic fumes the
couple emits.
The Ukrainians released information about Donald Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort having done
work for past Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych (perceived by the West to have been close to
Moscow while he was leader) with the implication that Trump was being supported by the Russian
government. The information was released in mid-2016. Had it been released closer to the November
elections, it could have had a greater impact on Trump's chances of becoming President and the
Electoral College could have decided differently.
Savorywill
,
Wouldn't have made any difference. So much so-called 'news' is anything but, most people
probably don't know what to believe. I think Trump's election was more a protest vote as much as
anything, People were just sick of the status quo, seeing the world deteriorating around them.
And then, there were voters like me, who detested what Hillary had done in Libya, most
particularly. Destroyed a functioning country with all of the socialist benefits Bernie Sanders
could only dream about, turning the country into a raging hell-hole with constant civil wars 8
years later. Unforgivable, her role in that disaster. I was so relieved that she got defeated,
actually, and Trump did campaign on not militarily interfering with other countries and so far,
touch wood, he hasn't started any new wars.
"... More importantly, the trend at the NATO foreign ministers' meeting at Brussels on November 19-20, in the run-up to the London summit, showed that despite growing differences within the alliance, member states closed ranks around three priority items in the US global agenda -- escalation of the aggressive policy toward Russia, militarization of space and countering China's rise. ..."
"... Stoltenberg said , "Space is also essential to the alliance's deterrence and defence, including the ability to navigate, to gather intelligence, and to detect missile launches. Around 2,000 satellites orbit the Earth. And around half of them are owned by NATO countries." ..."
"... "Is our enemy Russia or China as I sometimes hear?" he added at a press conference with Stoltenberg. "Is it the job of the Atlantic alliance to name them as enemies? I don't think so. Our common enemy, it seems, is the terrorism which is striking all our countries." ..."
"... The congruence of interests between Berlin and Washington vis-a-vis Macron manifested itself in the NATO's endorsement of the US-led escalation against Russia and China, with France rather isolated. However, this congruence will be put to test very soon at the summit meeting of the Normandy format over Ukraine, which France is hosting on December 9, following the NATO's London summit. France is helping Russia to negotiate a deal with Ukraine. ..."
"... With NATO being set up by Washington for a confrontationist posture, Russia and China won't let their guard down. Addressing a meeting of the Russian Federation Security Council on November 22, Putin said , "There are many uncertainty factors competition and rivalry are growing stringer and morphing into new forms The leading countries are actively developing their offensive weapons the so-called 'nuclear club' is receiving new members, as we all know. We are also seriously concerned about the NATO infrastructure approaching our borders, as well as the attempts to militarise outer space." ..."
"... The Russian response is also visible on the ground. The share of modern weapons and equipment in the Russian Army and Navy has reached an impressive level of 70 percent. The first pilot batch of next-generation T-14 Armata tanks will arrive for the Russian troops in late 2019 – early 2020. ..."
The December 3-4 summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in London resembles
a family reunion after the acrimony over the issue of military spending by America's European
allies.
The trend is up for defence spending across European Allies and Canada. Over $100 billion is
expected to be added to the member states' defence budgets by end-2020.
More importantly, the trend at the NATO foreign ministers' meeting at Brussels on November
19-20, in the run-up to the London summit, showed that despite growing differences within the
alliance, member states closed ranks around three priority items in the US global agenda --
escalation of the aggressive policy toward Russia, militarization of space and countering
China's rise.
The NATO will follow Washington's lead to establish a space command by officially regarding
space as "a new
operational domain" .
According to NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg, this decision "can allow NATO planners
to make a request for allies to provide capabilities and services, such as satellite
communications and data imagery."
Stoltenberg said , "Space is also essential to
the alliance's deterrence and defence, including the ability to navigate, to gather
intelligence, and to detect missile launches. Around 2,000 satellites orbit the Earth. And
around half of them are owned by NATO countries."
Equally, Washington has been urging the NATO to officially identify China's rise as a
long-term challenge. According to media reports, the Brussels meeting acceded to the US demand
and decided to officially begin military surveillance of China.
The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo hit out at
China after the Brussels meeting:
"Finally, our alliance must address the current and potential long-term threat posed by
the Chinese Communist Party. Seventy years ago, the founding nations of NATO came together
for the cause of freedom and democracy. We cannot ignore the fundamental differences and
beliefs in the – between our countries and those of the Chinese Communist Party."
So far so good.
However, it remains to be seen if Washington's grand design to draw NATO into its
"Indo-Pacific strategy" (read containment of China) will gain traction. Clearly, the US intends
to have a say in the European allies' growing business and economic relations with China to
delimit Chinese influence in Europe. The US campaign to block 5G technology from China met with
rebuff from several European countries.
On the other hand, the European project has unravelled and the Franco-German axis that was
its anchor sheet has become shaky. The rift between Paris and Berlin works to Washington's
advantage but, paradoxically, also hobbles the western alliance system.
The French President Emmanuel Macron annoyed Germany by his recent calls for better
relations with Russia "to prevent the world from going up in a conflagration"; his brutally
frank remarks about NATO being "brain dead" and the US policy on Russia being "governmental,
political and historical hysteria"; and his repeated emphasis on a European military policy
independent of the US.
"NATO is an organization of collective defense. Against what, against who is it defending
itself? Who is our common enemy? This question deserves clarification," Macron said after
talks in Paris with Jens Stoltenberg, NATO's secretary-general on Thursday, according to the
Times.
He argues that new talks with Russia are vital to European security and has pushed for
European involvement in a new deal to replace the defunct Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces
treaty between the U.S. and Russia.
"Is our enemy Russia or China as I sometimes hear?" he added at a press conference with
Stoltenberg. "Is it the job of the Atlantic alliance to name them as enemies? I don't think
so. Our common enemy, it seems, is the terrorism which is striking all our countries."
The congruence of interests between Berlin and Washington vis-a-vis Macron manifested itself
in the NATO's endorsement of the US-led escalation against Russia and China, with France rather
isolated. However, this congruence will be put to test very soon at the summit meeting of the
Normandy format over Ukraine, which France is hosting on December 9, following the NATO's
London summit. France is helping Russia to negotiate a deal with Ukraine.
The recent phone calls between
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky underscored
the growing interest in Moscow and Kiev at the leadership level to improve relations between
the two countries.
Moscow's breakthrough Avangard missile system with the hypersonic boost-glide vehicle will
be deployed on combat duty with the Strategic Missile Force in December 2019
In the final analysis, the Franco-German relations are of pivotal importance to not only
Europe's strategic future but the western alliance system as such. If anyone was in doubt, the
French veto in October
means sudden death for the proposal on European Union accession of the Balkan state of North
Macedonia, which NATO is inducting as its newest member. Berlin and Washington are livid, but a
veto is a veto.
With NATO being set up by Washington for a confrontationist posture, Russia and China won't
let their guard down. Addressing a meeting of the Russian Federation Security Council on
November 22, Putin said , "There are many uncertainty
factors competition and rivalry are growing stringer and morphing into new forms The leading
countries are actively developing their offensive weapons the so-called 'nuclear club' is
receiving new members, as we all know. We are also seriously concerned about the NATO
infrastructure approaching our borders, as well as the attempts to militarise outer
space."
Putin stressed, "In these conditions, it is important to make adequate and accurate
forecasts, analyze the possible changes in the global situation, and to use the forecasts and
conclusions to develop our military potential."
Significantly, only four days before Putin made the above remarks, Chinese President Xi
Jinping told him at a meeting in Brasilia on the sidelines of the BRICS summit that "the
ongoing complex and profound changes in the current international situation with rising
instability and uncertainty urge China and Russia to establish closer strategic coordination to
jointly uphold the basic norms governing international relations, oppose unilateralism,
bullying and interference in other countries' affairs, safeguard the respective sovereignty and
security, and create a fair and just international environment."
Putin responded by saying that "Russia and China have important consensus and common
interests in maintaining global strategic security and stability. Under the current situation,
the two sides should continue to maintain close strategic communication and firmly support each
other in safeguarding sovereignty, security, and development rights." ( Chinese MFA )
The Russian response is also visible on the ground. The share of modern weapons and
equipment in the Russian Army and Navy has reached an impressive level of 70 percent. The first
pilot batch of next-generation T-14
Armata tanks will arrive for the Russian troops in late 2019 – early 2020.
On November 26, Russian Defence Ministry stated that Moscow's breakthrough Avangard missile
system with the hypersonic boost-glide vehicle will be deployed on combat duty with the Strategic Missile Force
in December.
For the first time, the electronic warfare systems at Russia's military base in Tajikistan will be reinforced
with the latest Pole-21 jamming station that can counter cruise missiles, drones and guided air
bombs and precision weapon guidance systems. Moscow is guarding against the US and NATO
presence in Afghanistan.
Looks like exceptions in US political jargon means "no rivals"... Trump is still dreaming about "Full Spectrum Dominance"
Otherwise he would not populate his administration with rabid neocons, leftover from Bush II administration. As well as
people who were responsible for Obama color revolutions and wars. Instead of gratitude from neocons viper nest in the State
Department he got Ukrainegate as a Thanksgiving present.
Notable quotes:
"... If the US cannot find some modus vivendi with China, then the outcome could be a catastrophic conflict worst than any previous world war, he admonished. ..."
"... A key remark made by Kissinger was the following: "So those countries that used to be exceptional and used to be unique, have to get used to the fact that they have a rival." ..."
"... In other words, he is negating the erroneous consensus held in Washington which asserts that the US is somehow "exceptional", a "uni-power" and the "indispensable nation". This consensus has grown since the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the US viewed itself as the sole super-power. That morphed into a more virulent ideology of "full-spectrum dominance". Thence, the past three decades of unrelenting US criminal wars and regime-change operations across the planet, throwing the whole world into chaos. ..."
"... While sharing a public stage with Kissinger, the Chinese leader added: "The two sides should proceed from the fundamental interests of the two peoples and the people of the world, respect each other, seek common ground while reserving differences, pursue win-win results in cooperation, and promote bilateral ties to develop in the right direction." ..."
"... Likewise, China and Russia have continually urged for a multipolar world order for cooperation and partnership in development. But the present and recent US governments refuse to contemplate any other order other than a presumed unipolar dominance. Hence the ongoing US trade strife with China and Washington's relentless demonization of Russia. ..."
"... This "exceptional" ideological mantra of the US is leading to more tensions, and ultimately is a path to the abyss. Henry Kissinger gets it. It's a pity America's present crop of politicians and thinkers are so impoverished in their intellect. ..."
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger made prudent
remarks recently when he said the United States is no longer a uni-power and that it must
recognize the reality of China as an equal rival. The furor over a new law passed by the US this week regarding Hong Kong and undermining
Beijing's authority underlines Kissinger's warning.
If the US cannot find some modus vivendi with China, then the outcome could be a
catastrophic conflict worst than any previous world war, he admonished.
Speaking publicly in New York on November 14, the veteran diplomat urged the US and China
to resolve their ongoing economic tensions cooperatively and mutually, adding: "It is no longer
possible to think that one side can dominate the other."
A key remark made by Kissinger was the following: "So those countries that used to be
exceptional and used to be unique, have to get used to the fact that they have a
rival."
In other words, he is negating the erroneous consensus held in Washington which asserts
that the US is somehow "exceptional", a "uni-power" and the "indispensable nation". This
consensus has grown since the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the US
viewed itself as the sole super-power. That morphed into a more virulent ideology of
"full-spectrum dominance". Thence, the past three decades of unrelenting US criminal wars and
regime-change operations across the planet, throwing the whole world into chaos.
Kissinger's frank assessment is a breath of fresh air amid the stale and impossibly arrogant
self-regard held by too many American politicians who view their nation as an unparalleled
power which brooks no other.
The seasoned statesman, who is 96-years-old and retains an admirable acumen for
international politics, ended his remarks on an optimistic note by saying: "I am confident the
leaders on both sides [US and China] will realize the future of the world depends on the two
sides working out solutions and managing the inevitable difficulties."
Aptly, Kissinger's caution about danger of conflict was reiterated separately by veteran
journalist John Pilger, who
warned in an exclusive interview for Strategic Culture Foundation this week that, presumed
"American exceptionalism is driving the world to war."
Henry Kissinger is indeed a controversial figure. Many US scholars regard him as one of the
most outstanding Secretaries of State during the post-Second World War period. He served in the
Nixon and Ford administrations during the 1970s and went on to write tomes about geopolitics
and international relations. Against that, his reputation was badly tarnished by the US war in
Vietnam and the horrendous civilian death toll from relentless aerial bombing across Indochina,
believed to have been countenanced by Kissinger.
Kissinger has also been accused of supporting the military coup in Chile in 1973 against
elected President Allende, and for backing the dirty war by Argentina's fascist generals during
the 1970s against workers and leftists.
... ... ...
At times, President Donald Trump appears to subscribe to realpolitik pragmatism. At other
times, he swings to the hyper-ideological mentality as expressed by his Vice President Mike
Pence, as well as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mike Esper. The
latter has labeled
China as the US's "greatest long-term threat".
This week President Trump signed into law "The Human Rights and Democracy Bill", which will
impose sanctions on China over alleged repression in its Hong Kong territory. Beijing has
reacted furiously to the legislation, condemning
it as a violation of its sovereignty.
This is exactly the kind of baleful move that Kissinger warned against in order to avoid a
further poisoning in bilateral relations already tense from the past 16 months of US-China
trade war.
One discerns the difference between Kissinger and more recent US politicians: the former has
copious historical knowledge and appreciation of other cultures. His shrewd, wily, maybe even
Machiavellian streak, informs Kissinger to acknowledge and respect other powers in a complex
world. That is contrasted with the puritanical banality and ignorance manifest in Trump's
administration and in the Congress.
Greeting Kissinger last Friday, November 22, during a visit to Beijing, President Xi Jinping
thanked him for his historic contribution in normalizing US-China relations during 1970s.
"At present, Sino-US relations are at a critical juncture facing some difficulties and
challenges," said
Xi, calling on the two countries to deepen communication on strategic issues. It was an echo of
the realpolitik views Kissinger had enunciated the week before.
While sharing a public stage with Kissinger, the Chinese leader added: "The two sides
should proceed from the fundamental interests of the two peoples and the people of the world,
respect each other, seek common ground while reserving differences, pursue win-win results in
cooperation, and promote bilateral ties to develop in the right direction."
Likewise, China and Russia have continually urged for a multipolar world order for
cooperation and partnership in development. But the present and recent US governments refuse to
contemplate any other order other than a presumed unipolar dominance. Hence the ongoing US
trade strife with China and Washington's relentless demonization of Russia.
This "exceptional" ideological mantra of the US is leading to more tensions, and
ultimately is a path to the abyss. Henry Kissinger gets it. It's a pity America's present crop
of politicians and thinkers are so impoverished in their intellect.
It would be amusing if it wasn't so pathetic. But Schiff has close ties to a notorious Ukrainian arms dealer. Schiff was also
a frequent recipient of campaign cash from meth dealer and Hillary Clinton donor Ed Buck. Buck is the LA Democrat with a penchant
for shooting up homeless black men with meth and having sex with them. He allegedly killed at least two of them and is currently
being charged with two counts of murder. Schiff has yet to disavow him and return his repeated donations.
Paul Pelosi has his own Ukrainian Gas Company
Pelosi's own son Paul Pelosi Jr had his own connection as an officer with a Ukrainian natural gas company. Pelosi actually used his
mother, Speaker Pelosi, in a promotional video for the company. Pelosi Jr. earlier had served as an executive just under Mike Mozilla
with Countrywide during the height of the mortgage crisis of 2008. Countrywide being one of the worse abusers in the mortgage debacle
that almost destroyed America's, and the world's, economy.
Paul Pelosi Jr. made a fortune, walking away unscathed. This before starting a solar energy company to take advantage of huge
Federal Government loan guarantees. Another money windfall for Pelosi, who walked away with a fortune when that company went bankrupt.
Leaving the Federal Government and the taxpayers to make up for the losses. Nevada Senator Harry Reid's son Rory was involved in
much the same scheme. Reid's children, all lobbyists, got rich off fees and loan guarantees from solar companies with no sufficient
market underpinnings. Both companies went belly up, leaving the Federal Government and the taxpayers holding the bag.
Hunter Biden in China
But it is Hunter Biden's relationship with both China and Ukraine that illustrates the corrupt dealings of the Biden family business.
Joe Biden started sucking up to China in 2012 when he toured the country with then-Vice President Xi Jinping. He then toured America
with Xi as his guest. In 2013 he went to China and took Hunter along on Air Force II. Two weeks later Hunter incorporated an investment
firm with John Kerry's stepson, Christopher Heinz, and Whitey Bulger's nephew. Shortly thereafter they received $1.5 billion dollars
for the fund to invest in Chinese research companies.
https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-35/html/container.html#xpc=sf-gdn-exp-2&p=https%3A//www.commdiginews.com https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-35/html/container.html#xpc=sf-gdn-exp-2&p=https%3A//www.commdiginews.com
Duel use technologies approved for export by Biden and Kerry
One of the companies they invested in was a Chinese arms company that imported technologies with dual-use purposes. The investment
required the approval of both the White House and State Department. It should be little surprise that Secretary of State John Kerry
and Vice President Biden saw to it that the deal went through.
The Russia Hoax: James Clapper throws Barack Obama under the busOther investments of the Biden Heinz Bulger fund included a Chinese company that invested in AI technologies like facial recognition.
Again duel use technologies, which will be incorporated into the modern police surveillance state that China has become. Thanks to
Hunter and Joe Biden, and Christopher Heinz and John Kerry.
Kerry and Biden: Burisma and Ukraine
The Kerry, Biden connection continues in Ukraine, though with a twist. Hunter Biden's dealings in Ukraine were so alarming to Christopher
Heinz that he dissolved his working partnership with Hunter Biden because of it. It was too crooked. Too obvious. Too corrupt, even
for Christopher Heinz. But John Kerry was still tied to it. In spades. The origins of the Hunter Biden deal with Burisma dates back
to 2014. Steve Hilton of Fox News laid out the timeline of events brilliantly last Sunday. As well as the ties between Burisma, John
Kerry, and a handful of Democrat Senators who supported a "cash for gas" initiative to purchase $50 million in natural gas from Ukraine.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=6094578904001
Devon Archer and Joe Biden: A curious series of events
On April 16, 2014, Burisma board member and Hunter Biden friend Devon Archer meets with Joe Biden to discuss Ukrainian natural gas.
On April 18th Hunter Biden forms the holding company, Rosemont Seneca, that will be the conduit for Burisma's money. Three days later,
on April 21st, Joe Biden announces the program of US cash for Ukrainian gas, jumpstarting the initiative.
The Coup against Trump: Is John Brennan a Russian Agent?Coincidence? Certainly not. Then it gets even more interesting. Burisma appoints Hunter Biden to its Board of Directors. Even
though he has no experience in oil or gas, or Ukraine, and doesn't speak Ukrainian. It doesn't matter. He is Joe Biden's son. The
fix is in. Devon Archer (far left) is pictured with Joe and Hunter Biden. (Screenshot from Twitter) Burisma pays Rosemont Seneca
$186,000 per month, which Hunter Biden splits with Devon Archer. That's $98,000 apiece, every month. Well more than the $50,000 a
month figure bandied about by the media. At the same time, Burisma pays Hunter Biden's law firm a $300,000 retainer to handle legal
affairs.
Burisma, Kerry, and David Leiter's ML Strategies
Then Burisma hires John Kerry's former Chief of Staff David Leiter to conduct lobbying on behalf of Burisma and Ukrainian natural
gas. It pays Leiter's consulting group, ML Strategies, $90,000. Leiter makes $3,000 contributions, in three $1,000 payments, to Democrat
Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey and New Hampshire Senator Jean Shaheen. Shaheen and Markey write a letter to President Obama supporting
a "cash for gas" relationship with Ukraine, and calling for an expansion of Ukrainian natural gas exploration. Burisma releases a
press release praising Markey and Shaheen's letter. Leiter also makes three $1000 contributions to Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal.
Blumenthal immediately announces his support for the Ukrainian "cash for gas" initiative. (
Steve Hilton: The
real Ukraine scandal is US cash for gas -- It involves the Bidens and a growing list of Dems )
Joe Biden work on behalf of ML Strategies
Shortly thereafter Joe Biden makes his famous trip to Ukraine where he demands the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor Victor Shokin,
who is looking into Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden.
AG William Barr and Atty. Durham closing in on the Obama, Brennan coup plottersAfter the prosecutor is fired Hunter Biden's lawyers file a brief with the new prosecutor in Ukraine, currying favor, and saying
explicitly that the charges of corruption against Shokin were disinformation planted by Western governments. https://www.youtube.com/embed/KCF9My1vBP4
Hunter Biden continues to receive payments from Burisma until April 2019, one month before Joe Biden announces his run for the Presidency.
He has received close to $6 million dollars thus far. There are reports that Rosemont Seneca received an additional $900,000 payment
intended for Joe Biden himself. https://www.youtube.com/embed/KCF9My1vBP4 Hunter Biden continues to receive payments from Burisma
until April 2019, one month before Joe Biden announces his run for the Presidency. He has received close to $6 million dollars thus
far. There are reports that Rosemont Seneca received an additional $900,000 payment intended for Joe Biden himself. Hunter Biden
continues to receive payments from Burisma until April 2019, one month before Joe Biden announces his run for the Presidency. He
has received close to $6 million dollars thus far. There are reports that Rosemont Seneca received an additional $900,000 payment
intended for Joe Biden himself.
Hunter and Joe Biden's admission of consciousness of guilt
This week Hunter Biden stepped down from the board of the Chinese holding company but retained his 10% equity investment. The owners
of the company have yet to state what exactly Hunter Biden's duties were. The same could be said of Burisma. Joe Biden says he never
discussed his son's business affairs. Hunter says otherwise, in an interview with the New Yorker. Biden's response to his son's Burisma
news. "I hope you know what you are doing". Not exactly an endorsement. Certainly a recognition that Joe Biden knew what Hunter was
up to. And he knew it stank to high heaven. Joe Biden announced yesterday that his son will have no dealings with any government
if he is elected President. This begs the question. If it is improper if Biden is President, then it was improper when Biden was
Vice President. Rather than clearing Biden and his son, it is proof of consciousness of guilt, and acknowledgment of impropriety.
" Wasn't it inappropriate for someone like you in the middle of all this to have your son collecting money from this big credit
card company while you were on the floor protecting its interests?"
Brokaw sets forth the case against Biden
"That's a reference to your son being hired right out of law school by a big company here in Delaware that's in the credit card
business, MBNA. He got about $100,000 a year, as I recall. You received $214,000 in campaign contributions from the company and from
its employees. At the same time, you were fighting for a bankruptcy bill that MBNA really wanted to get passed through the Senate
making it much tougher for everyone to file bankruptcy. Senator Obama was opposed to the bill. Among other things, you couldn't in
fact claim that you had a problem because of big medical bills."
"You voted against an amendment that would call for a warning on predatory lending. You also opposed efforts to strengthen the
protection of people in bankruptcy. This is an issue that you've heard about before. Your son was working for the company at the
same time. In retrospect, wasn't it inappropriate for someone like you in the middle of all this to have your son collecting money
from the big credit card company while you were on the floor protecting its interests?"
Biden response, as with all questions about Burisma: "Absolutely not!"
James Biden and the Obama billion-dollar housing contract
Joe Biden's brother James has been feeding at the trough as well, securing a $1.2 billion dollar contract with the Pentagon, while
his brother was Vice President, to build housing in Iraq. James Biden had no experience in construction or building houses, even
though he landed a contract that would make Halliburton and Dick Cheney turn green. (
Joe Biden's Family Has Been Getting Rich off His Political Career for Decades – PJ Media )
Hillary Clinton and the corrupt Clinton Foundation
Then there is Hillary Clinton's well-documented history of graft, pay to play, and unbridled corruption. The Uranium One scam. The
Clinton Foundation slush fund. Stealing billions of dollars from Haiti by running all aid through the Clinton Foundation. Spending
millions on Chelsea's wedding, all paid for by the Clinton Foundation.
FISA
Court exposes Obama's abuse of NSA to spy on AmericansIn 2016 Ukrainian donors gave more
money to the Clinton Foundation than any other country. Roughy $10 million dollars. More than Saudi Arabia ($7.3 Million). Of
course this pales in comparison to the $240 million the Clinton Foundation received in the Uranium One scam. On a side note, the
person who delivered the Uranium One sample directly to the Russians in Moscow was none other than FBI Director Robert Mueller. So
many curious facts.
The Steele Dossier, the corrupt Ambassador Yovanovich
This doesn't even touch on the Steele Dossier and Sydney Blumenthal getting dirt on Paul Manafort and Donald Trump from Ukraine and
passing it on to the DNC, DOJ and FBI. It doesn't touch on the Clinton loving Ambassador Yovanovich working with George Soros and
Ukraine to manufacture dirt on Manafort and Trump and pass it on to the State Department and DNC.
Obama Brennan coup involved State Dept., DOD, DNI, DOJ, CIA and FBIOr the fact that when the Hunter Biden / Burisma investigation was shut down, so was the investigation the Soros group that worked
to find dirt on Trump. Or the recent revelation the Ambassador Yovanovich had a list of conservative American journalists illegally
spied on. Whether its political corruption. Or old fashioned self-enrichment. Barack Obama ran an administration where senior officials
were lining their pockets in Pay to Play schemes on a level that would make Richard Nixon blush.
Draining the swamp of Democrat corruption and abuse of power
At the same time, senior intelligence and Justice officials were spying on a major Presidential candidate. Laying the groundwork
for a rolling and ongoing coup against the duly elected sitting President of the United States, Donald Trump. That continues to
this day. The release of the IG Horowitz report next week on FISA abuse will demonstrate the abject corruption of the DOJ, FBI
and our intelligence agencies. William Barr and US Attorney John Durham have earth-shaking indictments in the works that will,
at long last, blow the lid off the Russia hoax. Exposing the coup plotters and bringing the final curtain to the Obama legacy.
Yet here we are in the midst of the current political impeachment crisis. The documented corruption and pay to play schemes at
the very top of the Obama team must now be revealed and exposed. Joe Biden and John Kerry are as corrupt and dangerous as Hillary
Clinton ever was. We don't have to take Joe Biden's word for anything. We already have his confession.
"... "This is the official statement from Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley is one of the biggest bank holdings in the USA. Here you can see a cash flow of Rosemont Seneca Boa company owned by Devon Archer, for a year and a half (from May 2014 to October 2016). According to the bank statement, starting from May 2014 to October 2015 Burisma company transferred to Rosemont company $4.817 million, and the latter transferred a payment amounted to $871,000 to the account of Biden," ..."
"... When Miss Vicki F*TheEU Nuland was scheming with the American ambassador to insert the American stooge "Yats" as she called him, into the leadership of the Ukraine, there was talk about how all the Ukraine gold was being moved to the US for "safekeeping". Does anyone know what happened to their gold reserves? ..."
"... The only future Ukraine has is an impoverished depopulated backwater, like the Baltics. A source of cheap labour and cheap prostitutes for the EU – the only thing Ukraine produces the EU wants. ..."
The Ukrainian Office of the Prosecutor General has drawn up an indictment against the owner of the Burisma Holdings energy
company, ex-Ecology Minister Nikolai Zlochevsky, that contains information that the son of former US Vice President Joe Biden,
Hunter, as a Burisma board member along with his partners, received $16.5 million for their services, Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada
MP from the ruling Servant of the People party Alexander Dubinsky told a press conference on Wednesday, citing the investigation's
materials. According to him, the money came from duplicitous criminal activity.
Another Rada member, Andreii Derkach, had earlier posted,
to Facebook, on November 11th, what he alleges to
be photos of bank statements and other financial records documenting the flows of money from Ukraine into the partnership that Joe
Biden's son Hunter Biden and his friend the Yale college roommate of John Kerry's stepson Christopher Hines, Devon Archer, had set
up.
The partnership, Rosemont Seneca Boa, is associated with their Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC.
The data on the veiled transfer of funds for lobbying activities personally to J. Biden were obtained during the investigation.
Money in the amount of over USD 900 thousand was transferred to the aforesaid Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, the resident company,
with an indication of 'Remuneration for consulting services' as payment details.
The person was identified and interviewed as
a witness in the course of the investigation, who has been personally engaged in holding transactions for laundering and legitimization
of funds in favor of M. Zlochevsky and the Bidens. Investigators possess original copies of the payment instruments and engineering
means, whereby the said bargains were performed.
Through making use of the political and economic leverages over new government authorities of Ukraine and intimidating them
with the issue of granting financial assistance to Ukraine, Joe Biden has actively promoted the closing of the criminal cases
against M. Zlochevsky and Burisma Group corporate executives.
Another document:
According to the data from the Financial Intelligence Unit of Latvia, Wirelogic Technology AS and Digitex Organization LLP paid
from July 2012 to December 2015 to Burisma Holdings Limited (Cyprus) account established with AS PrivatBank amounts of USD 14,665,982
+ EUR 366,015 and USD 1,964,375 accordingly 'as payments under the loan agreement.'
Consequently, the part of the aforesaid
funds was charged off in favor of Mr. Alan Apter (EUR 302,885), Mr. Aleksander Kwasniewski (EUR 1,150,000), Mr, Devon Archer and
Mr. Hunter Biden [no amounts specified for either].
A letter
is shown addressed to Derkach from "The Prosecutor Office of Ukraine," the "General Prosecutor Office of Ukraine," and signed
by the Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka, dated 30 October 2019. It said:
As a result of the pre-trial investigation on 02.09.2019, the investigator decided to close the above mentioned criminal proceedings
on the basis of paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Art. 284 of the CPC of Ukraine in connection with the lack of corpus delicti [evidence
of a crime]. There are no grounds for re-entering information on the facts stated in your application" for "Pre-trial Investigations.
The Burisma cases would not go to trial.
Among the photos that Derkach showed in his article are a "CLIENT STATEMENT for the Period May 1-31 2015" from "Morgan Stanley
Private Wealth Management" showing, for example, that on "5/13," "Funds Transferred" by "WIRED FUNDS SENT" "BENE. ACCT. ROBERT [Hunter]
BIDEN" were "15,000.00".
Derkach says:
Shokin [the man Joe Biden had fired] has repeatedly called upon the NABU director Sitnik in the criminal proceedings on Burisma
case, but always got the run-arounds.
and asks:
Why was the NABU in such a hurry to close the cases of Burisma, Zlochevskiy and Biden, and for whom did they collect personal
data on Shokin?
Before noting that:
the moment when Shokin demanded from NABU to investigate facts of international corruption coincided with the arrival of US
Vice President Joe Biden to Ukraine. And $ 1 billion of loan guarantees that the United States had to provide Ukraine depended
on Biden.
He shows a time-line indicating that the turning-point to close down the investigation was "Biden's visit to Kyiv" occurring "December
7-8, 2015." On "June 3, 2016," was the "Signing by the Government of the United States and Ukraine of loan guarantee agreement [U.S.
taxpayers to take any loss] worth $1 billion."
Starting from May 2014 to October 2015 Burisma company transferred to Rosemont company $4.817 million, and the latter transferred
a payment amounted to $871,000 to the account of Hunter Biden, son of former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, reported MP Andriy
Derkach in a video blog on Facebook.
"This is the official statement from Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley is one of the biggest
bank holdings in the USA. Here you can see a cash flow of Rosemont Seneca Boa company owned by Devon Archer, for a year and a
half (from May 2014 to October 2016). According to the bank statement, starting from May 2014 to October 2015 Burisma company
transferred to Rosemont company $4.817 million, and the latter transferred a payment amounted to $871,000 to the account of Biden,"
said Derkach adding an official statement from Morgan Stanley.
He noted that in order to help the investigation, he made public new documents on international corruption, which were transferred
to him by investigative journalists in 11 criminal proceedings.
Derkach reminded that in total, according to his data from the report of Financial Intelligence Unit of Latvia, in favor of
two shell-offshore companies, as well as Hunter Biden with partners, the Burisma company paid no less than $16.5 mln.
Kolomoysky is also the chief political benefactor of Ukraine's current President, Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Consequently, Kolomoysky
had supported both the overthrow of Yanukovych and the recent election of Zelensky.
For Kolomoysky, instead of Zlochevsky, to be targeted in corruption investigations that would be supported by Kolomoysky's agent
Zelensky, would be unlikely, unless America's current President, Donald Trump, were to abandon entirely his predecessor's, Ukraine-policy,
and were to require Zelensky to do likewise, and Zelensky then were to obey that command from the U.S. White House.
Those things are, as of yet, not expected to happen.
On November 20th, the U.S.-allied 'news'-agency, Reuters, headlined with the anodyne "Ukraine widens probe against Burisma founder
to embezzlement of state funds" and buried in that 486-word article - and provided no further information regarding - the stunning
15-word statement (the real news in the article), that:
The investigation [by Ukraine's Government, of Zlochevsky] is effectively on hold, however, because the Ukrainian authorities
cannot determine Zlochevsky's whereabouts."
Reasonable presumptions would be that Zlochevsky had received advance notice that he was going to be targeted in yet another 'investigation'
into alleged Burisma corruption and had fled Ukraine, much as he had done when Yanukovych was ousted in 2014.
Consequently, thus far, U.S. President Trump has been adhering to Barack Obama's Ukraine policy (which targeted the pro-Yanukovych
Zlochevsky, instead of the anti-Yanukovych Kolomoysky). However, with the recent firing of Obama's Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch,
that could change.
Although virtually all of the press says that Mr. Zlochevsky owns Burisma, both of the detailed investigations that have
been done of the matter indicate that Zlochevsky sold majority-ownership of the company in 2011 to a Ukrainian billionaire,
Ihor Kolomoysky.
That's interesting. I didn't know that. Kolomoisky's a slippery bastard. Now it appears he's changing sides yet again, at least
if this latest report
from the NYT is to be believed:
"Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently
elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give
up on the West and turn back toward Russia."
It'll be interesting to see if Kolomoisky's latest treachery helps to hasten Biden's downfall!
Seamus Padraig ,
Wouldn't it be poetic justice if the Clintonoids' destruction of Ukraine ends destroying them in return? I would laugh my ass
off!
Less than six hours after Bojo's disastrous performance on LBC Radio this morning (
here ) we have a 'terrorist attack' in London. There needs to be a modern-day Nuremberg Trials.
When Miss Vicki F*TheEU Nuland was scheming with the American ambassador to insert the American stooge "Yats" as she called him,
into the leadership of the Ukraine, there was talk about how all the Ukraine gold was being moved to the US for "safekeeping".
Does anyone know what happened to their gold reserves?
paul ,
It's in safe hands now, having been flown out to the US, along with the 140 tons of Libyan gold and the Iraqi gold and the Venezuelan
gold and the gold from the basement of WTC 7. So we can all sleep easy now. Any country taking out IMF loans has to hand over
its gold to Uncle Sam.
Just as well. Can't be too careful when there are all these standard issue Mark 1 Foaming-At- The-Mouth-Radical-Moslem-Terrorists
lurking around London Bridge, as supplied by Central Casting. Luckily they are all on the MI5 payroll so our splendid spook chaps
can keep an eye on them.
paul ,
They have lost their oil/ coal/ steel/ gas/ metallurgy/ chemicals/ engineering/ motor vehicle/ shipbuilding/ aircraft/ locomotives/
armaments/ spacecraft/ agricultural machinery industries, and ten million of their population, so they might as well lose their
gold as well.
George Cornell ,
So what possible expertise or wisdom was Hunt Rhymeswith Biden giving time the board of Burisma? I posed this in an NYT blog and
got the reply that the 100k/month was for "the respectability" Rhymeswith would bring to the board. 'Struth!. It's Saturday Night
Live every night in Washington.
Here it is more officially. Hunter was hired to "boost the reputation of Burisma", as only cokehead sex addicted dishonorably
discharged rejects from the Navy can.
King Herod running a babysitting service would make more sense.
This is surely a type of Will Rogers effect.
George Cornell ,
And just for one more whack at what should be a dead horse, most will have noted that former Polish President Krasniewski, handpicked
for the interview in the Daily Mail linked above, is the same Krasniewski who is mentioned in the article above as receiving 1.15
million euros and a few other millions in loose change from Burisma.
He says earnestly that Biden Jr. never abused his position
on the Burisma board. But says little about what surely is a sham contract with Biden Jr. – as to what Biden's, and his own deliverables
might have been. No mention by the Mail about his conflict of interest, who seem to be after just allowing Krasy to defend the
indefensible, viz. the more appalling of the two Bidens.
No wonder poor Poland stays in NATO and spends money on American arms at the expense of pressing social needs, with leaders
like Krasy.
MichaelK ,
Trump's rubbing his tiny hands together with glee at the thought of Joe Biden running against him in next year's election! Biden's
the 'perfect' candidate and Trump will wipe the floor with him. Apparently Ohama has raised questions about Biden's 'gualities'
as a candidate, that's probably because he's up to his turkey neck in the corrupt swamp of Ukrainian's dire politics along with
his pin-head son, Hunter; or 'Hunt' as I prefer to call him.
Perhaps the Democrats have decided to sit the next election out, because they sense that none of the sanctioned candidates
stand a chance against Trump. Perhaps this is why the billionaire Bloomberg has thrown his golden crown into the ring. The Battle
of the Billionaires should be a 'democratic' spectacle worth watching, from a safe distance.
paul ,
Apart from Afghanistan, Ukraine is probably the most corrupt country in the world. It makes Nigeria look like a model of good
governance.
The income per head there is less than Egypt. It is a failed state, a total basket case.
It is a CIA/ NATO playground to aggressively confront Russia.
Tens of billions have been poured into this poor and egregiously corrupt country by the EU, IMF, and CIA Front Groups like the
National Endowment For Democracy to prop up the Fascist Coup Regime that was installed there in 2014.
Surprisingly enough, all this has promptly evaporated into private foreign bank accounts. There is nothing to show for it.
Ukraine, just like Iraq before it, has been a happy hunting ground for corrupt US politicians and their junkie offspring.
Hence the howls of outrage when Trump threatens their pork barrel by threatening to scale back US involvement in Ukraine.
The only future Ukraine has is an impoverished depopulated backwater, like the Baltics. A source of cheap labour and cheap prostitutes
for the EU – the only thing Ukraine produces the EU wants.
Grafter ,
Corrupt individuals of one fascist regime (Ukraine) handing out billions to their partners of another corrupt fascist regime (America).
"Consultancy fees" for what exactly ? Anyway nothing to see here it's all perfectly normal "business". Move along now.
Vierotchka ,
Ihor Kolomoysky is the hand in the Volodymy Zelensky puppet.
lundiel ,
I was wondering if they would ever get round to investigating Hunter Biden's activities. Let's hope this forces them to do so.
LeRuscino ,
The Dems have gone into full self-immolation mode & handed Trump 2020 on a plate !
Hilarious to watch the "Pavlov's Dogs" who were trained to hate Trump, like good little sheep, see their fantasies go up in
smoke. Don't think for one minute (even second) that I support Trump but I do hate Sheep as their naivety is responsible for 99% of
the World's woes.
wardropper ,
One self-immolator handing the election to another self-immolator.
Let's face it, nobody wants to be President of the United States any more.
It's just too much hard work serving the real owners of the White House.
We've reached the "Caligula" stage of the fall of the American empire.
It's terminal.
"... Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies. ..."
"... No informed American can afford to not know the names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. > ..."
"... Hersh hoped that future historians would document the fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved the takeover. ..."
"... The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket. ..."
"... In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent. ..."
"... That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book. Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters. ..."
"... Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state. However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and often place American interests second to that of the lobby. ..."
Although it is generally understood that American neoconservatives pushed hard for the war
in Iraq, this book forcefully argues that the neocons' goal was not the spread of democracy,
but the protection of Israel's interests in the Middle East. Showing that the neocon movement
has always identified closely with the interests of Israel's Likudnik right wing, the
discussion contends that neocon advice on Iraq was the exact opposite of conventional United
States foreign policy, which has always sought to maintain stability in the region to promote
the flow of oil. Various players in the rush to war are assessed according to their motives,
including President Bush, Ariel Sharon, members of the foreign-policy establishment, and the
American people, who are seen not as having been dragged into war against their will, but as
ready after 9/11 for retaliation
Every American should read this superb book about the intimate connection between the
state of Israel and the Americans who planned and promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003
(and who still influence U.S. policy in the Middle East). This very well-researched and
well-argued book will enlighten Americans who want to understand how the Jewish State of
Israel powerfully shapes U.S. Middle East policy.
Stephen Sniegowski provides a detailed look at the network of die-hard pro-Israel
Neoconservatives who have worked in the U.S. government, in think tanks, and in the news
media to shape American foreign policy to serve the needs of Israel at the expense of the
U.S. From media baron Rupert Murdoch, whose 175 newspapers around the world ALL editorialized
in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, to
Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and later Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, to
Vice President Dick Cheney, to the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, the
neoconservatives successfully persuaded President George W. Bush to invade Iraq to promote
Israel's foreign policy interests.
Sniegowski describes how the Neocons promoted lies about Saddam Hussein's supposed Weapons
of Mass Destruction and his supposed ties to al-Qaeda terrorists from a network of think
tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Middle East Media Research Institute,
Hudson Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy, and the
Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
He also traces the influence of Israeli Zionist Oded Yinon on the American
Neoconservatives. Yinon wrote an article in 1982 entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the
1980s" that called for Israel to bring about the dissolution of many of the Arab states and
their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian groupings. This is basically what
is happening to Iraq and Syria today. He also called for Israelis to accelerate the
emigration of Palestinians from Israel, whose border he believed should extend to the Jordan
River and beyond it.
Yinon's article influenced a paper written for the Israeli Likud government of Benjamin
Netanyahu in 1996 by American neoconservatives Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David
Wurmser entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". This paper stated
that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel's
claim to the West Bank and Gaza. Like Yinon's article, it also called for the removal of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the weakening of Syria to promote Israel's interests. It was
written five years BEFORE the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. These same three
men - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser - who advised Netanyahu's Israeli
government on issues of national security would later advise President George W. Bush to
pursue virtually the same policies regarding the Middle East.
If you want to understand how and why powerful pro-Israel neoconservatives in the U.S.
misled Americans and convinced President George W. Bush to order the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003, and how they persuaded the U.S. Congress to give Bush the authority to order the
invasion, read this outstanding book.
Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper
entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think
tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to
foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies.
The policy was adopted by the Israeli pro-settler right wing and Jewish activists in and
around the Clinton and Bush administrations such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David
Wurmser (who all helped produce the original document). They identified as targets Iraq,
Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and were handed a golden opportunity after the 9/11 attack on
the World Trade Centre. Iraq was falsely presented as an Al Qaeda base and the media planted
with stories about an imminent attack on the United States using WMD. Despite the CIA knowing
all along that the WMD didn't exist, the US still invaded Iraq and the story was quietly and
unbelievably changed to "building democracy".
As Sniegoski points out, the war has exceeded the cost of Vietnam and the same activists,
now working through Hillary Clinton are looking for "incidents" in Iraq to trigger the next
phase of the plan which is a US attack on Iran.
UPDATE October 2014:
And it gets worse: The 911 story itself keeps morphing. Google "Building 7", YouTube "911
Missing Links" or check the article at http://911speakout.org/7TOCPJ.pdf. >
Important book for those trying understand the chaos that
is currently reigning in the Middle East. From the lies based NEOCON attack on Iraq trumpeted
by the mainstream USA media as a fight to save Western Civilization, to the rise of ISIL.
This books will make those connections clear. No informed American can afford to not know the
names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. >
On January 27, 2005, [...] posted the remarks of Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker
contributor) at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York that a neoconservative cult had
taken over the American government.
Hersh hoped that future historians would document the
fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to
overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The
Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved
the takeover.
Other books have stressed how the neoconservative ideology is contrary to traditional
American values: Reclaiming the American Right (Justin Raimondo), America the Virtuous (Claes
Ryn), Where the Right Went Wrong (Patrick Buchanan).
"Memoirs of a Trotskyist" in Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (Irving Kristol)
provided a neoconservative account of the origins of neo-conservatism. Sniegoski noted
correctly that the term neoconservative originated with leftists critical of their former
comrades for attempting to infiltrate the Democratic and Republican parties. Thanks to
leftists who call neoconservatives the ultra-right and to conservative dupes who think that
anyone using a conservative label is a conservative, the neoconservative cancer has spread
through the fragile American political body.
The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group
attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a
detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to
overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket.
Unlike earlier secret plots to take over the American government, Sniegoski explained how it
was possible for the neoconservatives to operate as a relatively transparent cabal. However,
he observed that the neoconservatives used a Trojan horse technique to take over the American
conservative movement. The goal of the neoconservatives is to promote endless wars regardless
of whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power.
The neoconservatives do not represent a popular mass movement in America. Instead, the
neoconservatives rely upon the co-operation of other groups. Sniegoski provided extensive
documentation of which groups enabled the neoconservatives. For example, the Christian
Zionists duped their followers into sacrificing money and soldiers. Zionism originated with
the writings of Moses Hess (who helped Karl Marx write The Communist Manifesto, was nicknamed
the Communist Rabbi, and who is buried in Israel). In 1862, Moses Hess published Rome and
Jerusalem. Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism (Shlomo Avineri) provided a detailed
explanation of the relationship between Communism and Zionism.
The reason for the fragility of American democracy is the failure of many Americans to
understand the most basic aspects of the American political system and of their
religions.
The Transparent Cabal is an important starting point for understanding how a neoconservative
cult opposed to traditional American political and religious values is able to destroy
America with endless wars.
_The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, And the
National Interest of Israel_, published in 2008 by Enigma Editions of IHS Press, by scholar
Stephen J. Sniegoski is a thorough examination of the role of the neoconservatives in pushing
for war in the Middle East (beginning with the war in Iraq and pushing onwards towards Iran)
in order to protect the national interests of Israel. Sniegoski makes the claim that the
neoconservatives have been the fundamental force behind the war efforts of the United States
and have played a particularly prominent role in the Bush administration. While these claims
have now become common knowledge, Sniegoski makes an important contribution by tracing the
history of the neoconservative movement and its links to prominent pro-Jewish and pro-Israel
groups. In particular, Sniegoski claims that neoconservativism is a tool of Zionism and the
Likudniks of Israel. Sniegoski traces out how following the attacks of September 11, the
neoconservative war hawks had a profound influence on the thinking of President Bush and
offered him a ready made solution to his foreign policy agenda. In this book, Sniegoski also
considers and refutes other theories as to the root causes behind America's intervention in
Iraq (such as the role of oil and war profiteering) but explains how these theories lack the
validity of that which lays the blame on the neoconservatives and their goals for Israeli
dominance in the Middle East.
In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at
the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked
charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the
United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book
echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the
small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains
that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a
tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent.
This book begins with a Foreword by Congressman Paul Findley (famous author of _They Dare
to Speak Out_ and longtime opponent of the Israeli Lobby) in which he explains the importance
of Sniegoski's book and deflects the spurious charge of anti-Semitism. Following this,
appears an Introduction by noted paleoconservative Paul Gottfried who explains his admiration
for Sniegoski's book, offers some comparisons between Sniegoski's claims and those of other
individuals, and contrasts the old non-interventionist limited government form of
conservativism with that of the neoconservatives.
The first chapter of Sniegoski's book is entitled "The Transparent Cabal" and notes the
disastrous consequences that have followed upon the Iraq war spurred on by the
neoconservatives. The author explains what he means in calling the neoconservatives a
"transparent cabal" and notes the importance of their Middle East, pro-Israeli agenda. The
author explains how following the events of September 11, they came to take on a prominent
role in influencing the thinking of the president (who had previously shown little interest
in the Middle East).
The second chapter is entitled "The "Neocon-Israel" Claim: Bits and
Pieces" and exposes the role of Israel's Likudnik party behind the neoconservatives. The
author deflects claims of "anti-Semitism" which are frequently hurled at those who make these
charges by showing that even many prominent Jews agree with this. Following this appears a
chapter entitled "Who are the Neocons?" which shows how the neocons emigrated from their
original home in the Democratic party of the McGovernite left into the Republican party as
the New Left began to voice criticisms of Israel. The author shows that many of the neocons
are actually socialists and Trotskyites parading under the label of "conservative". Further,
the author shows the role of various intellectuals centering around New York City in creating
the neoconservative movement.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "The Israeli Origins of the
Middle East War Agenda" which shows how the goal of Middle East war to further the interests
of Israel has been supported extensively by hawkish groups in Israel. The author explains how
these groups came to have such a prominent role in influencing the policy of the United
States and in suppressing the native population of Palestinians in Israel. Following, appears
a chapter entitled "Stability and the Gulf War of 1991: Prefigurement and Prelude to the 2003
Iraq War" in which the author explains the importance of the first Gulf War of Bush I in
prefiguring the Iraq War of Bush II. After this, appears a chapter entitled "During the
Clinton Years" in which the author shows the continuing role of the neocons during the
Clinton years.
Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Serbian Interlude and the 2000
Elections" in which the author explains how the war in Yugoslavia paved the way for the
coming Iraq War of President Bush. This also explains the split that occurred among
conservatives between those traditional conservatives who opposed the war and the neocons who
firmly supported it. Following this appears a chapter entitled "George W. Bush
Administration: The Beginning" in which the author explains the role that the neocons came to
take in the Bush administration mentioning in particular the role of such figures as
Wolfowitz and Cheney and the role of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Following
this appears a chapter entitled "September 11", showing how the events of Sept. 11 allowed
the neocon agenda to gain prominence in the mind of President Bush.
Next, appears a chapter
entitled "Move to War" explaining how the neocons pushed for war against Sadaam Hussein
presenting their case to the American people by claiming that Hussein was in possession of
WMDs which could be used against America. Following this appears a chapter entitled "World
War IV" explaining how the conflict in the Middle East came to be dubbed World War IV by
certain intellectuals among the neocons.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "Democracy for the
Middle East" showing the role of the neocons in foisting "democracy" onto various nations and
their goal of global democratic revolution. The author also explains the role of the thinking
of political philosopher Leo Strauss behind many of the neocons and his profoundly
anti-democratic philosophy. Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Neocons'
Post-Invasion Difficulties" showing how the invasion of Iraq turned out to be more serious
and difficult than originally anticipated by the neocons. Next, appears a chapter entitled
"Beginning of the Second Administration" showing the continuing role of the neocons under the
second Bush administration.
Then, appears a chapter entitled "Israel, Lebanon, and the 2006
Election" showing the role of Lebanon and Syria in relationship to Israel and that of the
2006 election.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "2007: On to Iran" showing how the neocons
continued to press for further wars in particular against Iran by alleging among other things
that Ahmedinejad was a mad man with possible access to nuclear weapons. Following, appears a
chapter entitled "The Supporting Cast for War" noting the role of Christian Zionists (which
includes the beliefs of President Bush, although not his father), former Cold Warriors, and
even prominent establishment liberals in supporting the Iraq war. The author notes however
that the traditional foreign policy establishment elites and many in the intelligence
agencies did not support the war, but were disregarded to further the neocon agenda. The
author also contrasts the difference between the liberal elites who frequently were pro-war
and the popular anti-war movement which had very little power.
Following this, the author
turns to a chapter entitled "Oil and Other Arguments" in which the author considers the
claims that the war was fought to obtain access to oil or for the interests of war profiteers
and shows that while both groups certainly benefited they are not the real reason for the
war. The book ends with a "Conclusion" in which the author expounds upon the continuing role
of the neocons in influencing American foreign policy and a "Postscript" in which the author
notes that no matter who wins the 2008 election that the neocon agenda will likely continue
and is not likely to go away anytime soon.
This book offers a fascinating history and account of the role of the neoconservatives in
pushing the United States into war. The author makes clear the influence of the Israeli
Likudnik party behind the neocons and their goal of strengthening the position of Israel in
the Middle East. It is important to understand the fundamental nature of the foreign policy
elites who have been pushing us into war against Iraq and now with eyes towards Iran.
That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book.
Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed
by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters.
Let's put aside these negative and nasty characterizations and look at the facts.
Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state.
However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and
often place American interests second to that of the lobby.
To suggest that there is such a
lobby and that it is powerful is hardly anti-semitic. Nor is the author. He is simply stating
verifible facts which any student of politics is free to do. He may be mistaken in his
conclusions but that hardly makes him anti-semitic. And he may not be mistaken at all. He is
not the first to suggest that our leaders are fearful of the Israeli lobby and do its bidding
and often to the detriment of American interests .
Stephen Sniegoski, a diplomatic historian, is uniquely qualified to write about the
neoconservatives' involvement in the prolonged Iraq War originating in 2003. He accurately
predicted their activities and allegiance in this entanglement in 1998, three years before
the acts of 9-11 and two additional years before a traumatized nation yielded to a nescient,
misdirected President, his Vice President/administration, and an ostensibly compliant
bi-partisan House and Senate.
The author presents a tight outline which he cogently expands in intelligible detail,
maintaining that the origins of the American war on Iraq revolve around the adoption of a war
agenda whose basic structure was conceived in Israel to advance Israel's interests. The
pro-Israel neoconservatives and a powerful Israel lobby in the United States fervently pushed
its agenda. Ironically, he extracts his most persuasive evidence from an extensive
neoconservative paper trail that's been clearly recognized by a discreet cadre of vigilant
Americans for years. Thus the title, "The Transparent Cabal."
Dr. Sniegoski asks the appropriate question: "Who are the neoconservatives?" He provides
insightful answers on their pertinent activities since 1972, those who shaped and mentored
them, their immediate family/interconnected family networks, their prominent periodical
publications, their past and present leadership, non-Jewish minority members, their
persistent rise to positions of political influence and authority, their embrace of Christian
Zionists, and their close ties to the extremely conservative Likud Party in Israel. He
reveals their tactical affiliations with key, heavily endowed influential think tanks, and a
vast number of powerful Israel-centric lobbying organizations that reactively finance and
nurture their continued success.
Many readers will recognize his references to writers of previous books, articles and
columns -- many of Jewish heritage -- who bravely fight against well financed, mainstream
media-dominant opponents and their psychological surrogates active on the Internet. These
opponents perniciously engage in personal attacks and retribution, indiscriminately applying
irrelevant anti-semitic labels. They persist at attempting to sway public discourse by
spreading misinformation, disinformation, and mostly NO RELEVANT INFORMATION to the
public.
In various places throughout the book, the author notes curious relationships with current
and former elected and appointed officials. He writes about the ongoing 2008 presidential
campaign in a postscript, citing past and existing direct influences on specific candidates
by the neoconservatives, the Israel Lobby and its supporters.
The book concludes with a summary of the paucity of benefits compared to the predictable
losses of the American people over recent years. These are the real consequences of the
Israel-inspired plan to "drain the swamp" (a euphemism for destabilizing perceived enemies
then establishing precarious nominal democracies) that began with our misadventure in Iraq
and was to proceed with subsequent U.S. military interventions in Iran and Syria. The few
meager benefits and the enormous losses to the United States are compared to the strategic
advantages that the State of Israel derives directly from our five-year induced military
involvement in Iraq and our concomitant departure from past, longstanding policies of
diplomacy and stability in the Middle East.
Sniegoski counsels, "it is hardly controversial to propose that elites, rather than the
people as a whole, determine government policies, even in democracies."
Yet this war has a supporting cast of middle Americans. Many of them were traumatized by
the events of 9-11 and reactively saw an act of patriotism in supporting retaliation against
a falsely perceived enemy in Iraq. It's time to reconsider false arguments preceding the Iraq
War that have only been cosmetically modified until the present day. It's time to dismiss
incongruous ideas formed in the cauldron of confusion after 9-11.
Given today's realities, it DOES take patriotism and courage to insist on formally
normalizing an entangled, unreciprocated military alliance with an Israeli government that
burdens the taxpayers of the United States, promotes angst among its people, and imperils its
military forces worldwide.
Know and embrace Thomas Jefferson's ideal of 'eternal vigilance' as citizens of the United
States.
.
.
Facts in this book are reinforced in adjacent paragraphs and referenced in nearly 50 pages of
notes. Readers are encouraged to read:
World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global
Instability by Amy Chua -- "Israeli Surveillance of the Future Hijackers and FBI Suspects
in the September 11 Attacks and Their Failure to Give Us Adequate Warning: The Need for a
Public Inquiry" **a 166 PAGE LEAKED REPORT** documenting foreign espionage activities
surrounding 9-11, available on the Internet (although rarely in COMPLETE UNEDITED FORM **WITH
5 EXHIBITS AND 4 MAPS**). .
Stephen J. Sniegoski has a doctorate from the University of Maryland and studied American
diplomatic history. My review here will refer to him as "S," for short.
This book is about the American neoconservative movement. S goes from its founding through
its influential role in getting the U.S. into the Iraq War, then he discusses the War's
aftermath. S's argument is that the neoconservative agenda regarding the Middle East is
designed to serve the interests of the state of Israel, as those interests are articulated by
the right-wing Likud party there. This agenda supports weakening Arab nations surrounding
Israel so that they cannot pose a threat to her. According to S, the neoconservatives
supported such an agenda since their beginning as a movement, but 9/11 created an opportunity
for this agenda to become the foreign policy of the United States during much of the
Presidency of George W. Bush.
Here are some thoughts:
A. Looking broadly at the book itself, it is a standard narration of the events
surrounding and including the Iraq War. Like a lot of people, I lived through that, so the
sweeping narrative of the book was not particularly new to me. The story is essentially that
the U.S. went into Iraq expecting to find weapons of mass destruction after 9/11, bombed the
country and found that were no WMDs, and traveled the difficult road of trying to rebuild the
country, amidst ethnic division, turmoil, and opposition from Iraqis.
B. That said, there were some things that I learned from this book. First, while
neoconservatism is said to believe in spreading democracy in the Middle East, it is not
necessarily committed to democracy, per se. Initially, it supported a new government of Iraq
that would be led by the traditional, pre-Saddam tribal authorities, who were not democratic.
Second, S seems to imply that even the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan was
unnecessary, since the Taliban initially appeared cooperative in offering to help the U.S. to
bring al-Qaeda to justice. Third, there are neoconservatives who have supported undermining
even America's allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia. The different groups in Saudi
Arabia was also interesting, for, as S notes, Shiites hold a significant amount of control
over Saudi oil, even though the political establishment is Sunni. Fourth, S argues rigorously
against the idea that the U.S. launched the Iraq War to get more oil. Saddam was offering
U.S. oil companies opportunities to drill in Iraq, plus oil companies did not want the oil
infrastructure of the country to be disrupted or shattered by war.
C. There were also things in the book that I was interested to learn more about, even
though I had a rudimentary understanding of them before. For one, S chronicles George W.
Bush's changing views on foreign policy, as he went from rejecting nation-building, while
retaining a tough stance, to embracing nation building. In the early days of the Bush II
Administration, long before the Iraq War, Condi Rice even explained on news shows why regime
change in Iraq would be a mistake at that point. Second, S discusses the coalition that
emerged to support the war in Iraq. The neocons wanted to protect Israel, but Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld embraced the Iraq War as a way to showcase the effectiveness of a
lean military. Meanwhile, many Americans, frightened after 9/11, supported the Iraq War as a
way to keep the U.S. safe. And Christian conservatives embraced the good vs. evil, pro-Israel
stance of neoconservative policy. Third, S strategically evaluates moves that the U.S. made;
for S, for example, the surge did not actually work, but more stability emerged in Iraq as
different ethnic factions became separated from each other.
D. According to S, the Iraq War was a disaster. It stretched America's military, taking
away resources that could have been used to find Osama bin-Laden. Yet, Israel got something
that it wanted as a result: disarray among her Arab neighbors. An argument that S did not
really engage, as far as I can recall, is that the Iraq War placed Israel even more in peril,
since it increased the power of Iran by allowing Iraq to serve as a proxy for Iranian
interests.
E. For S, neoconservatism is concerned about the security of Israel. Even its staunch Cold
War policy is rooted in that concern, since the U.S.S.R. tended to support Arabs over the
Israelis. S acknowledges, though, that there is more to neoconservatism that that.
Neoconservatives supported a strong U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia
during the Clinton Administration, and neoconservatism also maintains stances on domestic
issues, such as welfare.
F. S is sensitive to any charges of anti-Semitism that may be launched against his book.
He emphatically denies that he is saying there was a Jewish conspiracy to get the U.S. into
Iraq, for he observes that many Jews opposed the Iraq War. Moreover, S does not exactly
present the U.S. government as a Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG), for the neoconservatives
were long on the margins prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush. Even under Bush II, the
traditional national security and intelligence apparatus was critical of the Iraq War,
preferring more multilateralism and a focus on stability in the Middle East. The Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR), long a bogeyman of right-wing conspiracy theorists, also had
reservations about the Iraq War.
G. S largely depicts the Likud party in Israel, and neoconservatives, as supporting
Israel's security as a nation, her protection, if you will. At the same time, S argues that
Israel in 2006 was acting aggressively rather than defensively in its invasion of Lebanon,
for Lebanon had coveted water-supplies.
H. Near the end of the Iraq War, S demonstrates, neoconservatives were calling on the U.S.
to take an aggressive stance against Iran, going so far as to bomb the country. That, of
course, is an issue that remains relevant today. S probably regards such a move as a mistake.
At the same time, he can understand why Israel would be apprehensive about a nuclear-armed
Iran. He thinks that Ahmadinejad has been incorrectly understood to say that Israel should be
wiped off the map, but S still acknowledges that a powerful Iran could provide more support
to the Palestinians, which would trouble Israel. Although S understands this, he seems to
scorn the idea that Israel should get everything she wants and have hegemony.
I. S is open to the possibility that neoconservatives believe that their support for
Israel is perfectly consistent with America's well-being. As S observes, the U.S. government
since its founding has had people who believe that partisanship towards a certain nation --
-Britain or France -- -is not only good for its own sake but serves the interests of the
United States. S disputes, however, that neoconservative policy is the only way to help the
U.S. Could not one argue, after all, that the U.S. would want to be on the Arabs' good side,
with all the oil the Arabs have? This analysis may be a little dated, since the U.S. now has
some alternative sources of energy (fracking), but S makes this point in evaluating the
historical stance of neoconservatism.
I was interested to see the reviews of this book. Usually if any book suggests that Israel
is less than perfect a group of Zionist fanatics surface with several reviews telling us that
there nothing wrong Israel or American support of it.
Remarkably there is only one negative review of this book which has to be seen to be
believed. This reviewer "yoda" from Israel charges in all seriousness that Sniegoski does not
provide evidence that the neoconservatives are "predominantly Jewish " and are " strongly
aligned with Israel". Asking the author to provide evidence for such
assertions is like asking him to give evidence that the sun will
rise in the east tomorrow .
This is I believe the real reason that that there are relatively few attacks on this book.The
author does not engage in shrill denunciations of Israel or of the neoconservatives . What he
does do is quote at length what neocoservstives say and provide careful documentation for any
factual claims. For the most part the reader is allowed to
draw his own conclusions. Should the US continue to finance
Israeli repression of Palestinians and perhaps go to war against Iran or anyone else who
might object to Israeli policie?
Instead of denouncing Sniegoski "Yoda" should consider
the sane Israelis in his own country . For example former
Mossad chief Meir Dagan who said that a war with Iran was
the "stupidest idea he had ever heard of." Also moviemaker
Emmanuel Dror who interviewed virtually all the former directors of the Shin Bett ( Israel's
internal security service )
who all called for disengaging from the occupied territories .
perhaps we all would be better off listening to these Isaelis rather than follow the
neoconservatives into another disastrous war on the other side of the world.
This is going to be a very strange review coming from me. You see, I wrote a novel called
"Other Nations" and well, people that liked it a lot, liked it, but then those that really
disliked it disliked it because my "aliens among humans" were nice people, likeable people,
even charismatic people, everyday suburban types even, living that kind of life. Among us.
Next door, in the next city over. They wanted instead to see the aliens among us portrayed as
well, pick your favorite genocidal maniac or mind-controlling dictator or creature so
dementedly alien that no sense can be made of it. Well!
There are many types of true horror. The kind that passes itself off as my aliens among us
are portrayed, well, I guess some people GET IT - and they liked it.
But I'm not here to push my book. I'm here to push THIS BOOK - because my god, this is
REAL, not fantasy, it's REAL, not science fiction. And yes, they are among us with well -
BUY THIS BOOK. If you are too broke to buy it, get it from the library - and by all means
- READ IT.
Just hope to whatever god you choose that neocons are removed from governmental influence
and that their Amen corner is ignored. Hope to god, because if they suceed in doing the
INSANITY they want to do - America will be FINISHED - if it's not finished already due to
what these Fifth Columnists have done during the 8 years of Twilight Zone (GWB Rule).
And for those Jewish critics on here that might want to compare these neocon FACTS and the
other FACTS openly available to all (which is WHY the book is called the TRANSPARENT cabal) -
compare it to the Protocols - they better think twice about that. Becauase, you see, what's
in here is real, real facts, provably real facts - and if Jews themselves compare this to the
Procols? Some folks might get the idea that maybe that is real too. Perhaps George Soros (who
is Jewish) needs to speak LOUDER against the neocons. They are, indeed, crazies, as Colin
Powell called them. Crazies.
If you want to have an eye opener then read and see who were those Jewish players working
and influencing everything in the Bush Admin.promoting war with Iraq, then this is your book
of truth. The cabal of Jewish players come out of the woodwork in Stephen Sniegoski's great
work. When step by step the plan was a clear war map laid out for the U.S. in detail and
after you realize just who was working for whom in this criminal cabal of the American
government.
When you have Jewish control of the main stream media and Jewish control in Washington, D.C.,
don't wonder why the facts were omitted to make all the right connections for the public to
see in this lead up to a war from lies.
"... November in Ukraine has been marked by the adoption of the so called 'land reform', in accordance of the demands made by the IMF amongst other international financial organizations. The reform opens the way for the mass privatization of Ukraine's agricultural lands. The IMF has been making these demands for many years but assorted Ukrainian presidents have tried to postpone such an unpopular decision. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians of all political persuasions are opposed to land privatization, from far-right to far-left. ..."
"... After an intensive period of deindustrialization, which has taken place in recent years, agricultural land remain the only asset with any value in Ukraine but even so, it may be bought for very little. A remarkable fact is that one of the deputies from the ruling party 'Servant of the people,' Nikita Poturayev , while pressing his colleagues at the Parliament to vote for the bill on land reform, claimed [1] that this would be 'settling scores with maniac V. Lenin', i.e. the purpose of the bill was to abolish the land nationalization carried out following the October revolution. ..."
"... Ukrainian political expert Ruslan Bortnik says that the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team came to power under an obligation to sell out the agricultural land of Ukraine to foreign companies. Those who buy these lands, according to Bortnik, will only be thinking about making the quickest possible buck. "Foreign companies are already operating on Ukrainian soil [renting land]," said Bortnik, ..."
"... "But they are competing with large Ukrainian agricultural holdings. They do not dominate. If the adopted land market model is launched, then only large foreign companies will remain in our market Let's be honest – we are not a sovereign country. At least our government is under external control. And this is a part of the obligations of this government. This is the condition under which they came to power. They are paying the debts through privatization." [2] ..."
"... Ukrainian farmers who still are landowners, formally at least – they just can't sell it – are the same people who are unable to pay their gas and electricity bills, especially after the recent raising of energy prices – another IMF demand. ..."
"... For the most part, it was in the region of $7.4 billion of stolen Ukraine's public money, from which only a "small share" was used to bribe Western politicians, like Hunter Biden. The deputies have stressed that, according to the investigation of Ukraine's general prosecution, the withdrawn and laundered money was then invested back into Ukraine. In particular through the Franklin Templeton Investments, the money was used to buy domestic government bonds (DGB), issued by Kiev at high interest rate. ..."
"... Ukrainian prosecutor Konstantin Kulik recently stated [4] in an interview that Ukraine takes IMF loans to pay out on these debt obligations (DGB). As deputy Aleksandr Dubinsky stressed at the press conference, 40% of the current public budget goes towards the payment of the public debt of Ukraine, including the repayment of DGB at inflated interest rates. ..."
November in Ukraine has been marked by the adoption of the so called 'land reform', in accordance of the demands made by the
IMF amongst other international financial organizations. The reform opens the way for the mass privatization of Ukraine's agricultural
lands. The IMF has been making these demands for many years but assorted Ukrainian presidents have tried to postpone such an unpopular
decision. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians of all political persuasions are opposed to land privatization,
from far-right to far-left.
After an intensive period of deindustrialization, which has taken place in recent years, agricultural land remain the only
asset with any value in Ukraine but even so, it may be bought for very little. A remarkable fact is that one of the deputies from
the ruling party 'Servant of the people,' Nikita Poturayev , while pressing his colleagues at the Parliament to vote for the bill
on land reform, claimed [1] that this would be 'settling scores with maniac V. Lenin', i.e. the purpose of the bill was to abolish
the land nationalization carried out following the October revolution.
Ukraine's fertile soil up for grabs
It has long been known that Ukraine's soil is very fertile. Indeed, during WW2 the invading Nazis made a point of appropriating
quantities of it; forcing POWs to collect the top soil and load it onto trains en route to Germany. Now these same lands could fall
into the hands of international agro-holdings.
Ukrainian political expert Ruslan Bortnik says that the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team came to power
under an obligation to sell out the agricultural land of Ukraine to foreign companies. Those who buy these lands, according to Bortnik,
will only be thinking about making the quickest possible buck. "Foreign companies are already operating on Ukrainian soil [renting
land]," said Bortnik,
"But they are competing with large Ukrainian agricultural holdings. They do not dominate. If the adopted land market model
is launched, then only large foreign companies will remain in our market Let's be honest – we are not a sovereign country. At
least our government is under external control. And this is a part of the obligations of this government. This is the condition
under which they came to power. They are paying the debts through privatization." [2]
Ukrainian farmers who still are landowners, formally at least – they just can't sell it – are the same people who are unable
to pay their gas and electricity bills, especially after the recent raising of energy prices – another IMF demand. Obviously,
their financial desperation will mean that many will have to sell their land at a low price, certainly well below the market value.
Meanwhile, Ukraine remains the poorest country on the continent of Europe and Ukrainian agricultural land remains the cheapest. Moreover,
the lands may be bought up as repaying large loans collected by the Kiev government following the Euromaidan coup in 2014.
This scheme of buying up Ukraine's land is connected with the ongoing corruption scandal in the US: the one related to Joe Biden
and the gas company 'Burisma'. At the end of November, Ukrainian MPs (non-factional people's deputy Andrey Derkach; a deputy from
the Batkivshchyna Party Aleksey Kucherenko; and a deputy from the ruling Servant of the People party, Aleksandr Dubinsky) revealed
it at the press-conference [3].
The point here is that the former Minister of Ecology of Ukraine Nikolay Zlochevsky , an owner of "Burisma" gas company, in 2014
introduced a number of Western politicians to the board of directors of his company, which helped him to avoid accusations of corruption.
Hunter Biden , son of former US Vice President Joe Biden , received monthly large payments for his "consultancy services". As a result
Ukraine's General prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the corruption schemes of the company, was forced – under
pressure – to resign by Joe Biden, who even boasted about it in the US media.
Ukrainian MPs have now claimed at a press-conference that the money used to bribe the son of the former Vice President of the
United States was in fact stolen. "Biden received money, the source of which is not the successful activity of Burisma, brilliant
business moves, or recommendations. It is the money of the citizens of Ukraine. It was obtained by criminal means," said the MP Andrey
Derkach. The ultimate goal of all this fraud, in which the Bidens were deeply involved, will be the bankruptcy of Ukraine in 2020-2021,
through the formation of a pyramid of public debt.
Laundering scheme to withdraw money from Ukraine
According to Ukrainian deputies, this was a part of a bigger laundering scheme to withdraw money from Ukraine via Latvian banks
and the fund 'Franklin Templeton Investments,' which is close to the United States Democratic Party. The founder of the foundation,
John Templeton Jr., was one of the main sponsors of the campaign of former US President Barack Obama.
For the most part, it was in the region of $7.4 billion of stolen Ukraine's public money, from which only a "small share"
was used to bribe Western politicians, like Hunter Biden. The deputies have stressed that, according to the investigation of Ukraine's
general prosecution, the withdrawn and laundered money was then invested back into Ukraine. In particular through the Franklin Templeton
Investments, the money was used to buy domestic government bonds (DGB), issued by Kiev at high interest rate.
The principle of this scheme is that with the assistance of American funds, the laundered money was legalised and invested in
government bonds at 6-8% in dollars and 15-17% in Ukrainian currency (hryvnia). This is leading to enormous growth in the Ukrainian
public debt and eventually the bankruptcy of the country's economy.
Eventual bankruptcy of the economy
Ukrainian prosecutor Konstantin Kulik recently stated [4] in an interview that Ukraine takes IMF loans to pay out on these
debt obligations (DGB). As deputy Aleksandr Dubinsky stressed at the press conference, 40% of the current public budget goes towards
the payment of the public debt of Ukraine, including the repayment of DGB at inflated interest rates.
According to him, bankruptcy on the debts could happen by the end of 2020 or 2021.
And this scheme is connected with land privatization, as adopted by Kiev in November in accordance with the IMF demand. "DGBs
are a financial instrument by which the state owes all its property when paying off the DGB. And if the land market is opened, the
state will have no other valuable property, with the exception of land," said Dubinsky, demanding the suspension of debt payments
to international creditors.
As a result of this unpopular land reform and the widespread violations of labour rights, Ukraine's trade-unions called a general
strike [5] for November 14 and began preparations. For the first time in the history of independent Ukraine, a strike committee was
formed at the all-national level. This committee was joined by trade unions, individual entrepreneurs, small businesses, agricultural
producers and farmers.
Management fires workers, pays themselves millions in bonuses
On November 14, Ukrainian railroad workers protested [6] in front of the Presidential office in Kiev against the announced plans
to fire some 50% of railroad personnel. The workers demanded the railroad management should resign instead. The deputy head of the
railroad trade-union, Alexander Mushenok, recently said [7] that currently "only 20 workers are employed where 60 workers are needed."
At the same time the workers claim that the top-level management of the company are paying themselves millions in bonuses. One of
the IMF demands requires that the Kiev authorities privatize the railroad system as well. In practice, this means that the few profitable
routes will be privatized by western companies, while the majority of non-profitable routes – to poorly developed provinces – will
remain state-owned, making the railway transport even less profitable.
The entire course of privatization, as promoted by the IMF, can be summarized by the principle 'privatization of profits, nationalization
of losses." And the new Kiev government is far too dependent to protest against the imposition of this policy; however, this will
effectively mean that this government will lose its credibility and trustworthiness among the people.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
Republicans are actually afraid to ask questions about Obama administration smashing constitutional order in Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... The Ukraine fiasco should be blown wide open for all to see I hope. I even started emailing my "lefty" NYT reading friends photos of Azov Battalion, Right Sector, and C14 militias and asking why Trump should be sending Javelin anti tank missiles to these folks. ..."
"... Ukraine seems a center for weapons trafficking, embezzlement, money laundering, and hacking. 3 billion in IMF loans with no strings, where did it go, USAID money where did it go? How many weapons purchased by Qatar & co. ended up in Syria via Ukraine? ..."
"... Friends! Bread and circus, all of this! The monsters who rule over us must be having quite a laugh, all the way to the bank. ..."
What was inescapable during the hearing was the absence of parliamentary courtesy or simply personal gracious
conduct on the part of Chair of the Committee who was consistently intrusive as he overstepped his role with
arbitrary, prejudicial
violations of Roberts Rules of
Order.
Schiff
routinely ruled Points of Order
to be out of
order with an inflated sense of magisterial presence. His demeanor proved to be classless and boorish as if he had
been granted special dispensation from the House of Representative's Code of Conduct to treat his colleagues with
disdain and contempt.
Schiff routinely
refused to 'recognize
' a Member,
liberally gavelled his authority to cut off debate and at times,
badgered Republican witnesses
and further treated
Republican Members, who are his peers, as second class citizens in what was once regarded as a collegial body.
Once the dust settles, the House Ethics Committee may ultimately weigh in on Schiff's character and the manner in
which he conducted the Committee's business.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount
of support is hugely appreciated.
ttshasta
,
The Ukraine fiasco should be blown wide open for all to see I hope. I even started emailing my "lefty"
NYT reading friends photos of Azov Battalion, Right Sector, and C14 militias and asking why Trump should
be sending Javelin anti tank missiles to these folks.
I also forwarded Eva Bartlett's October pice on her
Crimea visit describing 200 new kindergartens and new airports and bridges to my friends who think I'm
crazy for saying Crimea has been part of Russia since 1784 and voted 90+% to rejoin Russia. Max
Blumenthal's Grayzone reports 4 million have left Ukraine, an exodus like Venezuela's. Adam Schiff had a
$1000/$2500 per plate fundraiser at Ukrainian Igor Pasternaks home in D.C. Is Pasternak a weapons dealer,
I'm not sure? Who is involved in Ukraine: Manafort, Biden, Obama's Hochstein, CIA's Woolsey, US Favarov,
Crowdstrike, Firtash, John Kerry, and on and on.
Ukraine seems a center for weapons trafficking, embezzlement, money laundering, and hacking. 3 billion in
IMF loans with no strings, where did it go, USAID money where did it go? How many weapons purchased by
Qatar & co. ended up in Syria via Ukraine?
I do not like and did not vote for Orange Jesus, but it seems the Biden, Kerry, Obama, Clinton apparatus
has more to answer for regarding Ukraine. Adam Schiff drives me crazy with his misleading and witness
coaching; he did propose repealing Citizens United though, of which I approve if it is not a diversion
tactic.
Like anyone expects an Amerikastani to tell the truth about anything, ever, for any reason. Amerikastanis
are genetically incapable of it.
Ken
,
Friends! Bread and circus, all of this! The monsters who rule over us must be having quite a laugh, all
the way to the bank.
Berlin beerman
,
The fact that there are citizens who watch this and then believe that their President actually committed
an impeachable offense in the process is past comic. Its sad because it implies one of two things.
1. The masses who watch and believe are as evil as the woman they tried to elect to the White House.
and/or
2. The masses are complete idiots .
the fact that Mr.Trump may actually be trying to help their sorry asses – by trying to put the
American people ahead of corporate interests – is one thing these haters have no clue about. Instead they
prefer to sit, watch and partake in their elected fools waste time and money on infighting and stupidity
– ironically all the attributes they dislike in their President.
Its rather poetic.
Jack_Garbo
,
Not at all. Obama has impeccable (unimpeachable?) manners but he's a worse war criminal than Bush,
and he'll never be tried. As I said, look up impeachable offenses. Trump is (sadly) innocent, the
inquiry is a failed charade. Once out of office, he's eminently indictable, but that won't happen
either. His crimes are not relevant.
Guy
,
All this crap about impeachment , he said she said , and lets not forget it's all Russia's fault which
leads me to as ,what are they drawing our attention away from .Could it be the whole Epstein affair ,
nothing to see here folks .Move along ..all guilty as sin of course .
Vexarb
,
Seattle's multi-talented Amy Walker tried to do Trump and failed. I bet she cannot do Hilary either.
Their saurian corporate world of primal GREED & cold blooded FASCISM is too primitive for her. But she
can and did create Eunice. Here is Amy Walker's wickedly affectionate sketch, the most delicately
incisive probing of Yankee psyche since Gatsby -- and much more positive, in its well brought up, well
educated, well intentioned and naively earnest simplicity of mind.
PPPPS And finally, Eunice's simpleminded and muddleheaded search for authentic being is
absorbed and overlayed by the mawkish bloated U$ culture typified by this POTU$A election.
But Eunice is blithely unaware of all this; the machinations of Obomba, Killary and
Trumpety-trump are beneath her dignity and above her head.
There is an article of the Mawkish Culture of the U$A in today's Saker Vineyard; but the
creation of Eunice shows that mawkish culture has fine, sensitive, deep penetrating roots.
" Yanukovych when he refused to join the EU " Yanukovych did not refuse to join the European Union. The
Ukraine was not then, and is not now, in a position to join the European Union. What Yanukovych did was
decide to not proceed with an association agreement which the European Union and the Ukraine had been
negotiating.
Vexarb
,
Short list by Asdlkks above: "[Trump] The guy who sucked up to AIPAC and Zionists, who first day
in office goes to the CIA, then makes torture Queen director of the CIA, and former director of
the CIA his Secretary of State replacing Big Oil tycoon, who has stuffed every regulatory agency
with swamp creatures more swampy than Obama or any other President could manage, who INCREASED
military operations in the ME including making the rules of engagement such it is even easier to
slaughter civilians, who ran on a big military buildup including a buildup of nuclear weapons
far greater than Obama's "modernization" who has pledged now to greatly increase the
distribution of military equipment to police departments than has been occurring for decades
already, " plus Trump's association with 911 coverup Mayor Giuliani.
Admittedly not a heinous
crimesheet by POTU$A standards.
Listening to Elise Stefanik, was reminded of George Galloway's famous stoush with the U.S Senate back in
2005.
But as for Adam Schiff?
He is obviously a lettuce leaf short of a salad, a jam sandwich without the jam, and a person who quite
obviously needs to speak to someone wearing a white coat.
And with both being deluded Russophobes, I'm certain he and Fiona Hill would make a great team.
How much longer is This Crap going for??
Yarkob
,
as long as they need to constantly use the phrase "under the shadow of impeachment" throughout the
2020 election cycle
wardropper
,
I give it about 17 years before western civilization implodes under the sheer gravitational force of
the crap with which it has surrounded itself for many decades.
George Mc
,
And just think that, as the mass of population sinks deeper into poverty, how much money is being
thrown at this, as you say, Crap? And I am aware that This Crap is, if I may switch metaphors, only
the tip of the iceberg. How many gazillions are being thrown at destabilising various societies,
grinding out relentless propaganda, piling into bloated military juggernauts, glutinous showbiz,
sporting and royal festivals etc. (shepherd's crook approaches)
Martin Usher
,
My guess is that the committee will produce a report which won't be used to impeach the President but
will form a central plank of next year's election campaign. The Republicans are desperate to have
actual impeachment proceedings, they know that the Senate would not convict Satan himself if that
person was one of them and the resulting noise will draw attention away from some looming issues in
the economy and the world which may well break in Q1 next year.
I know there are a lot of people who
will support Trump no matter what and who are quick to point out the failings in other politicians.
There's plenty of crap to go round, however while Trump has been fiddling Rome has been burning --
remember, what might be good for industry lobbyists or could be construed as "God's Work" may not be
actually good policies and there signs that things might not be as wonderful as they'd like. Three
that spring to mind are the relentless money printing by the Fed, inflationary at best, the likelihood
that the heartland will experience significant job reductions in key industries that can't be papered
over and the fact that the tariffs and sanctions put on China don't seem to have had any significant
effect -- on the Chinese, that is (US companies, that's a different take). This isn't all Trump's
fault, the problems have been brewing up for a lot longer than his Presidency, but the complete lack
of action or even recognition that there are problems (China trade excepted) combined with a crass and
very ham-fisted approach to foreign policy is exacerbating things.
US of A twinned with Ukraine a marriage made in heaven. I'm at a loss to say who has the finest
democracy.
As Rhys said below "I can fuck your wife anytime I want, but you fuck my wife and you're fucked,
dude." . No wonder Victoria Nuland's name has been passed over in this shit show.
I was asked by a Russian today, "Which country has the best democracy?". To which I replied "First you
have to define what exactly a democracy is." And they said, "It's what you have in the West."
To which I could only remark, "I wish I had your innocence."
George Mc
,
"Which country has the best democracy? .It's what you have in the West."
Kind of answered his own question there. Wrongly of course.
George Cornell
,
Thanks for the summary. I did not watch, preferring to gaze at the peacock feathers in my duster. The
Dems are making Trump look less odious, no small feat.
If you follow politics, you've heard people talking about the "deep
state". But is there really some sort of coup going on at a deeper level among career
bureaucrats in Washington, or is it just a fantasy?
At a recent Federalist Society dinner in our nation's capital, US Attorney General
William Barr said an "avalanche of subpoenas" and constant attempts to derail Trump
administration appointments only serve to 'incapacitate" the executive branch.
He stopped short of calling what is happening in Washington a political coup, but he
suggested forces are engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly-elected
government.
Referring to the "resistance" language used by Trump opponents, Barr said, "Now
'resistance' is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying
military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very
dangerous and, indeed, incendiary notation to import into the politics of a democratic
republic."
Appearing on this week's episode of the Global Lane, former CIA Analyst Michael Scheuer says
he believes an American insurrection is now underway.
"The federal government, at least the executive branch, is being denied the ability to
execute its responsibilities, whether it's here in Washington, or in places like Portland,
Seattle, Los Angeles and San Francisco where, under the supremacy clause, Washington is very
clearly responsible for immigration. There's much more disruption and much more insurrection in
this country than Lincoln faced until the Confederates fired at Ft. Sumter. It's staggering to
be in this position 160 years later," Scheuer said.
He says the only thing we've heard so far in the impeachment hearings is staffers saying
they're very offended because the president didn't listen to their advice, contending it's more
about sour grapes than evidence of a crime.
Scheuer also says there's clear ignorance about the Constitution on behalf of Congress.
"When the Constitution says 'bribery', the Founders were talking about the President accepting
bribes," not the president making a quid pro quo in exchange for foreign aid, he
argues.
Scheuer says the bottom line is there's a deeper agenda at work here.
"What they're doing is, as Mr. Barr said, trying to tear down the institutions of this
country. They're not the loyal opposition, they are an infestation of globalists who want to
deny nationality to the United States and blend us in with the rest of the world," he
contends.
The Global Lane airs Thursdays at 9:30 pm Eastern on the CBN News Channel . For a programming
guide, click
here .
"... Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the Obama White House. She also visits the Obama White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama. Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in 2017, " ..."
"... According to Fox News, the complaint alleges that the DNC specifically "tasked Chalupa with obtaining incriminating or derogatory information about Donald Trump [and] Paul Manfort," ..."
"... Remarkably, despite his clear connections to Rice and Brennan, he was brought back into the inner circle of the Trump NSC by HR McMaster. McMaster appointed him to be his personal aide. ..."
"... He was fired in June of 2017 after being directly implicated in a series of serious national security leaks from the White House calculated to be damaging to President Trump. ..."
"... Vindman also leaked the classified information about the President's call with a foreign head of state to a number of other people. These unauthorized leaks are criminal. Both illegal, unethical and unconscionable. ..."
"... Ciaramella worked with both Grace and Misko in the NSC at the Obama White House. Misko and Grace joined Schiff's committee in early August of 2019, just in time to coordinate the "whistleblower" complaint. ..."
"... Both Vindman and Ciaramella do not qualify for "whistleblower" status. They were reporting on a diplomatic conversation, not an intelligence matter. They were not reporting on a member of the Intelligence committee. ..."
"... IC IG Michael Atkinson surreptitiously changed the rules for whistleblower complaints to allow second-hand testimony in September of 2019. He then backdated the changes to allow the Ciaramella complaint, initially filed in early August, to be included under the new "interpretive" guidelines. ..."
"... The playbook is the same as the Mueller Inquisition and the Russia Hoax, the same as the Kavanaugh smear campaign. With the same co-conspirators of the left-wing mainstream media. Not only carrying water for the coup plotters but being actual participants in the scheme. Paid mouthpieces for the Deep State. ..."
"... Sperry's devastating expose makes clear that Ciaramella is another cog in the Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rice, Obama conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States. As Chuck Schumer said in January of 2017, ..."
"... Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative. Sperry reports, "In the days after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls for the standup of the special counsel to investigate 'Russia collusion.'" ..."
WASHINGTON, DC : Adam Schiff "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella has
been exposed as a John Brennan ally. An ally who actively worked to defame, target, and destroy
President Donald Trump during both the Obama and Trump administrations. He was fired from the
Trump White House for leaking confidential if not classified information detrimental to the
President. ( The Pajama Boy
Whistleblower Revealed – Rush Limbaugh )
The 33-year-old Ciaramella, a former Susan Rice protege, currently works for the CIA as an
analyst.
Eric Ciaramella: The Deep State non-whistleblower
During his time in the Obama White House, NSC Ciaramella worked under both Vice President
Joe Biden and CIA director John Brennan. He reported directly to NSC advisor Susan Rice through
his immediate boss, Charles Kupchan. Kupchan had extensive ties with Clinton crony Sydney
Blumenthal. Large portions of Blumenthal's disinformation from Ukrainian sources in 2016 was
used in the nefarious Steele Dossier.
Ciaramella also worked extensively with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa. Chalupa led the
effort at the DNC to fabricate a link between the Trump Campaign to Vladimir Putin and Russia.
According to Politico, Chalupa "met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington
in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia."
The DNC paid Chalupa $412,000 between 2004 and 2016.
DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa: Ciaramella co-conspirator
"Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump's campaign, 'I felt there
was a Russia connection.'"
Apparently without any evidence. So she set out to concoct it.
Chalupa (left) also says that the Ukrainian embassy was working directly with reporters
digging for Trump-Russia ties. How convenient, and unethical.
Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the Obama White House. She also visits
the Obama White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama. Senator Charles
Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein in 2017, "
"Chalupa's actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a
foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to
influence not only the U.S voting population but U.S. government officials."
The FEC complaint against the DNC and Chalupa
In September 2019 a complaint was filed with the Federal Elections Commission against the
DNC naming Alexandra Chalupa. The complaint alleges that Chalupa acted "improperly to gather
information on Paul Manafort and Donald Trump in the 2016 election".
According to Fox News, the complaint alleges that the DNC specifically "tasked Chalupa
with obtaining incriminating or derogatory information about Donald Trump [and] Paul
Manfort,"
Fox News reporting, that Chalupa allegedly
"Pushed for Ukrainian officials to publicly mention Manafort's financial and political ties
to" Ukraine and "sought to have the Ukrainian government provide her information about
Manafort's work in the country."
John Solomon and Wikileaks both expose Chalupa as DNC operative
"Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information
from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort's dealings inside the country. Chalupa later
tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort's Russian ties
on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign."
Ciaramella's connection with John Brennan and Susan Rice
Eric Ciaramella had been working with John Brennan, Susan Rice, the Obama White House, and
Alexandra Chalupa to target and destroy Donald Trump well before he was elected. He was
initially brought into the NSC and the White House inner circle by John Brennan himself.
Remarkably, despite his clear connections to Rice and Brennan, he was brought back into the
inner circle of the Trump NSC by HR McMaster. McMaster appointed him to be his personal
aide.
He was fired in June of 2017 after being directly implicated in a series of serious national
security leaks from the White House calculated to be damaging to President Trump.
Ciaramella and Alexander Vindman: the second "whistleblower"
Ciaramella's title at the White House was NSC Director for Ukraine. That position is now
held by the newest Schiff star witness and Trump hater Lt. Col Alexander Vindman. Vindman is
apparently the "2nd whistleblower" to leak his concerns about the call between Trump and
President Zelensky to Ciaramella.
Vindman also leaked the classified information about the President's call with a foreign
head of state to a number of other people. These unauthorized leaks are criminal. Both illegal,
unethical and unconscionable.
Violating clear national security guidelines for classified information.
Republicans, on cross-examination of Vindman was asked by Republicans cross-examining him
during the closed-door secret police hearings conducted by Adam Schiff, asking who Vindman had
contact with. Schiff cut off the questioning, coaching the witness while refusing to let him
answer the questions.
Schiff coordinated with Ciaramella and Vindman
It is now clear that Ciaramella and Vindman coordinated the entire whistleblower affair with
Schiff and his staff in violation of the "whistleblower" statute. That Ciaramella has been
coordinating his complaint with Schiff committee staffers Abigail Grace and Sean Misko.
Ciaramella worked with both Grace and Misko in the NSC at the Obama White House. Misko and
Grace joined Schiff's committee in early August of 2019, just in time to coordinate the
"whistleblower" complaint.
Both Vindman and Ciaramella do not qualify for "whistleblower" status. They were reporting
on a diplomatic conversation, not an intelligence matter. They were not reporting on a member
of the Intelligence committee.
The suspicious case of IC IG Michael Atkinson
IC IG Michael Atkinson surreptitiously changed the rules for whistleblower complaints to
allow second-hand testimony in September of 2019. He then backdated the changes to allow the
Ciaramella complaint, initially filed in early August, to be included under the new
"interpretive" guidelines.
The level of subterfuge and coordination between Schiff, Ciaramella, Vindman, Abigail Grace,
Sean Misko, and IG Atkinson is more than suspicious. It reeks of yet another episode of a Deep
State coordinated coup attempt.
The whole impeachment affair is a brazen sequel to the Russia Hoax involving many of the
same key players. Susan Rice, John Brennan, Adam Schiff. Designed to target, destroy, and in
this case, fabricate grounds for the impeachment of the President.
The playbook is the same as the Mueller Inquisition and the Russia Hoax, the same as the
Kavanaugh smear campaign. With the same co-conspirators of the left-wing mainstream media. Not
only carrying water for the coup plotters but being actual participants in the scheme. Paid
mouthpieces for the Deep State.
Paul Sperry and Real Clear Investigations
The most comprehensive expose on Ciaramella, that has forced even the mainstream media to
take notice, was the Real Clear Investigations reporting of Paul Sperry. Only Sperry, the
Federalist, and CDN have exposed the whistleblowers' identity. But his name and transparent
partisan actions are the worst kept secret in Washington.
As CIA analyst Fred Fleitz has said:
"Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows.
Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is."
Sperry's devastating expose makes clear that Ciaramella is another cog in the Brennan,
Clapper, Comey, Rice, Obama conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected President of the United
States. As Chuck Schumer said in January of 2017,
"If you take on the intelligence community, they have nines ways to Sunday of getting back
at you."
The never-ending coup attempt against Trump
The reality is that Trump was targeted by the Obama White House well before he was
President. The ongoing coup against him started as soon as he was elected. It morphed into the
Mueller Weissman inquisition and the Peter Strzok insurance policy.
When that fizzled into oblivion it was time for plan B, or in this case plan C or D. The
Deep State and their paid minions in the left-wing press have been unrelenting in their ongoing
anti-constitutional putsch against the President.
The impeachment farce, with its calculated rollout reminiscent of the Kavanaugh smear
campaign, is yet another extension of a never-ending East German Stassi coup (sic) attempt
against the constitution, the Republic, and the people of the United States.
Sperry lays out the trail of evidence against Ciaramella
Paul Sperry's excellent investigative reporting makes clear that Ciaramella "previously
worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan. (He) left his
National Security Council posting in the White House's West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns
about negative leaks to the media." As Sperry reports, "He was accused of working against Trump
and leaking against Trump," said a former NSC official.
Sperry reports that "a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research
dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill". The
dossier documents Ciaramella's bias against Trump. His relationships with Brennan, Rice, the
Obama White House, and DNC operative Chalupa. As well as his coordination with Vindman, Schiff
and his committee staff.
Chuck Schumer: "Eight ways to Sunday of getting back at you"
It questions both Ciaramella's and Vindman's veracity as a legitimate whistleblower. It
makes clear that Ciaramella and his co-conspirators are part of a Deep State coup attempt. A
calculated, coordinated, illegal, seditious, and illegitimate putsch.
As CIA analyst Fred Fleitz makes clear, " They're hiding him ." Fleitz was emphatic,
" They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative. Sperry reports, "In the days
after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls
for the standup of the special counsel to investigate 'Russia collusion.'"
How IC Inspector General Atkinson found the whistleblower complaint "credible" and "urgent"
at the same time he was backdating the change in regulations to allow the complaint to be filed
is more than highly suspicious. How the 'whistleblower" coordinated with Schiff, Grace, Misko,
and Atkinson to stager the start of impeachment farce is criminal.
Adam Schiff: Constantly lying while moving the goalposts
... ... ...
Schiff: Outstanding scoundrel in a cesspit filled to the brim with similar criminals.
Now Eric Ciaramella is apparently backing away from testifying. Schiff says he no longer
needs his testimony. But Ciaramella should be subpoenaed and called to testify before the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He should not be allowed to escape accountability for his role in
this calculated charade of a conspiracy.
He would then have to testify to his coordination with Schiff and the committee staff. He
would have to expose how Vindmann leaked national security information illegally. How the
entire 'whistleblower" farce was a calculated effort to again derail the Trump Presidency.
A lot has come out about Eric Ciaramella, the Adam Schiff 'Whistleblower", in recent days.
It is the tip of the iceberg. Any legitimate investigation of the circumstances surrounding the
entire Ukraine affair will reveal the extensive criminality of the Obama White House and the
coup plotters.
Exposing the dark underbelly of the Obama White House
It stretches back to the Steele Dossier and the clear efforts of the DNC and the Deep State
to use to a foreign power to interfere in the 2016 election. He exposes the corruption of Vice
President Biden to enrich his family at the expense of the American taxpayer. Details the $6
million dollar bribery scheme of Hunter and Joe Biden by Burisma Holdings.
Lays out the corrupt dealings of Ambassador Yovanovich.
It will lay open the devious underbelly of all the so-called hero witnesses of the Schiff
impeachment Star Chamber inquisition. Of the criminal actions of the coup plotters. Of
Ambassador Yovanovich, Ambassador Taylor, Alexandra Chalupa, and Alexander Vindman.
As well as the so-called whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella.
Calling the Fourth Estate back
It is the tip of the iceberg that only a truly free and independent press will have to
take the reins to fearlessly expose. Like brilliant investigative reporter Paul Sperry at
Real Clear Investigations. Like the Federalist, NOQ Report, and here at CommDigiNews, who
broke the Ciaramella story a full two days before Real Clear Investigations.
No one else in the corrupt media establishment seems willing to rise to the challenge.
If you've not heard the story, Zlochevsky is alleged to have been doing other people's
laundry. About 7.5 billion dollars worth – a sum that has attracted some attention. And
not just because Ukraine claims Hunter Biden's attachment to Burisma resulted in a take if 16.5
million. Money that has nothing to do with his complete lack of knowledge about energy or gas
but probably relates in some predictable way to the name 'Biden.' The investment firm doing the
laundry has close ties to Barack Obama. Joe Biden. Lt. Col Alexander Vindman. Perhaps a few
members of the US State Department. And maybe a George Soros funded operation "fighting
corruption."
We've seen that Vindman has close ties to the previous Ukrainian government, dating back
to Yanukovych and his successor Petro Poroshenko, while this alleged money-laundering scheme
was taking place. The connection to the Franklin Templeton Fund is interesting because John
Templeton, Jr. was a major Obama campaign donor, and Thomas Donilon, who was Obama's National
Security Advisor before Susan Rice and is now the chairman of BlackRock
Investment Institute , a major owner of Franklin Templeton stock.
Vindman is a holdover from the Bamster years, embedded at the NSC.
He served as National Security Advisor to President Barack Obama. In that capacity Mr.
Donilon oversaw the U.S. National Security Council staff, chaired the cabinet level National
Security Principals Committee, provided the president's daily national security briefing, and
was responsible for the coordination and integration of the administration's foreign policy,
intelligence, and military efforts. Mr. Donilon also oversaw the White House's cybersecurity
and international energy efforts. Mr. Donilon served as the President's personal emissary to
a number of world leaders.
Not a casual acquaintance but watch Obama distance himself from him now. "Who? O
I..uh-hardly knew him!"
Under the Obama Administration, former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovich, like Biden,
like the Soros funded group working with the State Department, were all supposed to be focused
on fighting corruption. There's that word again. I don't think it means what they think it
means.
But while all this corruption-fighting was underway Joe's kid Hunter gets a sweetheart
payoff from Burisma. Joe (who is in charge of Ukraine) gets close to a million for himself. All
while 7.5 Billion is alleged to have been laundered through a "fund" whose primary players are
a major Obama donor and the President's "personal emissary" (under the watchful anti-corruption
eye of a group funded by perhaps the biggest Democrat donor in history, George Soros).
During this series of events, Ukraine got leveraged by the Obama Administration to fire a
prosecutor in exchange for a billion in US aid, probably because that prosecutor was getting
too close to what we are learning today.
Somebody was engaged in a record number of quid pro quos, and no one is named Trump.
...
... ... Steve
MacDonaldis a New Hampshire resident, blogger, and activist. A member of the 603
Alliance, NHCMP, NHRVC, LFGC, and the host of GrokTALK! Please Note: My opinions are my own and
not those of my Family, employers, politicians, campaigns, or other contributors or commenters
at GraniteGrok
"... Only a computer illiterate would think that CrowdStrike needed to take the physical DNC server to Ukraine in order to analyze it. Any computer can be cloned and its digital image can be sent within minutes anywhere on the planet in the form of ones and zeroes. It can also exist in multiple digital copies, carrying not just confidential archives, but also history logs and other content that can reveal to an expert whether the hacking occurred, and if so, by whom. ..."
"... The copies of the DNC server on CrowdStrike computers are likely to hold the key to understanding what really happened during the 2016 election, the origin of the anti-Trump witch hunt, and the toxic cloud of lies that had been hanging over the world and poisoning minds during the last three years. ..."
"... And now the new Ukrainian government might subpoena these copies from CrowdStrike and finally pass them to FBI experts, which should've been done three years ago. The danger of this happening is a much greater incentive for the Democrats to preemptively destroy Trump than all the dirt Joe Biden had been rolling in as Obama's vice president. ..."
"... I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. ..."
"... The fraudulent "CrowdStrike conspiracy" deflection is not a show of the Democrats' strength. Instead, It betrays their desperation and panic, which tells us that Trump is squarely over the target. ..."
"... Yet DOJ Mueller conclusively signed off on the unsubtaniated fact the Russians had hacked the DNC computers in his final Weissman Report. Just one more part of the curious Mueller report that was far more a CYA hit piece against future claims of Obama crimes, than an investigation of past Trump ones. ..."
The conspiracy theory that exposes the Democrats' desperation and panic.
Fri Nov 29, 2019
Oleg Atbashian
133 In the last few days, media talking heads have been saying the word "CrowdStrike" a
lot, defining it as a wild conspiracy theory originating in Moscow. They were joined by Chris
Wallace at Fox News, who informed us that president Trump and his ill-informed fans believe in
a crazy idea that the DNC wasn't hacked by the Russians but by some Ukrainian group named
CrowdStrike that stole the DNC server and brought it to Ukraine , and that it was Ukraine that
meddled in our 2016 election and not Russia.
A crazy idea indeed. Except that neither Trump nor his fans had ever heard of it until the
Democrat-media complex condescendingly informed them that these are their beliefs.
Let's look at the facts:
Fact 1. In 2016 the DNC hired the Ukrainian-owned firm CrowdStrike to analyze their server
and investigate a data breach.
Fact 2. CrowdStrike experts determined that the culprit was Russia.
Fact 3. The FBI never received access to the DNC server, so the Russian connection was never
officially confirmed and continues to be an allegation coming from the DNC and its
Ukrainian-owned contractor.
Fact 4. Absent the official verdict, other theories continue to circulate, including the
possibility that the theft was an inside job by a DNC employee, who simply copied the files to
a USB drive and sent it to WikiLeaks.
None of these facts was ever disputed by anyone. The media largely ignored them except for
the part about the Russian hackers, which boosted their own, now debunked, wild conspiracy
theory that Trump was a Russian agent.
Now that Trump had asked the newly elected Ukrainian president Zelensky to look into
CrowdStrike during that fateful July phone call, the media all at once started telling us that
"CrowdStrike" is a code word for a conspiracy theory so insane that only Trump could believe in
it, which is just more proof of how insane he is.
But if Trump had really said what Mr. Wallace and the media claim, Ukrainians would be the
first to call him on it and the impeachment would've been over by now. Instead, Ukrainians back
Trump every step of the way.
So where did this pretzel-shaped fake news come from, and why is it being peddled
now ?
Note this is a classic case study of propaganda and media manipulation:
Take an idea or a story that you wish to go away and make up an obviously bogus story
with the same names and details as the real one.
Start planting it simultaneously on media channels until the fake story supplants the
real one, while claiming this is what your opponents really believe.
Have various fact-checking outlets debunk your fake story as an absurd conspiracy theory.
Ridicule those who allegedly believe in it. Better yet, have late night comedians do it for
you.
Once your opponent is brought down, mercilessly plant your boot on his face and never let
up.
This mass manipulation technology had been tested and perfected by the Soviet propaganda
machine, both domestically and overseas, where it was successfully deployed by the KGB. The
Kremlin still uses it, although it can no longer afford it on the same grandiose scale. In this
sense, the Democratic think tanks are the true successors of the KGB in deviousness, scope, and
worldwide reach of fake narratives. How they inherited these methods from the KGB is a story
for another day.
For a long time this technology was allowing the Democrats to delegitimize opposition by
convincing large numbers of Americans that Republicans are
Haters
Racists
Fascists
Deniers of science
Destroyers of the environment
Heartless sellouts to corporate interests
And so on - the list is endless.
The Soviet communists had aptly named it "disinformation," which a cut above the English
word "misinformation." It includes a variety of methods for a variety of needs, from bringing
down an opponent to revising history to creating a new historical reality altogether. In this
sense, most Hollywood movies on historical subjects today disinform us about history,
supplanting it with a bogus "progressive" narrative. The Soviet term for such art was
"socialist realism."
Long story short, the Democrat-media complex has successfully convinced one half of the
world that Trump is a Russian agent. Now they're acting as if they'd spent the last three years
in a coma, unaware of any bombshell stories about collusion. And bombshell stories without any
continuation are a telltale sign of fake narratives. The only consequence of these bombshells
is mass amnesia among the foot soldiers.
The Trump-Russian outrage is dead, long live the Trump-Ukraine outrage. And when that
outrage is dead, the next outrage that will be just outrageous.
The current impeachment narrative alleges that Trump used military aid as leverage in asking
Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden (which implies the Democrats know Biden is dirty, otherwise
why bother?). What's not in this picture is CrowdStrike. Even though Trump mentioned it in the
phone call, it has nothing to do with the Bidens nor the Javelin missiles. CrowdStrike has
nothing to do with impeachment. We're told it's just a silly conspiracy theory in Trump's head,
that it's a nonissue.
But then why fabricate fake news about it and plant blatant lies simultaneously in all media
outlets from Mother Jones to Fox News? Why risk being exposed over such a nonissue? Perhaps
because it's more important than the story suggests.
Only a computer illiterate would think that CrowdStrike needed to take the physical DNC
server to Ukraine in order to analyze it. Any computer can be cloned and its digital image can
be sent within minutes anywhere on the planet in the form of ones and zeroes. It can also exist
in multiple digital copies, carrying not just confidential archives, but also history logs and
other content that can reveal to an expert whether the hacking occurred, and if so, by
whom.
The copies of the DNC server on CrowdStrike computers are likely to hold the key to
understanding what really happened during the 2016 election, the origin of the anti-Trump witch
hunt, and the toxic cloud of lies that had been hanging over the world and poisoning minds
during the last three years.
And now the new Ukrainian government might subpoena these copies from CrowdStrike and
finally pass them to FBI experts, which should've been done three years ago. The danger of this
happening is a much greater incentive for the Democrats to preemptively destroy Trump than all
the dirt Joe Biden had been rolling in as Obama's vice president.
This gives the supposedly innocuous reference to CrowdStrike during Trump's call a lot more
gravity and the previously incoherent part of the transcript begins to make sense.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been
through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened
with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike... I guess you have one of your
wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went
on, the whole situation.
If you read the transcript on the day it was released, you probably didn't understand what
Trump was even talking about, let alone what had caused such a disproportionate outrage,
complete with whistle blowing and calls for impeachment. What in that mild conversation could
possibly terrify the Democrats so much? They were terrified because, unlike most Americans, the
Democrats knew exactly what Trump was talking about. And now you know, too.
The fraudulent "CrowdStrike conspiracy" deflection is not a show of the Democrats'
strength. Instead, It betrays their desperation and panic, which tells us that Trump is
squarely over the target.
It also helps us to see who at Fox News can be trusted to tell us the truth. And it ain't
Chris Wallace.
Fine dissection of the CrowdStrike story. Of course if the DNC was serious about
finding out who breached their security they would have allowed the FBI to investigate.
They didn't - which means they're covering something up.
And who doesn't have at least one backup system running constantly, I have two and am
just a home user and the DNC would not have been dumb enough not to have one on the
premises and one off site for safety and preservation and the FBI could have gotten to
either one if they wanted to. DWS was involved in something very similar and the FBI
backed off again. I thought the DNC and the FBI were on the same page and would have
liked to find out how the "transfer" happened?
Yet DOJ Mueller conclusively signed off on the unsubtaniated fact the Russians had
hacked the DNC computers in his final Weissman Report. Just one more part of the curious Mueller report that was far more a CYA hit piece
against future claims of Obama crimes, than an investigation of past Trump ones.
Seth Rich - paper trail to Wikilinks needs to come out in any Senate impeachment trail
since Democrats claim the Ukraine phone call was Trump's alleged downfall. CROWDSTRIKE
was the only favor Trumps asked for.
There are two important facts to glean from this article:
1) Crowdstrike, the DNC contractor, is Ukrainian
2) that the famous server may have been backed up in Ukraine and not tampered with.
From the MSM we were given the 'interpretation' that Trump is an idiot who believes
that the DNC shipped the server with no changes to the Ukraine. No folks. He 'gets'
technology and security. He actual ran a business! (imagine).
I'd love to hear that in Hillary's own voice. :) You know, cleaned with a cloth?
That pretty much sums it up. MSM in total cahoots on this too since they put the
entire topic of the CROWDSTRIKE part of the phone call into the cone of silence.
The Left and media (One and the same within the "Deep State") have been playing "Three
Card Monte" with America for a while; it stops now!
The "Impeachment" media show being run by the Lefty tool cretins in the House has
NOTHING to do with wrong doing by President Trump. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fear
that President Trump will expose the depth of the swamp and bring the criminals on the
Left down to Justice!
We are s close to getting to the bottom of the conspiracies that threaten our nation.
Time to make the America haters pay for the harm they have done to our nation!
We need open and in depth prosecution of the criminal activities of the Left. There
needs to be LONG prison sentences and, yes, even executions for those that seek to
undermine our nation.
People need to know that there our GRAVE penalties for betraying our nation!
In fact, when I first heard this story - that is: very recently - I was puzzled: why
should a major party in the Country that invented IT and is still at its leading edge,
ask an obscure firm of a crumbling, remote foreign State to do their IT security
research? I'm not saying that Ukraine is a s++thole Country, but... you get me.
Either they have very much to hide, or they fear some closeted rightwing geek that works
in any of the many leftist US technofirms. Or, CrowdStrike were involved from the
beginning of the story, from the Steele dossier perhaps?
The whole Crowdstrike fiasco has been around for years - plus became a solid CYA part
of the Mueller report too - just in case the Democrats needed to bury it later.
don't you get it? The DNC is completely infiltrated by Ukrainian graft. Even Joe Biden
was on the take. Why won't they run their IT? (there is no Research in IT here, just
office software)
If you want to sell and deliver State Secrets and Intel to our enemies, then you
(Obama, the Clintons, the DNC) simply make it easier for THEM to access. They have done
this for years, and this is why they had to fill the DOJ, the FBI and the State
Department with traitors and haters of America and American principles. Barack Hussein
Obama, the Clintons, their evil administrations and even two-faced RINOS like McCain,
Romney, and Jeff Sessions were actively involved. This is treason pure and simple, and
all of the above could be legitimately and justifiably hung or shot without recourse, and
rightly so!
I have known about "Crowdstrike" since Dec. 2017. Pres. Trump is just subtlety
introducing background on what will be the biggest story of treachery, subversion,
treason and corruption ever. QAnon that the fakenews tries to vilify as a LARP has been
dropping crumbs about "Crowdstrike", Perkins Coir, Fusion GPS, FVEY and so much more!
Crowdstrike mentioned 7x in the last 2 years. I can't urge people enough to actually
investigate the Q posts for themselves! You will be stunned at what you have been
missing. Q which says "future proves past" and "news will unlock" what I see in the media
now is old news to those of us following Q. Q told us that "Senate was the prize" "Senate
meant more" that the investigations started in the House would now move to the Senate and
all this that the Dems and Rinos have been trying to hide is going to be exposed.
Fakenews corporate media has litterally written hundreds of hit pieces against Q - me
knows "they doth protest to much" - Recent Q post told "Chairman Graham its time. Senate
was the target"
Keep up with the Q posts and Pres. Trump's tweets in once place:
https://qmap.pub/ - And if you are still having a hard time believing this is legit
Pres. Trump himself has confirmed Q posts by "Zero Delta" drops - if you think this is
fake - try and tweet within 1 minute of when Pres. Trump does BUT your tweet has to
anticipate his! YOU have to tweet first and HE has to follow you within 1 minute.
MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY UNLESS you are in the same immediate space or communicating at
the time of the tweets! To all you doubters that think Q is just a by chance scam - NO
WAY. There have been MANY, MANY of these ZERO DELTA PROOFS over the last 2 years. The
most recent was Nov. 20th.
Crowdstrike in the dog who did not bark. The Democrat cone of silence they put on even
the mention of the word has been the most damning clue this is where the real action
is.
The assertion that a digital image of the computer can be transmitted quickly all
around the world is not necessarily correct in my experience as a cyber security analyst.
I'm not an upper echelon type, but I am aware that it can take up to weeks to transmit
such images depending on the hard disk, where it is, and the connections/network to your
device creating the image. The FBI should have physically taken the device since there
was a suspicion of wrong doing by Hillary Clinton. Had it been Donald Trump's computer I
do not doubt the FBI would either have imaged it on the spot or taken the device.
Last night I completely removed Catalina-Safari on my older Mac Book Air and
re-installed Mohave-Safari from my backup to the day before I installed Catalina
including the data and system just like it was before. It took around 5 hours and was
cabled and not on Wi-Fi and it was perfect and reset the clock, my old e-mails and the
newer ones as well. I can't believe being hooked into real broadband or fiber couldn't do
the same in a relatively short period of time, but still significantly longer than a
thumb drive or external hard drive.
One variable is how big your hard drive is. If it is a big drive at a remote location,
say somewhere in California to the Midwest, it can take weeks for a forensic backup. I
only say that because . . . well, I'm not allowed to say. But you get it.
The assertion is a figure of speech. Today's IT infrastructure companies sell the
service of maintaining clones in real-time in two or more locations for safety purposes.
VMware and other off-the-shelf products makes this kind of setup easy to deploy. Did
Crowdstrike offer that service and did the DNC buy it, that is the question? And, if so,
did Crowdstrike keep the image on their backups in Ukraine?
(Note: it is not obvious that such a setup would preserve the forensic data the FBI would
be looking for, but its a start).
In January 2017, after much hullabaloo from the Democrats about Russian hacking of the 2016
election, the Anonymous Patriots set out to get the record straight about who was hacking who.
Using basic internet research, along with our ability to separate fake media narrative from
actual truth, we posted a citizen intelligence report entitled: Russian Hackers Found
In this article, we disclosed that Dmitri Alperovitch is the Russian DNC hacker . Yet to
date, the corporate media remains silent on our report and intelligence agencies have not
updated the lame report that they originally provided as evidence of Russian hacking (see PDF
link below). While the Deep State operatives in the media and intelligence agencies continue to
suppress vital intelligence that the American people need to make America great again ,
the American Intelligence Media has
moved on to disclose more about Alperovitch and the Crowdstrike operations.
As we have discussed in several audios, Barack Obama's favorite cyberwarlord was Dmitri
Alperovitch, whose loyalty to the United States is certainly questionable. Is it odd to you
that Alperovitch, known as the best criminal Russian hacker in the world, was at one time
arrested by the FBI? If James Comey is the "D.C. Fixer" for the political elite, then Dimitri
Alperovitch is the "Cyber-Fixer" for the Deep State. Whether it's Russian, Korean, or Chinese
"hacking" in American, it is always Dmitri who is the only expert the Deep State calls
on to quickly examine the evidence and then hide or destroy it.
Also discussed at length is connection between the Ukrainian Atlantic Council to the DNC,
Clintons, NATO, Evelyn Farkas, George Soros, and the globalist gangsters . The anti-Russian
propaganda of NATO's Cold War machine (Atlantic Council) used Dmitri Alperovitch's Crowdstrike
to disrupt the U. S. Presidential election and Ukrainian/Russian relations. Additional
resources to support the audio discussion are:
The official Director of National Intelligence Agency report on Russian hacking (meddling)
in the U. S. presidential election is hyperlinked below – thirteen pages of a big
"nothing burger" that does not have a single piece of evidence. This is an embarrassing waste
of U.S. taxpayer dollars. .
Note that the entire "evidence" on Russian hacking of the DNC server is one paragraph
containing zero evidence.
Another fake intelligence report claims to describe how Dmitri Alperovitch's Cozy Bear and
Fancy Bear work in cyberspace. This report is another sad, expensive report that is nothing
more than a disinformation piece produced and published by two U.S. intelligence agencies
– the FBI and Department of Homeland Security – to propagandize Americans. What the
report actually describes is well-known and freely available Ukrainian malware that is old and
has nothing to do with Russia.
The report does not prove that Russia hacked the 2016 U.S. election, but it does reveal that
the PHP malware sample that the government provided from the CrowdStrike report is:
An old version of malware. The sample was version 3.1.0 and the current version is 3.1.7
with 4.1.1 beta also available.
Freely available to anyone who wants it.
The authors claim they are Ukrainian, not Russian.
The malware is an administrative tool used by hackers to upload files, view files on a
hacked website, download database contents and so on. It is used as one step in a series of
steps that would occur during an attack.
Wordfence (cyber analysis company) analyzed the IP addresses available in the declassified
report and demonstrated that they are in 61 countries, belong to over 380 organizations and
many of those organizations are well known website hosting providers from where many attacks
originate. There is nothing in the IP data that points to Russia specifically.
Furthermore, the report claims to contain technical details regarding the tools and
infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence services to compromise
and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of
U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities.
If you read this report, remember that it is propaganda, and the authors assume that you
know nothing about anything and count on you "believing" multiple U.S. intelligence agencies
who really work for the Deep State and not the American people.
4. Would Trump benefit from investigations in Ukraine and Burisma? Would he benefit any
more then the DNC would benefit with Russia?
Yes, Trump would benefit from investigations into Ukraine and Burisma. Does that mean that
it's not the right thing for the country? No. The truth is important no matter which side it
hurts in the next election. The left should be just as interested in learning the facts about
what had happened in Ukraine as they are trying to make it seem like they are with the Russia
investigations. Would it benefit him more then it would benefit the DNC though, then it does
with the Democrats investigating Russia? No. Unlike the Democrats, Trump doesn't have a
majority of the media on his side. A media who tries to spin absolutely every little rumor into
a major crisis, that they are sure will take down the President this time.
The left is quick to dismiss any talk of Ukraine just like the right is quick to dismiss any
talk of Russia. If either, or both, are true, it is a very severe threat to our Republic and
needs to be dealt with.
5. Which is more in line with America's national interest?
a) Withhold U.S. aid money ($400 billion) until recipient investigates: What happened to $7
billion in U.S aid? Was there any collusion to influence the U.S. election, government
corruption involving the State Department, U.S. intelligence, NGO's, U.S. candidates, etc.
OR
b) A President or Vice President withholding U.S. aid ($1 billion) unless recipient STOPS
investigations.
The answer to this question is really easy. We should absolutely investigate where the $7
billion went. We need to figure out if there was any influence in the US election. We should
investigate Vice President Joe Biden calling for the ambassador to be fired.
We know for a fact that there was collusion between the DNC and the Ukraine embassy in D.C.,
so why is it that nobody cares about that collusion? Why is it a big deal that Trump supposedly
withheld aid from Ukraine until they investigated Joe Biden, but no one seems to have a problem
with Joe Biden withholding aid to force Ukraine to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor so that an
investigation would be stopped? That wasn't an impeachable offense, but Donald Trump's phone
call with the Ukrainian President was? What has Trump done that is any worse then anything the
Obama administration did?
These 5 questions should be questions that both sides should be able to come together on but
sadly both sides are more concerned with party politics, more then they are concerned about the
security of our republic. Claiming that Russia is a treat doesn't automatically mean that you
believe Trump is an illegitimate President and that he colluded with Russia. Claiming that
Ukraine needs to be investigated doesn't mean that you are excusing anything that Donald Trump
has done. It simply means that you are more concerned with the national security of our country
then you are with party politics.
The mainstream media has woken up just enough to "fact-check" all of the information coming
out lately about the Democrats long history of corruption in Ukraine. The only problem is that
their "fact-checks" are completely contradictory of the actual facts.
Alexandra Chalupa
We can start off with Alexandra Chalupa. I got into a lot of detail about her and her
involvement with the DNC a few weeks ago. (That article, detailing exactly how she was involved
with the DNC, is still available at mikulawire.com.) She has even admitted that she did in fact
work with the DNC. According to Chalupa herself, "During the 2016 U.S. election, I was a part
time consultant for the DNC running an ethnic engagement program." She of course denies that
she was an opposition researcher and claimed that she never went to the Ukrainian embassy to
collect information, but does admit to being a part time consultant.
We also have the FEC records that show that she did make $71,918 in 2016. Between her own
words and the FEC records there's absolutely no denying that she did work for the DNC at least
up until May of 2016. With that kind of payment I do suspect that her employment was a little
more then as a "part-time consultant".
Now, absolutely everything about this would have been investigated if it was someone with
ties to Donald Trump. We would have spent millions of dollars and a several year investigation
trying to figure out exactly what she did for the RNC. Every liberal in the media would talk
about it non-stop. When it comes to Chalupa? No investigation. No questioning. Nothing. Nothing
other then immediately jumping to her defense as soon as the "far-right" started to expose
her.
The Washington Post recently published an article titled "The GOP Theory That Ukraine 'Set
Up' Trump". According to the Washington Post, "Chalupa may have worked with some embassy
officials, but there's no evidence that the DNC used information gathered by Chalupa or that
the Ukrainians coordinated opposition research with the DNC." The problem with their
"fact-check"? It isn't exactly accurate.
In January 2016, Chalupa reported to the DNC that she just "had a feeling" that there was a
Russian connection between Manafort and Trump. We have her to thank for starting this whole
collusion claim. That same month the Obama administration held a meeting at the White House. At
the meeting, President Obama instructed the Ukrainian prosecutor to look into a case involving
Paul Manafort. Coincidence? Maybe but you would think it would be deserving of some questioning
at least.
Chalupa continued checking in with the DNC up until at least May 2016. Each time it was the
same topic: Paul Manafort. Somehow, the Washington Post is claiming that there is no evidence
that the DNC used any information gathered by Chalupa, despite leaked emails confirming that
Paul Manafort's name regularly came up between Chalupa and the DNC.
Prosecutor That Was Fired Because of Joe Biden
Next, we have the prosecutor that Vice President Joe Biden got fired. According to the
prosecutor, he was fired because he was investigating Burisma and refused to drop the probe
into Biden. He even gave a sworn testimony in front of an Ukrainian court.
The left is disputing this. They claim that there was no active investigation into Burisma
at that time. According to virtually everyone in the media, that investigation was "dormant" at
the time. CNN's Jake Tapper, in an interview with Congressman Jim Jordan, called the
investigation dormant. CNN, the Associated Press, Business Insider, have all called the
investigation "dormant". Forbes at least used a different word and called it "inactive", but
basically claimed the same thing. It's almost like absolutely everyone in the main stream media
is reading off of the exact same script.
This entire claimed originated with an article from Bloomberg on May 6th 2019. According to
Bloomberg, "what has received less attention is that at the time Biden made his ultimatum, the
probe into the company-Burisma holdings, owned by Mykola Zlochevsky-had been long dormant,
according to the former official, Vitaliy Kasko." That claim was all it took for everyone in
the mainstream media to run with it. There was no investigation. No fact checking. Everyone
just ran with it. It turns out, that maybe someone in the media should have fact-checked it
before running with the claim.
Kasko, the Ukrainian that told this to Bloomberg, worked for Shokin, the Ukrainian
prosecutor that Joe Biden got fired. Shokin claims that Kasko was working with Biden to
undermine him, so that Kasko could get the job as prosecutor. Is it true? I don't know. But
shouldn't that at least be enough to be questioned, before everyone in the media runs with the
exact same story?
According to Shokin, "I finally crossed the threshold on February 2nd 2016, when we went to
the courts with petitions for re-arresting the property of Burisma. I suppose that then the
President received another call from Biden, blackmail by non-provision of a loan then
Poroshenko (the then President of Ukraine) surrendered." Shokin also said that "we were going
to interrogate Biden Jr., Archer, and so on."
The date of February 2nd 2016 is really important. February 2nd was a full month before
Biden got Shokin fired. If true, Shokin's claim proves that there was an active investigation
into Burisma and that Joe Biden's son, was going to be called in for questioning next. That
sounds like something that should deserve at least some questioning. It doesn't look suspicious
that Biden gets the Prosecutor fired just before the prosecutor was about to bring his son in
for questioning?
According to Ukrainian news sources there was an active investigation into Burisma and that
the courts were seizing property. According to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine, the court
"satisfied the petition to seize the property of Mykola Zlochevsky" on .February 2nd 2016, the
exact same date that Shokin claimed.
New Prosecutor Issues Retraction After Siding With Prosecutor Biden Got Fired
Then the Washington Post attempted to smear John Soloman, who is one of the very few guys
that actually does any reporting nowadays. According to the Washington Post, "John Soloman
foisted a bogus story on Fox News viewers. His punishment? A contact." In March, John Soloman
reported that a "top Ukrainian justice official says US ambassador gave him a do not prosecute
list." The claim is that the prosecutor was being told by the US ambassador who he could and
could not investigate.
After Biden got Shokin fired, Biden bragged that we finally have a good guy in there,
referring to Shokin's replacement, Yuriy Lutsenko. Lutsenko (the good guy) claimed that Shokin
(the bad guy) was corrupt, even though a single specific claim was never brought up against
Shokin. The problem now is that the good guy was saying the same thing that the bad guy was
saying before he was fired. The good guy was now also being told not to investigate the head of
Burisma among other things, including Biden's son.
If we had real journalists, the fact that the new prosecutor was saying the exact same thing
that the old prosecutor was saying, should have been investigated. Instead of actually
investigating, the media started making things up like they always do. They started making the
claim that Lutsenko retracted his claim. The only problem is that there is no evidence of him
retracting his statement.
The source of this claim appears to have started in an article from UNIAN, which is a
Ukrainian site. The headline read "Ukraine Prosecutor General Lutsenko admits U.S. ambassador
didn't give him a do not prosecute list". They were referencing an interview that Lutsenko gave
to another Ukrainian news site where he gave this "retraction". Lutsenko claimed that he "took
a piece of paper, recorded the surnames and said: 'Dictate a list of inviolable persons; She
says: 'No you misunderstood me.' I say: such lists were written (in the presidential
administration) on Bankova, and you offer new lists from Tankova (the U.S. Embassy)'. The
meeting is over. I'm afraid the emotions were not very good." So his "retraction" was
clarifying that he wasn't "handed" a list, but that the list was spoken to him, and then he
wrote it down.
That's seems like something that should be important enough to report. Everyone who reads
articles from the Washington Post and other sites are left to think that Lutsenko gave a
retraction and that he isn't a credible witness when no retraction was actually given. I would
say this is unbelievable but sadly I expect these kinds of games coming from the main stream
media.
Finally we have Lev Leshchenko who told the Financial Times back in August 2016, three
months before the election, that he was attacking Trump because "a Trump presidency would
change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American foreign policy He is a pro-Russian candidate who
can break the geopolitical balance in the world." This guy was working with the head of the
Anti-corruption bureau of Ukraine, that our government insisted they set up with NGO's. They
released the dirt on Paul Manafort and then started bragging about it to the press.
The Ukrainian court convicted Leshchenko for 1. Interfering in the 2016 election. 2.
Illegally interfering in Ukraine's foreign policy. What Leshchenko was convicted for in
Ukraine, the left is accusing Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani of the exact same thing. It seems
to be a common pattern among people who have something to hide. Usually if someone accuses you
of something, chances are they are themselves are guilty of the exact same thing.
Whenever "news" organizations such as the Washington Post mention this story, they usually
make a claim such as "In July, the ruling was overturned by an appeals court". So that means
that Leshchenko is not guilty? Not exactly.
According to an Ukrainian News headline: "Appeals Court: Sytnyk and MP Leshchenko Did Not
Act Illegally By Disclosing That Manafort's Name Is In Party of Regions' 'Black Ledger'." The
problem with that headline is that they were quoting what was said by the guy that was just
convicted. They never cared to report why the case was dismissed. The Washington Post then
allowed Leschchenko to write an article, debunking Rudy Giuliani's claims. That's what counts
as journalism now?
The comical thing is that Leschenko is on tape admitting that he was trying to influence the
election .and yet somehow he isn't guilty of interfering with the election?
It turns out that he is still guilty of both charges, but the media won't tell you that. The
case was thrown out, not because the charges were dismissed, but because of a technicality. The
defense cited 3 reasons why this case was thrown out. 1. The person that made the charges had
no right to file the lawsuit because his interests had not been affected. 2. The administrative
courts cannot consider lawsuits against Ukrainian members of parliament. 3. The statute of
limitations had expired. Innocent? No. Absolutely nothing was disputed.
A majority of those in the mainstream media aren't just clueless but are intentionally lying
and trying to manipulate us. They intentionally ignore key details so that they can twist every
story into something that fits their agenda. It's up to us to stop falling for their games. Its
up to us to stop taking everything they say as gospel and actually start to do the research for
ourselves. That is the only way that we can save our Republic. Democracy and Republics really
do die in darkness and ours is on the life support.
"... Preface by Washington's Blog: A leading cybersecurity expert has publicly said that Mr. Eliason's research as presented in this article does not violate the law. Washington's Blog does not express an opinion about whether or not the claims set forth in this article are accurate or not. Make up your own mind. ..."
"... StopFake- Irena Chalupa- Chalupa is the sister to the same Alexandra Chalupa that brought the term Russian hacking to worldwide attention. Irena Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is also a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked for more than twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic Council, where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor for Ukraine's propaganda channel Stopfake.org She is a Ukrainian Diaspora leader. The Chalupa's are the 1st family of Ukrainian propaganda. She works with and for Ukrainian Intelligence through the Atlantic Council, Stopfake, and her sisters Andrea (Euromaidanpr) and Alexandra. ..."
Originally By George Eliason, an American journalist living in Ukraine.
Preface by Washington's Blog: A leading cybersecurity expert has publicly said that Mr.
Eliason's research as presented in this article does not violate the law. Washington's Blog
does not express an opinion about whether or not the claims set forth in this article are
accurate or not. Make up your own mind.
Note: If any images are hard to see, you can look
here . (I'm not sure why, but these images are a tad fuzzier at ZH.)
A little over a year ago, the deep-state graced the world with Propornot . Thanks to them, 2017
became the year of fake news. Every news website and opinion column now had the potential to be
linked to the Steele dossier and Trump collusion with Russia. Every journalist was either with
us or against us. Every one that was against us became Russia's trolls.
Fortunately for the free world, the anonymous group known as Propornot that tried to "out"
every website as a potential Russian colluder, in the end only implicated themselves.
Turnabout is fair play and that's always the fun part, isn't it? With that in mind, I know
the dogs are going to howl this evening over this one.
The damage Propornot did to scores of news and opinions websites in late 2016-2017provides
the basis of a massive civil suit. I mean huge, as in the potential is there for a tobacco
company sized class-action sized lawsuit. I can say that because I know a lot about a number of
entities that are involved and the enormous amount of money behind them. How serious is
this?
In 2016, a $10,000 reward
was put out for the identities of Propornot players. No one has claimed it yet, and now, I
guess no one will. There are times in your life that taking a stand has a cost. To make sure
the story gets out and is taken seriously, this is one of those times.
If that's what it takes for you to understand the danger Propornot and the groups around
them pose to everyone you love, if you understand it, everything will have been well worth
it.
In this article, you'll meet some of the people staffing Propornot. You'll meet the people
and publications that provide their expenses and cover the logistics. You'll meet a few of the
deep state players. We'll deal with them very soon. They need to see this as the warning shot
over the bow and start playing nice with regular people. After that, you'll meet the NGO's that
are funding and orchestrating all of it. How am I doing so far?
The image that you see is the clincher or game winner that supplies the necessary proof up
front and the direct path to Propornot. This was a passive scan of propornot.com showing the
administrative dashboard belongs to the InterpreterMag.com as shown on the left of the image.
On the right, it shows that uploads to Propornot.com come from InterpreterMag.com and is a
product of that publication.
Now we have the first layer of Propornot, fake news, and our 1st four contestants. We havea
slew of new media organizations that are influenced by, or feeding Propornot. Remember, fake
news got off the ground and got its wings because of the attention this website received from
the Washington Post in Dec. 2016.
At the Interpreter Mag level, here are the people:
Michael Weiss is the Editor-in-Chief at the InterpreterMag.com. According to his Linkd profile , he
is also a National Security Analyst for CNN since Jul 2017 as well as an Investigative
Reporter for International Affairs for CNN since Apr 2017. He has been a contributor there
since 2015. He has been a Senior Editor at The Daily Beast since Jun 2015.
With the lengthy CNN cred's, how much involvement does CNN have in fake news? Yes, I know,
but we're talking about Propornot.
Catherine
A. Fitzpatrick is a Russian translator and analyst for the Interpreter. She has worked as
an editor for EurasiaNet.org and RFE/RL.
Pierre Vaux is an
analyst and translator for the Interpreter. He's also an intern. He is a contributor to
the Daily Beast, Foreign Policy, RFE/RL and Left Foot Forward and works at Dataminr Inc.
James Miller's bio at the InterpreterMag .com includes Managing Editor of The Interpreter
where he reports on Russia, Ukraine, and Syria. James runs the "Under The Black Flag" column
at RFE/RL which provides news, opinion, and analysis about the impact of the Islamic State
extremist group in Syria, Iraq, and beyond. He is a contributor at Reuters, The Daily Beast,
Foreign Policy, and other publications. He is an expert on verifying citizen journalism and
has been covering developments in the Middle East, specifically Syria and Iran, since 2009.
Follow him on Twitter: @MillerMENA- Miller even works for the US Embassy in Kiev "diplo-page"
the Kiev Post.
The Interpreter is a product of the Atlantic Council. The Digital Forensics Research Lab has been carrying
the weight in Ukrainian-Russian affairs for the Atlantic Council. Fellows working with the
Atlantic Council in this area include:
StopFake- Irena Chalupa- Chalupa is the sister to the same Alexandra
Chalupa that brought the term Russian hacking to worldwide attention. Irena Chalupa
is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is
also a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked
for more than twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic
Council, where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor
for Ukraine's propaganda channel Stopfake.org She is a Ukrainian
Diaspora leader. The Chalupa's are the 1st family of Ukrainian propaganda. She works with
and for Ukrainian Intelligence through the Atlantic Council, Stopfake, and her sisters Andrea
(Euromaidanpr) and Alexandra.
The strand that ties this crew together is they all work for Ukrainian Intelligence. If you
hit the links, the ties are documented very clearly. We'll get to that point again shortly, but
let's go further:
Propornot-> Atlantic Council -> Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)
Who are the BBG? According to Wikipedia- "The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) is an
independent agency of the United States government. According to its website, its mission is to
"inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy. The
BBG supervised Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio y Television
Marti, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcast Networks.
The board of the BBG was eliminated and replaced with a single appointed chief executive
officer as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which was
passed in December 2016."
In 2015, just a few months after Donald Trump launched his campaign for President, the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) hired Alexandria Chalupa to do opposition research on
Donald Trump. So who is she? If you read my article from 2 weeks ago, she was the one that said
she just "had a feeling" that Trump was somehow connected to Russia.
Chalupa's work didn't just start in 2015. While in college, she interned at the Clinton
White House in 1998. Her career as a Democratic operative started in 2002. From 2003-2004. She
worked as the Online Constituency Outreach Director for John Kerry's Presidential Campaign.
This is kind of weird because John Kerry's son is involved with Joe Biden's son in Burisma
which is the energy company in Ukraine. It was John Kerry's son that was there before Joe
Biden's son.
In 2004-2005, she was Executive Director for Democrats Abroad, a DNC organization that
mobilizes Democrats living outside of the United States. From 2006-2011, she worked for the
DNC. From 2013 to 2016, she was working for the DNC's National Ethnic Council and as a side gig
to that, she was also trafficking Ukrainian dirt on Donald Trump.
According to FEC records, the DNC paid her $412,000 between 2004 and 2016. She was also paid
separate unknown amounts by Democrats Abroad.
The official story from the DNC is that she left in July 2016. Her claim is that she left in
July 2016, but she continued doing her own research on Manafort and that she occasionally
shared her findings with the DNC and the Clinton Campaign. The Clinton campaign claims that
they never received any information from Chalupa.
According to Chalupa, "I was a part time consultant for the DNC running an ethnic engagement
program. I was not an opposition researcher for the DNC and the DNC never asked me to go to the
Ukrainian embassy to collect information." Official records show that she was paid $71,918 just
in 2016 for what she claims was just a part time job. Even if she wasn't technically a
"opposition researcher" she was doing her own investigation into Donald Trump and sharing
information with both the Clinton campaign and the DNC, while on the DNC's payroll.
According to Politico, Alexandra Chalupa has "a network of people in Kiev and Washington --
including Ukrainian government officials -- who would pass her information that she would then
float as potential research to DNC staffers." Keep in mind that it's not "right-wing"
organizations such as Fox news who are making those claims. That claim came from Politico,
which is a site that does lean to the left. Chalupa called Politico's story was "nonsense".
According to another source, Chalupa "informally" told committee staffers last year that
"Ukrainian officials had become concerned about Trump's campaign and his ties to Russia and
suggested having the DNC work with the Ukrainian embassy to bring some damning information to
light." That claim was reported by CNN, another news network that isn't known to be
"far-right."
Alexandria Chalupa could try to act like she's innocent in all of this but it isn't going to
work. Not only is she involved in the Democrats corruption in Ukraine and spreading false
information about Donald Trump, but so are her two sisters. All three have a long pattern of
corruption and trying to cause chaos in Ukraine.
Chalupa's one sister, Andrea, funded something called "DigitalMaidan". Digital Maidan was
created to support the removal of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Maidan refers to the
name of Independence Square in Kiev. Digital Maidan organized tweet storms to flood twitter
with anti-Yanukovych messages. Maidan also did tweet storms aimed at Donald Trump such as
#TreasonousTrump, just a few weeks before the 2016 election.
Her other sister, Irene, is also very active in Ukrainian affairs. She has been a journalist
in Kiev, and was a long time editor at the "Atlantic Council". Irene was the contributor to a
bi-weekly report called "Ukraine Alerts". A senior fellow at the same think tank, Dmitri
Aperovitch, was coincidentally also the CEO of Crowdstrike. If that sounds familiar,
Crowdstrike was the security firm that the DNC hired to investigate the 2016 hacks, on the DNC.
Crowdstrike was also brought up by Donald Trump with his call with the Ukrainian President.
The Atlantic Council receives funding from a Russian Oligarch, named Victor Pinchuck.
Pinchuck was a former member of the Ukrainian parliament and sits on the International Advisory
Board of the Atlantic Council. Pinchuck is also one of the biggest donors to the Clinton
Foundation. Hmmm. In 2013, the Atlantic Council awarded Hillary Clinton with a "Distinguished
National Leadership" award.
Irena now works for an organization called "StopFake.org". This is a site that was going to
"verify and refute disinformation and propaganda about events in Ukraine." Now they expanded to
"fact check, de-bunk, edit, translate, research and disseminate information in 11
languages."
"StopFake.org" receives money from the International Renaissance Foundation which was an
organization being investigated by the Prosecutor General. This was the guy that Joe Biden
pressured the Ukrainian President to fire. Oh, and no Democratic corruption scandal is complete
without George Soros. Soros funds the International Renassiance Foundation, along with what
seems like absolutely everything else that the left is involved.
So Alexandra Chalupa and her two sisters were all involved in Ukraine and all three were on
a mission to stop Donald Trump.
Chalupa, who claims she did nothing wrong, hired Michael Avenatti to represent her. Avenatti
tweeted that he was "now representing Alexandra Chalupa in connection with investigating
pursing possible legal claims against Manafort, Trump and other affiliated individuals. She was
targeted with baseless, bogus, allegations, all designed to distract away from Trump's Russian
collusion." When Chalupa was challenged for hiring Michael Avenatti to represent her, she
responded with "He's a friend and someone I trust. He's also a fighter and on the right side of
history. He's already made a big impact, and now we're about to take it up a notch." Michael
Avenatti is the guy who was arrested for stealing $300,000 from Stormy Daniels after using
every opportunity to make sure he was seen in front of the camera attacking Donald Trump.
A few weeks after Donald Trump's shocking win, Chalupa wrote an article for the online blog
publishing platform, Medium, in which she described what she believed to be was Russia's
motivation for hacking the DNC during the 2016 election. "Russia's economy has also suffered
due to its reliance on oil and the drop in oil prices. Trump's appointment of an exxon-mobil
executive as Secretary of State shows an alignment of Russian and Trump administration
interests that is Kleptocratic."
Within a few days of posting this article, she met with 2 men. One of the men were now
working with Democrats Abroad, which was the same organization that Chalupa worked for just a
few years ago. He was put in touch with Chalupa because he had information that could help her
in her investigation into Donald Trump and his connections with Russia.
The other man was a guy who spent 17 years in federal prison for drug conspiracy,
impersonating a federal officer and setting off a series of homemade bombs in Indiana in
1978.
These two men met with Chalupa to discuss Russian hacking in the 2016 election. Chalpua paid
$9,000 for documents that supposedly linked Exxon mobil, Rex Tillerson and Donald Trump to
Russia's hacking on the DNC. Buzzfeed investigated the documents and ran a story titled "How
Donald Trump's Enemies Fell For A Billion-Dollar Hoax", in which they debunked the documents
and proved they were forged. One of the myths that were debunked was that Rex Tillerson paid
the Trump organization $1.4 billion in June 2016, so that he could secure the Secretary of
State position. I mean was that something that really needed to be investigated? A claim that
Tillerson paid $1.4 billion to Trump so that Trump would hire him for a position making
$200,000 per year?
We can thank Alexandra Chalupa for starting this whole collusion delusion nonsense. After
over 2 years and hundreds of millions of dollars spent of your money, and they still can't
prove that Donald Trump colluded with Russia. Maybe it's time now to investigate Chalupa and
those who were responsible for pushing the collusion delusion. There is far more evidence of
the corruption in the DNC, then there is today after spending hundreds of millions of dollars
looking into Russia. It's time that we hold the DNC accountable and actually investigate them.
Everything they accused Donald Trump of doing with Russia, they were doing with Ukraine and
it's time we investigate them.
Posted in The
Mikula Report Tagged # DNC #
Ukraine <img
src="https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4c41be0c99f13e0b390701061c93f515?s=96&d=mm&r=g">
Levi Mikulahttp://mikulawire.com
Next Post
Questions
That Need to be Asked By Both Sides, Regarding Russia and Ukraine Mon Nov 4 , 2019
There are some questions that each one of us should ask ourselves, regardless of where we fall
on the political spectrum. There are times when we need to put aside our differences and put
the national interest of the country above what is in the best interest for our political
party. There are some questions that both sides should be able to come together on and answer
the same way, regardless of who you voted for in the last election and regardless of whether
you agree with Donald Trump on anything or not. Should we investigate whether Russia did try to
influence the election? Yes! We should! We have solid proof that Russia did try to influence
the 2016 election. That shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. We knew that Russia was interested
in trying to influence U.S. elections, going back to 2012. Remember when Mitt Romney warned
about Russia and was mocked for it? "The 1980's called and they want their foreign policy back"
we were told by Barack Obama. Now suddenly the left is concerned with Russia and the right
automatically dismisses any talk of Russia trying to influence U.S. elections. Sadly, both
sides seem more concerned with party politics then our national security. Not only did Russia
try to influence the 2016 election, but they will try it again in 2020 and beyond. This is an
issue where both sides should be able to come together, to discuss ways to prevent a foreign
power, any foreign power, from interfering with our elections again. Sadly, that doesn't look
like it will happen anytime soon, even though that is what we should be focusing on. 2. Should
we find out if Donald Trump colluded with Russia to hurt the Democrat candidate? Yes, we
should! If Trump did in fact knowingly collude with Russia, he should be impeached and then
removed from office. But we can't just remove a President based on accusations from the other
side. We need to find the solid evidence that Trump colluded with Russia, before we remove him
from office. We have yet to find that concrete evidence, even after an investigation that
lasted over two years, and tens of millions of dollars spent. If that concrete evidence were to
be discovered, every American should absolutely support removing Donald Trump. 3. Does the fact
that the DNC will benefit by a Russia investigation mean we shouldn't pursue the investigation?
No! We should absolutely still pursue the investigation, regardless of what it means for the
2020 election. National interest should come before party interests. There is no denying that
any talk of Russia will hurt Donald Trump. There is no denying that the media will try to spin
absolutely everything into their favor, regardless of what the facts show. But, this is a
serious issue involving national security that we need to get to the bottom of. Like I said
earlier, if we can prove that Donald Trump did in fact collude with Russia, he should be
removed from office. If Russia did in fact try to influence the U.S. election, which in fact
they did, they need to be dealt with. Both sides need to be willing to accept what ever the
investigations show. If Trump knowingly colluded with Russia, he should absolutely be removed.
If there is no evidence of him knowingly colluding with Russia, then the left needs to accept
that and move on. But we can't lose site the danger that Russia poses to our country. That is
an issue that neither side wants to pay any attention to. This is much bigger then anything
Donald Trump may or may not have done. 4. Would Trump benefit from investigations in Ukraine
and Burisma? Would he benefit any more then the DNC would benefit with Russia? Yes, Trump would
benefit from investigations into Ukraine and Burisma. Does that mean that it's not the right
thing for the country? No. The truth is important no matter which side it hurts in the next
election. The left should be just as interested in learning the facts about what had happened
in Ukraine as they are trying to make it seem like they are with the Russia investigations.
Would it benefit him more then it would benefit the DNC though, then it does with the Democrats
investigating Russia? No. Unlike the Democrats, Trump doesn't have a majority of the media on
his side. A media who tries to spin absolutely every little rumor into a major crisis, that
they are sure will take down the President this time. The left is quick to dismiss any talk of
Ukraine just like the right is quick to dismiss any talk of Russia. If either, or both, are
true, it is a very severe threat to our Republic and needs to be dealt with. 5. Which is more
in line with America's national interest? a) Withhold U.S. aid money ($400 billion) until
recipient investigates: What happened to $7 billion in U.S aid? Was there any collusion to
influence the U.S. election, government corruption involving the State Department, U.S.
intelligence, NGO's, U.S. candidates, etc. OR b) A President or Vice President withholding U.S.
aid ($1 billion) unless recipient STOPS investigations. The answer to this question is really
easy. We should absolutely investigate where the $7 billion went. We need to figure out if
there was any influence in the US election. We should investigate Vice President Joe Biden
calling for the ambassador to be fired. We know for a fact that there was collusion between the
DNC and the Ukraine embassy in D.C., so why is it that nobody cares about that collusion? Why
is it a big deal that Trump supposedly withheld aid from Ukraine until they investigated Joe
Biden, but no one seems to have a problem with Joe Biden withholding aid to force Ukraine to
fire the Ukranian prosecutor so that an investigation would be stopped? That wasn't an
impeachable offense, but Donald Trump's phone call with the Ukranian President was? What has
Trump done that is any worse then anything the Obama administration did? These 5 questions
should be questions that both sides should be able to come together on but sadly both sides are
more concerned with party politics, more then they are concerned about the security of our
republic. Claiming that Russia is a treat doesn't automatically mean that you believe Trump is
an illegitimate President and that he colluded with Russia. Claiming that Ukraine needs to be
investigated doesn't mean that you are excusing anything that Donald Trump has done. It simply
means that you are more concerned with the national security of our country then you are with
party politics. <img width="640" height="360"
src="https://mikulawire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Trump-and-Biden-1024x576.jpg" alt=""
/> You May Like
"... Nuland's comment came in response to news that that there would be a second phase of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes' investigation into Russian interference – this time focusing on the State Department. Nunes sent a questionnaire to about two dozen current and former intelligence, law enforcement and State Department officials. My guess is Nuland was one of them. Former Secretary of State John Kerry may have been another. ..."
"... Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. When Trump's unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well. ..."
On February 4, 2018, Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of
State in the Obama Administration went on Face the Nation and made the
following comment :
During the Ukraine crisis in 2014-15, Chris Steele had a number of commercial clients who
were asking him for reports on what was going on in Russia, what was going on in Ukraine, what
was going on between them. Chris had a friend [Jonathan Winer] at the State Department and he
offered us that reporting free so that we could also benefit from it. It was one of, you know,
hundreds of sources that we were using to try to understand what was going on.
Then, in the middle of July, when he was doing this other work and became concerned, he
passed two to four pages of short points of what he was finding and our immediate reaction to
that was, this is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI if there is any concern here
that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation.
That's something for the FBI to investigate.
Nuland said the State Department received the Dossier directly from Steele in mid-July 2016,
whereupon the State Department turned it over to the FBI (segmented video
here ).
Which is right around the time Susan Rice began showing increased interest in National
Security Agency (NSA) intelligence material – including "unmasked" Americans' identities.
From a
Circa article :
Intelligence sources said the logs discovered by National Security Council staff suggested
Rice's interest in the NSA materials, some of which included unmasked Americans' identities,
appeared to begin last July around the time Trump secured the GOP nomination and accelerated
after Trump's election in November launched a transition that continued through January.
Nuland's comment came in response to news that that there would be a
second phase of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes' investigation into
Russian interference – this time focusing on the State Department. Nunes sent a questionnaire to about two dozen current and former intelligence, law
enforcement and State Department officials. My guess is Nuland was one of them. Former Secretary of State John Kerry may have been
another.
The New York Times
had earlier reported that the FBI received the Steele Dossier directly from Christopher Steele
on July 5, 2016 – the same day as Comey's infamous exoneration of Hillary Clinton during
a news conference:
The reports came from a former British intelligence agent named Christopher Steele, who was
working as a private investigator hired by a firm working for a Trump opponent. He provided the
documents to an F.B.I. contact in Europe on the same day as Mr. Comey's news conference about
Mrs. Clinton. It took weeks for this information to land with Mr. Strzok and his team.
This claim was recently repeated in a lengthy article in the
New Yorker . In this version, the Steele Dossier was given to the FBI on July 5, 2016. By ~July 20, 2016,
Comey had seen it and Strzok had the Dossier in his possession.
There is a third version of events, provided by Jonathan Winer in a
Washington Post Op-Ed :
In 2009, I met and became friends with Steele, after he retired from British government
service focusing on Russia. Steele was providing business intelligence on the same kinds of
issues I worked on at the time. Over the years, Steele and I had discussed many matters relating to Russia. He asked me
whether the State Department would like copies of new information as he developed it.
I contacted Victoria Nuland, a career diplomat who was then assistant secretary of state for
European and Eurasian affairs, and shared with her several of Steele's reports. She told me
they were useful and asked me to continue to send them. Over the next two years, I shared more
than 100 of Steele's reports with the Russia experts at the State Department, who continued to
find them useful.
In the summer of 2016, Steele told me that he had learned of disturbing information
regarding possible ties between Donald Trump, his campaign and senior Russian officials. He did
not provide details but made clear the information involved "active measures," a Soviet
intelligence term for propaganda and related activities to influence events in other
countries.
In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as
the "dossier." Steele's sources suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the hacking
of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign but also had compromised
Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign.
I was allowed to review, but not to keep, a copy of these reports to enable me to alert the
State Department. I prepared a two-page summary and shared it with Nuland, who indicated that,
like me, she felt that the secretary of state [John Kerry] needed to be made aware of this
material.
In this third version, Nuland and the State Department received the Dossier in September
2016.
Nuland made her comments on February 4, 2018. Winer wrote his Op-Ed on February 8, 2018.
Winer has known Steele since 2009. Nuland has known Steele since 2014 – during the
Ukraine crisis.
Victoria Nuland is famous for an interesting conversation with the U.S. Ambassador to
Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt on or before February 4, 2014 (transcript here ):
During the call, which was intercepted and leaked, the two appear to be discussing replacing
Ukrainian President Yanukovych with opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Some excerpts:
PYATT: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition
leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here.
NULAND: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's
necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.
PYATT: Yeah. I guess in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out
and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process
moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together.
NULAND: I think Yats [opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk] is the guy who's got the economic
experience, the governing experience. He's the what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the
outside.
PYATT: The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on
that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
NULAND: Sullivan's come back to me VFR, saying you need [Vice President] Biden and I said
probably tomorrow. So Biden's willing.
Here's what actually happened:
On or before February 4 2014 – Call between Pyatt and Nuland.
February 22, 2014 – Yanukovych was
removed as President of Ukraine.
February 27 2014 – Yatsenyuk was installed as Prime Minister of Ukraine.
Klitschko was left out. Yatsenyuk would
resign
in April 2016 amidst corruption accusations.
April 18 2014 – Hunter Biden was
appointed to the Board of Directors for Burisma – one of the largest natural gas
companies in Ukraine.
April 22 2014 – VP Biden
travels to Ukraine and
offers support and $50 million in aid for Yatsenyuk's shaky new government.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly
questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump
aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after
the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his
advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met
with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between
Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of
the situation.
That Ukrainian-American was DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa.
Manafort's work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named
Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the
Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for
Democratic National Committee.
The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission
records, though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic
campaigns and the DNC's arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.
Some actions taken by Chalupa (sources from Politico
article unless otherwise linked):
January 3 2014 – Leaders representing more than a dozen Ukrainian-American
organizations, including the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, met at the
White House with President Obama's senior national security staff to discuss the crisis in
Ukraine.
The non-partisan meeting held on January 3 was initiated by the co-chairs of
Ukrainian-Americans for Obama, Julian Kulas, Andrew Fedynsky and Ulana Mazurkevich, as well
Alexandra Chalupa , co-convener of the National Democratic Ethnic Coordinating Committee.
This was approximately one month prior to Nuland's call with Pyatt regarding the
installation of Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister of Ukraine.
2014 (undetermined) -Chalupa begins to investigate Paul Manafort.
Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested
in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort's role in Yanukovych's rise, as well as
his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych's political party.
Late 2015 – Chalupa expands her opposition research into Manafort to include Trump's
ties to Russia.
Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington,
including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives.
When Trump's unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more
on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well.
She occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton's campaign
January 2016 – Chalupa informs a senior DNC official that she feels there is a Russia
connection with the Trump Campaign.
Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump's campaign, "I felt there was
a Russia connection," Chalupa recalled. "And that, if there was, that we can expect Paul
Manafort to be involved in this election," said Chalupa, who at the time also was warning
leaders in the Ukrainian-American community that Manafort was "Putin's political brain for
manipulating U.S. foreign policy and elections."
March 25 2016 – Chalupa shared her concerns with the Ukrainian Ambassador to the
U.S.
She said she shared her concern with Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, and
one of his top aides, Oksana Shulyar, during a March 2016 meeting at the Ukrainian Embassy.
According to someone briefed on the meeting, Chaly said that Manafort was very much on his
radar, but that he wasn't particularly concerned about the operative's ties to Trump.
March 29 2016 – Chalupa briefs DNC Communication staff.
The day after Manafort's hiring was revealed, she briefed the DNC's communications staff on
Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia, according to an operative familiar with the
situation.
A former DNC staffer and the operative familiar with the situation agreed that with the
DNC's encouragement, Chalupa asked embassy staff to try to arrange an interview in which
Poroshenko might discuss Manafort's ties to Yanukovych.
While the embassy declined that request, officials there became "helpful" in Chalupa's
efforts, she said, explaining that she traded information and leads with them.
Chalupa said the embassy also worked directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and
Russia to point them in the right directions.
April 4 – April 12 2016 – Ukrainian Parliamentarian Olga Bielkov has
four meetings – with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic Studies),
Liz Zentos (National Security Council), Michael Kimmage (State Dept) and David Kramer (McCain
Institute).
Doug Schoen files FARA documents that
show he was paid $40,000 a month by Ukrainian Billionaire Victor Pinchuk (page 5) to arrange
these meetings.
Schoen attempts to arrange another 72 meetings with Congressmen and media (page 10). It is
unknown how many meetings took place.
April 6 2016 – Chalupa holds a meeting with an assistant of Representative Marcy
Kaptur.
Chalupa confirmed that, a week after Manafort's hiring was announced, she discussed the
possibility of a congressional investigation with a foreign policy legislative assistant in the
office of Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus.
April 26 2016 – Investigative reporter Michael Isikoff publishes
story on Yahoo News about Paul Manafort's business dealings with Russian oligarch Oleg
Deripaska.
April 28 2016 – Chalupa appears on a panel to discuss her research on Manafort with a
group of 68 Ukrainian investigative journalists gathered at the Library of Congress for a
program sponsored by a U.S. congressional agency called the Open World Leadership Center.
From a Wikileaks
email sent by Chalupa to Luis Miranda, Communications Director of the DNC:
I spoke to a delegation of 68 investigative journalists from Ukraine last Wednesday at the
Library of Congress – the Open World Society's forum – they put me on the program
to speak specifically about Paul Manafort and I invited Michael Isikoff whom I've been working
with for the past few weeks and connected him to the Ukrainians.
Two points.
Open World is a supposedly non-partisan Congressional agency.
Michael Isikoff is the same journalist Christopher Steele leaked
to in September 2016:
The Carter Page FISA application extensively cited a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focused on Page's July 2016 trip to
Moscow. This information was used to corroborate the Steele Dossier.
Steele leaked to Isikoff who wrote the article for Yahoo News. The Isikoff article was then
used to help obtain a Title I FISA grant to gather information on Page. This search was then
leaked by Steele to David Corn at Mother Jones.
Isikoff accompanied Chalupa to a reception at the Ukrainian Embassy immediately after the
Library of Congress event.
May 3 2016 – Chalupa emails Luis Miranda, Communications
Director of the DNC (same email referenced above).
A lot more coming down the pipe More offline tomorrow since there is a big Trump component
you and Lauren need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I'm working on
you should be aware of.
Late July 2016 – Chalupa leaves the DNC to work full-time on her research into
Manafort.
Chalupa left the DNC after the Democratic convention in late July to focus full-time on her
research into Manafort, Trump and Russia . She said she provided off-the-record
information and guidance to "a lot of journalists" working on stories related to Manafort and
Trump's Russia connections.
August 4 2016 – Ukrainian ambassador to U.S.
writes op-ed against Trump.
August 15 2016 – CNN
reports that Manafort is named in a Ukrainian probe over potentially illegal payments
received from Ukraine's pro-Russian ruling party.
August 19 2016 – CNN
reports the FBI is conducting an inquiry into Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort's payments
from pro-Russia interests in Ukraine in 2007 and 2009.
August 19 2016 – Ukrainian parliament member Sergii Leshchenko
holds news conference to draw attention to Paul Manafort and Trump's "pro-Russia" ties.
September 19 2016 – At UN General Assembly meeting in New York, Ukrainian President
Poroshenko
meets with Hillary Clinton.
November 28 2016 – McCain associate
David Kramer flies to London to meet Christopher Steele for a briefing on the Dossier. Upon
Kramer's return, Fusion GPS provided McCain with a copy of the Dossier.
July 24 2017 – Senator Charles Grassley
sends a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein regarding the actions taken by
Chalupa.
According to news reports, during the 2016 presidential election, "Ukrainian government
officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump" and did so by "disseminat[ing]
documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the
matter.
At the center of this plan was Alexandra Chalupa, described by reports as a
Ukrainian-American operative "who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee" and
reportedly met with Ukrainian officials during the presidential election for the express
purpose of exposing alleged ties between then-candidate Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, and
Russia.
Chalupa's actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a foreign
government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to influence
not only the U.S voting population but U.S. government officials.
Aside from the apparent evidence of collusion between the DNC, Clinton campaign, and
Ukrainian government, Chalupa's actions implicate the Foreign Agents Registration Act
(FARA).
Chalupa reportedly worked directly with Ukrainian government officials to benefit Ukraine,
lobbying Congress on behalf of Ukraine, and worked to undermine the Trump campaign on behalf of
Ukraine and the Clinton campaign.
The January 4, 2018 Grassley Memo – made
public on February 6, 2018, made clear that both the State Department and the Clinton Campaign
directly contributed information used by Steele in the formation of his Dossier.
I'm curious if Chalupa met directly with Christopher Steele. It's clear her research was
funneled by the DNC to Steele's Dossier.
Former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland must have known about all of this.
People above her had to know as well.
On March 6, 2018, Sara Carter
reported that the House Intelligence Committee is now investigating former Secretary of
State John Kerry:
The House Select Committee on Intelligence is now investigating former Secretary of State
John F. Kerry's possible role into the unverified dossier paid for by the Democratic National
Committee and Hillary Clinton Campaign.
The climb up the Obama Administration hierarchy appears to have finally begun.
For the past three years, we have heard nonstop that Donald Trump colluded with Russia and
needs to be impeached. After nearly three years, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who was
against impeachment the whole time we were waiting for the Mueller Report, has suddenly,
instantly, changed her position and has now opened an impeachment inquiry. Why? Why the sudden
change? After millions of dollars and a two year investigation, she was still against
impeachment over Russia, but when it comes to Ukraine, without any of the facts coming out,
before the transcript of the phone call was even released, and before she even talked to the
whistle blower, she suddenly changed her mind on impeachment?
This sudden change over what amounts to an office rumor, actually makes a lot of sense now.
The Democrats desperately need to control the narrative. Everything they accused Trump of with
Russia, they were doing with Ukraine, and it could bring down the entire Democrat Party. What
Joe and Hunter Biden did really only scratches the surface of a much larger and more corrupt
party.
It's possible something else will come out that implicates Trump, but all of the facts right
now are pointing to the Democrats and a very long pattern of corruption when it comes to
Ukraine.
In Feburary 2014, protesters seized Kiev (the capitol of Ukraine) and President Viktor
Yanukovych was forced to flee. President Obama then appointed Vice President Joe Biden as the
new point man for Ukraine.
March 2014, Joe Biden's son, Secretary of State John Kerry's son, neither of who had any
experience, decide to start an investment firm. The two boys meet with Kerry's financial
advisor, Devon Archer, for advice.
April 2014, Joe Biden flies to Ukraine, but someone else also flies to Ukraine. Devon
Archer
May 2014, Devon Archer, is appointed board member of Burisma, which is a gas company,
whose main operations are in Ukraine. Guess who was also appointed as a board member. Hunter
Biden.
That should be enough to show you that something doesn't seem right. But that's just the
Biden story. That just scratches the surface of corruption between the Democrats and Ukraine
and no one in the media wants to talk about it. All everyone wants to talk about is what is
really like the front and back cover of a novel. The media seems obsessed with the back cover
(Trump's phone call with the President of Ukraine) and care a little about the front cover (Joe
and Hunter Biden) but that's about it. What I'm going to explain now is some of what's between
those two covers.
Now because of this poor, very corrupt country, Ukraine, President Obama decided to give a
massive aid package in May 2014. That aid package included:
A $1 billion sovereign loan guarantee
$118 million in equipment and training for their security forces.
$20 million for law enforcement reform.
A fleet of advisors in banking, politics, energy, media, and human rights.
After that aid package was given, because they are so corrupt, the United States demanded
that Ukraine start a National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. A man named Artem Sytnky is
tapped to be the first director of this bureau. Since he is now the director, he has a direct
line to President Obama. Back to them in a minute.
The director of Burisma, Ihor Kolomoyski, is so corrupt that he isn't even allowed into the
United States. Lucky for him, he owns a bank in Ukraine though. And because the United States
was giving $1.8 billion to Ukraine, we needed a bank to deposit the money. So where do we
deposit the money? Into PrivatBank, which is owned by Ihor, who just happens to run
Burisma.
Now I'm sure that it's just a coincidence that that $1.8 billion in PrivatBank goes missing.
I mean it's not like a corrupt oligarch would ever consider stealing $1.8 billion or anything.
It also must be a coincidence, that this guy who is so corrupt that he couldn't even come into
the United States, is just happened to be given a Visa at the same time that we deposited $1.8
billion into his bank.
By late 2015, we had become Ukraine's piggy bank. Not only are we giving them money but we
are also helping them with advisors. Advisors such as:
Greg Craig, Former Obama White House Counsel.
Tad Devine, Chieft Strategist for Bernie Sanders.
Tony Podesta, brother to John Podesta. If John Podesta sounds familiar, he was the White
House Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton and then Counselor to President Obama.
Mark Penn, Chief Strategist for Hillary Clinton.
John Anzalone, Obama campaign pollster.
Joel Benenson, Obama campaign lead pollster.
In June 2015, Donald Trump announces that he is running for President.
In late 2015, the DNC hires Alexandria Chalupa, who is a daughter of an Ukranian immigrant,
to do opposition research on Donald Trump. Opensecrets.org has confirmed that she did in fact
work for, and was paid $71,918 by the DNC. That was just for her work with the 2016 election,
although she's been working with the DNC since 2004.
In January 2016, Chalupa starts to investigate Donald Trump. She approaches an official in
the DNC because she "feels like there was a Russia connection." Oh really? She felt like Trump
was connected with Russia, before any evidence or allegations? Paul Manafort wasn't working for
the campaign at this time. There was no Steele Dossier at this time. George Papadopoulos wasn't
on the campaign yet. There was no fISA requests. But somehow she just "felt" that Trump was
connected to Russia?
She starts her investigation, focusing on Paul Manafort. Manafort, who I will admit is an
extremely corrupt guy, was trying to get the exited President back into power. Now her
investigation was only focused on trying to dig up dirt on Manafort. She didn't seem concerned
with Tad Devine and Tony Podesta also working on the same thing, with Paul Manafort.
That same month, that Chalupa just had "a feeling" that there was a connection with Trump
and Russia, the Obama White House summoned the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. The
Obama administration said that we need to begin cooperation with Ukraine. The meeting
immediately turned to two main issues: 1) The scandal involving Joe and Hunter Biden. 2) A case
tied to Paul Manafort. Obviously, they decided to investigate the case tied to Paul Manafort
and was pressured to ignore the scandal involving the Biden's and to not investigate where that
$1.8 billion went. You would think we should be more concerned about $1.8 billion in taxpayers
money just disappearing.
After the meeting, a prosecutor with the anti-corruption board, who was investigating the
Biden's involvement, was fired. This investigator who never had any problems with the Obama
administration before was now fired because, according to him, "I was leading a wide ranging
corruption probe into Burisma Holdings ("Burisma") a natural gas firm active in Ukraine, and
Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors. I assume Burisma, which
was connected with gas extraction, had the support of Vice-President Joe Biden because his son
was on the board of Directors."
Following this meeting, The Hill ran a story titled: "How the Obama White House engaged
Ukraine to give Russia Collusion narrative in an early boost." According to the article, the
deputy head of the anti-corruption organization claimed that "there was a clear message about
helping the Americans with the party of the regions case." Regarding the Manafort case, "there
was a lot of talking about needing help and then the ledger just appeared in public." What is
this ledger that was mentioned? Back to that in a minute.
In March 2016, out of nowhere, Paul Manafort joins the Trump team. This is definitely
exciting news for the Democrats considering they had been setting Manafort up for months.
Shortly after that, Chalupa starts working directly with the Ukranian embassy in the United
States and starts raising alarm bells on Manafort. According to Chalupa's own words, the
embassy "worked directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort, and Russia to point them
in the right directions."
So the Ukranian embassy in the United States worked directly with a DNC operative, to damage
the Republican candidate for President, to influence the election. Doesn't that sound exactly
like what they accused Trump of doing with Russia?
Remember that Anti-corruption bureau in Ukraine? In June 2016, the FBI decided that they
were doing such a good job that the two groups should partner together. Now they could share
any information that they couldn't have shared before. It's a lot like the wall that was
between the CIA and FBI before 9-11. The two groups couldn't share information with each other,
but when that wall was torn down, they were free to share anything they wanted.
So what was the ledger that was discussed in the meeting at the White House? This ledger was
released by Ukraine's anti-corruption bureau on Paul Manafort. The black ledger refers to
financial records that were kept by the former Ukranian President. Within days of this coming
out and Paul Manafort going to jail, Tony Podesta, who was doing the same thing as Manafort,
with the exact same people, just decides to suddenly close his political lobbying firm. This is
one of the biggest lobbying firms in the United States, and he just suddenly decides to close
up shop and retire without any warning. You would think that that would be something that
should be investigated, considering it was right after Paul Manafort was arrested.
In June 2017, White House Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, accused the DNC of
colluding with Ukraine and even quoted a New York Times article. If we had anyone in the media
who did their jobs, that claim would have been investigated immediately. That is a very serious
allegation that was completely ignored by the media. Had I been in the White House press pool,
that would be my very first question. I would be demanding an explanation.
I do have to give the New York Times some credit. Despite being a leftist paper, they do
occasionally get some things right and when they really want to, they know how to act like
journalists.
The media in the United States seems to have forgotten to talk about the two men in Ukraine
being arrested because they tried to influence the US election. Seems like kind of a big story
that I would have liked to read about. They were found guilty and very interesting evidence was
released. The Ukranian prosecutor gave an interview with the Ukranian media where he claims
that "I don't know how, but the Americans got an audio recording of Mr. Sytnik's (the head of
the corruption bureau in Ukraine) conversation: He is resting with his family and friends and
discussing how he would like to help Hillary."
This audio that was released has been reported by Ukranian papers for months, yet somehow
the media in the U.S. didn't find it to be a big deal? The audio proved that Ukrainians are in
fact guilty of trying to interfere with the 2016 election.
In April 2019, the Mueller Report is released and proves absolutely nothing of what the
Democrats have been accusing Trump off for over two years.
11 days after the Mueller Report is released, a new Ukranian President is sworn in. This is
a guy who did not do any interviews and didn't explain any of his policies and ended up winning
the election. The comedian in the race ended up winning and becoming the Ukranian
President.
This new President thinks that everything that is currently happening in Ukraine is insane
and that the whole country is corrupt, including his own ambassador. He decides to recall the
Ukranian ambassador, not long after Donald Trump also fired his ambassador. That means the
pipeline is now clear after corrupt ambassadors for both the Ukraine and the United States are
out of the way. That's what led to the phone call between the two Presidents.
Everything I have written here can easily be proven because of documents and audio
recordings that have been released. But let's forget all of that. No, the phone call between
the two Presidents is what the media thinks is the only important part of this story. They'll
throw the Biden's under the bus too since they don't really care about Biden. The solid
evidence that Ukranian officials tried to influence the 2016 election apparently isn't news
worthy enough.
Sadly, this still only scratches the surface. This is just some of what has been proven so
far. You would think that it would be important for someone to actually look into, but the
media is too busy focusing on a phone call to actually report any of the facts.
For the past three years, we have been hearing nonstop that Donald Trump colluded with
Russia, and yet have heard absolutely nothing about what the Democrats were doing in Ukraine.
The Ukranian embassy in the United States worked directly with the DNC to get dirt on a
candidate for President and influence the 2016 election, and no one is talking about it.
There is absolutely no reason to push impeachment a year before an election unless you need
to change the narrative, and that is exactly what they are trying to do, and what they
desperately need to do. The DNC is slowly being exposed and they are terrified that their dirty
secrets could take down the entire party. It's up to us to hold them accountable for their
corruption.
Posted in The
Mikula Report Tagged # Ukraine
Chalupa reportedly
acknowledged in her 2017 interview with Politico that she worked as a consultant for the
DNC during the 2016 campaign with the goal of publicly exposing Trump campaign aide
Paul Manafort 's
links to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. Chalupa admitted coordinating with the Ukrainian
Embassy, and with Ukrainian and U.S. news reporters.
I won't sit here and claim that what I've heard over the last 2 days with family in town,
is at all representative of all Americans but it was interesting. I have all kinds of
political affiliation in the family: Maga's, Dims and Independents. All are TIRED of both
sides antics. No one wanted to discuss it except to say that we are ALL fucked in one way or
another. What was lively political debate before was met with a lack of discussion and
instead a pervasive frustration and sadness about the system itself how corrupt it all is but
not knowing what to do about it.
I just wonder if that's how many Americans feel about all this. At least those sick of all
of it.
Most of us are aware of that. It doesn't mean that he isn't right about some things
though, and he's incredibly amusing at times. If there is ever a non zionist candidate, I'd
happily vote for them. At least he's not a west hating bolshevik golem.
As is everyone else in washington. Ron, Rand, and Tulsi, not given a chance. Obama was
probably the least zionist president we've had in decades, and he still went along with most
of their goals, along with being a fabian socialist.
Please wake up soon. Your savior is running $1 trillion annual deficits, has raised the
troop numbers in Afghanistan from 8500-14,000, will not leave Syria, bombed Syria twice with
zero evidence of gas attacks because there were none. Anybody who thinks there's a dime's
worth of difference between the parties comatose, please wake up soon.
As for Chalupa, she has served in several roles for the DNC while also working as an
pro-Ukraine activist. A former staffer in the Bill Clinton White House, Chalupa worked as
executive director for Democrats Abroad in the 2000s and as head of the DNC's national ethnic
outreach group during the 2016 campaign.
In her spare time, Chalupa organized social media campaigns against Trump. One of those
efforts encouraged activists to share the Twitter hashtag, #TreasonousTrump.
Chalupa, who founded the U.S. United With Ukraine Coalition in 2014, also led the DNC's
opposition research into any Trump ties to Russia, according to
an essay she recently published at Medium.
Politico reported in
January that Chalupa worked with the Ukrainian government to compile and disseminate research
on links between Trump, his campaign advisers, and the Russian government.
To help spread that information, Chalupa relied on "a network of sources in Kiev and
Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence
operatives," Politico reported.
One of the investigative journalists Chalupa worked with was Yahoo! News' Michael
Isikoff.
In a May 3, 2016
email released by WikiLeaks, Chalupa informed Luis Miranda, the DNC's communications
director at the time, that she had "been working with" Isikoff on stories involving Trump
campaign chairman Paul Manafort's work in Ukraine. She also said she had invited Isikoff to a
conference with dozens of Ukrainian journalists to discuss Manafort, a former consultant to
Viktor Yanukovych, a former Ukrainian president allied with Vladimir Putin.
Days before Chalupa's email, Isikoff published an
in-depth report on an ill-fated business partnership between Manafort and a Russian
oligarch allied with Putin named Oleg Deripaska.
In her email, Chalupa hinted to Miranda of "a big Trump component that will hit in next few
weeks." She also claimed that she was being targeted in state-sponsored computer hacking
attempts because of her research on Manafort.
According to Politico, Chalupa was paid $412,000 for consulting work from 2004 through June
2016. The last payment was made on June 20 for $25,000, records filed with the Federal Election
Commission show.
Ariel first got in touch with Chalupa and Kimberlin after Trump won the election, sometime
in mid-November. The Israeli noted that he had written articles asserting that Trump colluded
with the Russian government to influence the election.
At the time of his first contact with Chalupa and Kimberlin, Ariel had not seen the
documents that would later be debunked by BuzzFeed.
The documents soon ended up in the inboxes of several news outlets, but reporters quickly
determined that they were rife with errors. Names were misspelled; dates didn't make sense; the
gist of the underlying claim didn't pass the smell test.
Ariel, who says he once worked with the the anti-apartheid African National Congress,
disputed some of the BuzzFeed report. He said that the article portrayed him as the party most
responsible for pushing the documents. But he told TheDC that he always had at least some doubt
about the veracity of the papers. He also says that he did not send them to news outlets.
"... This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server and still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to Bill Binney, the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move off the server that fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does not agree with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking ridiculous and impossible at best. ..."
Here's what's different in the information I've compiled.
The group I previously identified as Fancy Bear was given access to request password
privileges at the DNC. And it looks like the DNC provided them with it.
I'll show why the Podesta email hack looks like a revenge hack.
The reason Republican opposition research files were stolen can be put into context now
because we know who the hackers are and what motivates them.
At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal.
It is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to
State Department servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. I have already
clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators.
This gives some credence to the Seth Rich leak (DNC leak story) as an act of patriotism.
If the leak came through Seth Rich, it may have been because he saw foreign Intel operatives
given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential election. No
political operative is going to argue with the presumed president-elect over foreign policy.
The leaker may have been trying to do something about it. I'm curious what information
Wikileaks might have.
The real crime of the DNC hack wasn't the hack.
If only half of the following proved true in context and it's a matter of public record,
that makes the argument to stop funding for Ukraine immediately barring an investigation of
high crimes by Ukrainian Diaspora, Democrat, and Republican leaders in Congress, private
Intel for hire, and Ukrainian Intel's attacks on the US government and political
processes.
Perhaps it's time Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump should consider treason investigations
across the board. Make America great again by bringing justice and civility back.
DNC
Hack – High Crimes or Misdemeanors?
So what went on at the DNC way back in 2016? Do you know? Was it a hack or a leak? Does it
matter?
Recently, an investigative journalist who writes under the name Adam Carter was raked over
the coals. Carter writes at Disobedient
Media and has been providing a lot of
evidence supporting the DNC leak story former Ambassador Craig Murray and Wikileaks claim
happened.
When the smear article came out and apparently it's blossoming into a campaign, a few
people that read both of us wrote to the effect "looks like your work is the only thing left
standing." I immediately rebuffed the idea and said Carter's work stands on its own . It has nothing to do with
anything I've written, researched, or plan to.
I'd say the same about Scott Humor ,
Lee Stranahan ,
Garland Nixon ,
Petri
Krohn , or Steve McIntyre
. And there are many others. There has been a lot of good work on the DNC hacks and 2016
election interference. Oftentimes, what looks like contradictory information is complimentary
because what each journalist is working on shows the story from a different angle.
There are a lot of moving parts to the story and even a small change in focus brings an
entirely new story because it comes from a different direction.
Here's what I mean. If the DNC hack was really a leak, does that kill the "hack" story?
No, it doesn't and I blame a lot of activist journalists for making the assumption that it
has to work this way. If Seth Rich gave Ambassador Craig Murray a USB stick with all the
"hacked info," it doesn't change an iota of what I've written and the evidence you are about
to read stands on its own. But, this has divided people into camps before the whole situation
could be scrutinized and that's still not done yet.
If for example you have a leak on Jan 5th , can you have "a hack" on Jan 6th , 7th, or
8th? Since there is so much crap surrounding the supposed hack such as law enforcement teams
never examining the DNC server or maintaining control of it as evidence, could the hacks have
been a cover-up?
Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile said Russian hackers persisted in
trying to break into the organization's computers "daily, hourly" until after the election
-- contradicting President Obama's assertion that the hacking stopped in September after he
warned Russian President Vladimir Putin to "cut it out."-ABC
This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server
and still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to
Bill Binney, the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move
off the server that
fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does not agree
with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking ridiculous
and impossible at best.
The DNC fiasco isn't that important of a crime. The reason I say this is the FBI would
have taken control over material evidence right away. No law enforcement agency or Intel
agency ever did. This means none of them considered it a crime Comey should have any part of
investigating. That by itself presents the one question mark which destroys any hope Mueller
has proving law enforcement maintained a chain of custody for any evidence he introduces.
It also says the US government under Barrack Obama and the victimized DNC saw this as a
purely political event. They didn't want this prosecuted or they didn't think it was
prosecutable.
Once proven it shows a degree of criminality that makes treason almost too light a charge
in federal court. Rest assured this isn't a partisan accusation. Team Clinton and the DNC
gets the spotlight but there are Republicans involved.
Identifying Team Fancy Bear
There are a couple of caveats that need to be made when
identifying the Fancy Bear hackers . The first is the
identifier used by Mueller as Russian FSB and GRU may have been true- 10 years ago. This
group was on the run trying to stay a step ahead of Russian law enforcement until October
2016. So we have part of the Fancy bear hacking group identified as Ruskie traitors and
possibly former Russian state security. The majority of the group are Ukrainians making up
Ukraine's Cyber Warfare groups.
The hackers, OSINT, Cyber, spies, terrorists, etc call themselves volunteers to keep safe
from State level retaliation, even though a child can follow the money. As volunteers
motivated by politics and patriotism they are protected to a degree from retribution.
They don't claim State sponsorship or governance and the level of attack falls below the
threshold of military action. Mueller has a lot of latitude for making the attribution
Russian, even though the attacks came from Ukrainian Intel. Based on how the rules are
written, because the few members of the coalition from Shaltai Boltai are Russian in
nationality, Fancy Bear can be attributed as a Russian entity for the purposes of
retribution. The caveat is if the attribution is proven wrong, the US will be liable for
damages caused to the State which in this case is Russia.
How large is the Fancy Bear unit? According to their propaganda section InformNapalm, they
have the ability to research and work in over 30 different languages.
This can be considered an Information Operation against the people of the United States
and of course Russia. We'll get to why shortly.
From all this information we know the Russian component of Team Fancy Bear is Shaltai
Boltai. We know the Ukrainian Intel component is called CyberHunta and Ukraine Cyber Alliance
which includes the hacker group RUH8. We know both groups work/ worked for Ukrainian
Intelligence. We know they are grouped with InformNapalm which is Ukraine's OSINT unit. We
know their manager is a Ukrainian named Kristina Dobrovolska. And lastly, all of the above
work directly with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.
In short, the Russian-Ukrainian partnership that became Fancy Bear started in late 2013 to
very early 2014 and ended in October 2016 in what appears to be a squabble over the alleged
data from the Surkov leak.
But during 2014,2015, and 2016 Shaltai Boltai, the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance, and
CyberHunta went to work for the DNC as opposition researchers.
The First Time Shaltai
Boltai was Handed the Keys to US Gov Servers
The setup to this happened long before the partnership with Ukrainian Intel hackers and
Russia's Shaltai Boltai was forged. The hack that gained access to US top-secret servers
happened just after the partnership was cemented after Euro-Maidan.
"After Abedin sent an unspecified number of sensitive emails to her Yahoo account, half a
billion Yahoo accounts were hacked by Russian cybersecurity expert and Russian intelligence
agent, Igor Sushchin, in 2014. The hack, one of the largest in history, allowed Sushchin's
associates to access email accounts into 2015 and 2016."
Igor Sushchin was part of the Shaltai Boltai hacking group that is charged with the Yahoo
hack.
The time frame has to be noted. The hack happened in 2014. Access to the email accounts
continued through 2016. The Ukrainian Intel partnership was already blossoming and Shaltai
Boltai was working from Kiev, Ukraine.
So when we look at the INFRASTRUCTURE HACKS, WHITE HOUSE HACKS, CONGRESS, start with
looking at the time frame. Ukraine had the keys already in hand in 2014.
The DNC's Team
Fancy Bear
The "Fancy Bear hackers" may have been given the passwords to get into the servers at the
DNC because they were part of the Team Clinton opposition research team. It was part of their
job. Let that concept settle in for a moment.
According to
Politico "In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network
of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists , government officials
and private intelligence operatives . While her consulting work at the DNC this past election
cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said
that, when Trump's unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began
focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well
."
The only investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence
operatives that work together in 2014-2015-2016 Ukraine are Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta,
Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and the Ministry of Information.
Since 2014 in Ukraine, these are the only OSINT, hacking, Intel, espionage, terrorist,
counter-terrorism, cyber, propaganda, and info war channels officially recognized and
directed by Ukraine's Information Ministry. Along with their American colleagues, they
populate the hit-for-hire website Myrotvorets with people who stand against Ukraine's
criminal activities.
Alexandra
Chalupa hired this particular hacking terrorist group called Fancy Bear by Dimitry
Alperovich and Crowdstrike at the latest in 2015. While the Ukrainian hackers worked for the
DNC, Fancy Bear had to send in progress reports, turn in research, and communicate on the
state of the projects they were working on. Let's face it, once you're in, setting up your
Fancy Bear toolkit doesn't get any easier. This is why I said the DNC hack isn't the big
crime. It's a big con and all the parties were in on it.
Indict Team Clinton for the
DNC Hacks and RNC Hack
Hillary Clinton
exposed secrets to hacking threats by using private email instead of secured servers.
Given the information provided she was probably being monitored by our intrepid Ruskie-Ukie
union made in hell hackers. Anthony Weiner exposed himself and his wife
Huma Abedin using Weiner's computer for top-secret State Department emails. And of course
Huma Abedin exposed herself along with her top-secret passwords at Yahoo and it looks like
the hackers the DNC hired to do opposition research hacked her.
Here's a question. Did Huma Abedin have Hillary Clinton's passwords for her private email
server? It would seem logical given her position with Clinton at the State Department and
afterward. This means that Hillary Clinton and the US government top secret servers were most
likely compromised by Fancy Bear before the DNC and Team Clinton hired them by using
legitimate passwords.
The RNC Hack
According to the Washington Post , "Russian government hackers penetrated the computer
network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of
opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee
officials and security experts who responded to the breach."
In January
2017 , criminal proceedings started for Edward Nedelyaev under articles 335 'spying' and
343
'inciting hatred or enmity." He was a member of the Aidar battalion. Aidar members have
been cited for torture and murder. Although the translation isn't available on the linked
video the MGB (LNR equivalent to the FBI) ask Aidar's Nedelyaev about his relationship with
Ukraine's SBU. The SBU asked him to hack US presidential candidate Donald Trump's election
headquarters and he refused. Asked if this was through convictions, he says no, explaining
that he is not a hacker.
The video was published on January 10, 2017 .
Taken at face value it really does show the ineptness of the SBU after 2014. This is why
Ukraine relied (s) on the Diaspora financed Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine Cyber
Alliance, RUH8, Bellingcat, Webradius, InformNapalm and associated parties.
The Ukrainians were hired to get the goods on Trump. Part of that is knowing where to
start isn't it?
Fancy Bear's Second Chance at Top Secret Passwords From Team
Clinton
How stupid would the Fancy Bear teams of Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukrainian Cyber
Alliance, and RUH8 be if they had access to the DNC servers which makes it easier to get into
the US State servers and not do that if it was their goal?
One very successful method of hacking is called social engineering. You gain access to the
office space and any related properties and physically locate the passwords or clues to get
you into the hardware you want to hack. This includes something as simple as looking over the
shoulder of the person typing in passwords.
Let's be clear. The Fancy Bear hackers were hired by Alexandra Chalupa to work for DNC
opposition research. On different occasions, Fancy Bear handler Kristina Dobrovolska traveled
to the US to meet the Diaspora leaders, her boss Alexandra Chalupa, Irena Chalupa, Andrea
Chalupa, US Dept of State personnel, and most likely Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.
Alperovich was working with the hackers in 2015-16. In 2016, the only groups known to have
Fancy Bear's signature tools called X-tunnel and X-Agent were Alperovich, Crowdstrike, and
Fancy Bear (Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and RUH8/RUX8. Yes, that does
explain a few things.
Here is where it goes from bad to outright Fancy Bear ugly.
Hillary Clinton retained State Dept. top secret clearance passwords for 6 of her former
staff for research purposes from 2013 through prepping for the 2016 election. Were any
foreigners part of the opposition research team for Team Hillary in 2014-2015-2016? The
Clinton's don't have a history of vetting security issues well.
Let's recap. Clinton keeps 6 top secret passwords for research staff. Alexandra Chalupa is
running a research department that is rich in (foreign) Ukrainian Intelligence operatives,
hackers, terrorists, and a couple Ruskie traitors.
Kristina Dobrovolska was acting as a handler and translator for the US State Department in
2016. She is the Fancy Bear *opposition researcher handler manager. Kristina goes to
Washington to meet with Chalupa.
Alexandra types in her password to show Dobrovolska something she found and her eager to
please Ukrainian apprentice finds the keystrokes are seared into her memory. She tells the
Fancy Bear crew about it and they immediately get to work looking for Trump material on the
US secret servers with legitimate access. I mean, what else could they do with this? Turn
over sensitive information to the ever corrupt Ukrainian government?
According to
the Politico article , Alexandra Chalupa was meeting with the Ukrainian embassy in June
of 2016 to discuss getting more help sticking it to candidate Trump. At the same time she was
meeting, the embassy had a reception that highlighted female Ukrainian leaders.
Accompanying them Kristina Dobrovolska who was a U.S. Embassy-assigned government liaison
and translator who escorted the delegates from Kyiv during their visits to Albany and
Washington.
Kristina Dobrovolska is the handler manager working with Ukraine's DNC Fancy Bear Hackers
. She took the Rada members to dinner to meet Joel Harding who designed Ukraine's infamous
Information Policy which opened up their kill-for-hire-website Myrotvorets. Then she took
them to meet the Ukrainian Diaspora leader doing the hiring. Nestor Paslawsky is the
surviving nephew to the infamous torturer The WWII OUNb leader, Mykola Lebed.
The
Podesta Hack – Don't Mess with OUNb Parkhomenko
I have no interest in reviewing his history except for a few points. Adam
Parkhomenko, a Diaspora Ukrainian nationalist almost gained a position in the presumed
Clinton White House. As a Ukrainian nationalist, his first loyalty, like any other Ukrainian
nationalist, is to a fascist model of Ukraine which Stepan Bandera devised but with a win it
would be in America.
During the 2016 primaries, it was Parkhomenko who accused Bernie Sanders of working for
Vladimir Putin. Parkhomenko has never really had a job outside the Clinton campaign.
<img
src="https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11.png"
alt="Adam Parkhomenko" width="355" height="454"
srcset="https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11.png
355w,
https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11-235x300.png
235w" sizes="(max-width: 355px) 100vw, 355px" /> Before Clinton declared her candidacy,
Parkhomenko started a PAC for Hillary Clinton with the goal of getting millions of people
email lists so the support was ready for a Clinton run. After she declared her candidacy,
Robby Mook, Hillary's campaign manager decided to sideline Parkhomenko and didn't take on his
full staff as promised. He reduced Parkomenko to a quiet menial position when he was brought
onboard.
Ultimately, Podesta became responsible for this because he gave Parkhomenko assurances
that his staff would be brought on and there would be no gaps in their paycheck. Many of them
including Parkhomenko's family moved to Brooklyn. And of course, that didn't happen. Podesta
was hacked in March and the Ukrainian nationalist Adam Parkhomenko was hired April 1st .
Today, Parkhomenko is working as a #DigitalSherlock with the Atlantic Council along with
the Fancy Bear hackers and many of the people associated with them. Why could this be a
revenge hack?
The Ukrainian Intel hackers are Pravy Sektor Ukrainian nationalists. Alexandra Chalupa is
also an OUNb Bandera Ukrainian nationalist. This Ukrainian nationalist was on his way to
becoming one of the most powerful people in America. That's why.
The DNC Leak- A
Patriotic Act
At the same time her aides were creating "loyalty scores ", Clinton, "instructed a
trusted aide to access the campaign's server and download the messages sent and received by
top staffers. She believed her campaign had failed her -- not the other way around -- and
she wanted 'to see who was talking to who, who was leaking to who.2'" After personally
reading the email correspondence of her staffers, she called them into interviews for the
2016 campaign, where she confronted them with some of the revelations."-
Forget about the DNC. The hackers may have spent months surfing the US secret servers
downloading and delivering top secret diplomatic files to their own government. The people
entrusted with this weren't just sloppy with security, this is beyond treason.
It doesn't matter if it was Seth Rich, though I hope it was ( for identification's sake),
who downloaded data from the DNC servers. The reasons supporting a leak are described by the
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This shows clearly why the leak to
Wikileaks is much more plausible than a hack for the files taken in what is commonly called
the DNC hack. This leak was one "hack" of many that was going on.
Imagine being this person inside the situations described above with the reality hitting
you that things were very wrong. Even if they only saw parts of it, how much is too much? US
government secrets were being accessed and we know this because the passwords were given out
to the research teams the hackers were on.
It is very possible that giving the files to Wikileaks was the only safe way to be a
whistleblower with a Democrat president supporting Team Hillary even as Team Hillary was
cannibalizing itself. For detail on how the leak happened, refer to Adam Carter at
DisobedientMedia.com and the VIPS themselves.
Today, this isn't a Democrat problem. It could just as easily been an establishment
Republican.
Ukraine needs to pay for what their Intel Operators/ hackers have done. Stop funding
Ukraine other than verifiable humanitarian aid. Call your Congressional Rep.
Next up – We are going to look at who has oversight over this operation and who's
footing the bills.
Showed clearly why Mueller's evidence is rife with fraudulent data.
We solved the DNC Hack-Leaks and showed the how and why of what went on.
If you want to support investigative research with a lot of depth, please support my
Patreon page. You can also
support my work through PayPal as we expand in new directions over the coming year. For the
last 4 years, it's been almost entirely self-supportive effort which is something when you
consider I live in Donbass.
Top Photo | Former Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile holds a copy of her
book Hacks, detailing the hacking of the DNC, during a meeting of The Commonwealth Club, Nov.
9, 2017, in San Francisco. Marcio Jose Sanchez | AP
George Eliason is an American journalist that lives and works in Donbass. He has been
interviewed by and provided analysis for RT, the BBC, and Press-TV. His articles have been
published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews, the Saker, RT,
Global Research, and RINF, and the Greanville Post among others. He has been cited and
republished by various academic blogs including Defending History, Michael Hudson, SWEDHR,
Counterpunch, the Justice Integrity Project, among others.
Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
"... "The Blaze has released an audio recording that they recently obtained that appears to show Artem Sytnyk, Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, admitting that he tried to boost the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton by sabotaging then-candidate Donald Trump's campaign. ..."
"... The Ukrainian embassy political officer who worked at the embassy at the time, Andrii Telizhenko, stated that the Ukrainians "were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa" and that "the embassy worked very closely with" Chalupa. ..."
"The Blaze has released an audio recording that they recently obtained that appears
to show Artem Sytnyk, Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, admitting
that
he tried to boost the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton by sabotaging then-candidate
Donald Trump's campaign.
The connection between the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Ukrainian government
was veteran Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa, "who had worked in the White House Office
of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration" and then "went on to work as a staffer,
then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee," Politico
reported.
Chalupa was working directly with the Ukrainian embassy in the United States to raise
concerns about Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and, according to Politico , she
indicated that the Embassy was working "directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and
Russia to point them in the right directions."
The
Ukrainian embassy political officer who worked at the embassy at the time, Andrii Telizhenko,
stated that the Ukrainians "were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul
Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa" and that "the embassy worked very closely with" Chalupa.
The Blaze highlighted an email from WikiLeaks from Chalupa to Louis Miranda at the
DNC:
"Hey, a lot coming down the pipe. I spoke to a delegation of 68 investigative
journalists from Ukraine last night at the Library of Congress, the Open World Society forum.
They put me on the program to speak specifically about Paul Manafort. I invited Michael
Isikoff, who I've been working with for the past few weeks, and connected him to the
Ukrainians. More offline tomorrow, since there was a big Trump component you and Lauren need
to be aware of that will hit in the next few weeks. Something I'm working on that you should
be aware of."
The Blaze then reported
that Sytnyk, who eventually "was tried and convicted in Ukraine for
interfering in the U.S. presidential election in 2016 ," released a "black ledger" on
Manafort during the 2016 presidential election that eventually led to Manafort's downfall.
Alexandra Chalupa was a key player in the Democrat's waste management business (i.e.
organizing street resistance against President Trump, keeping the collusion fake news narrative
alive, and spreading the evolving anti-Trump rumors).Chalupa also is very well
connected (and paid) and regularly hobnobs with Democrat elites.She also is aligned
with the early stages of fake Trump-Russia dossier and she hired creepy porn lawyer Michael
Avenatti to represent her in court.Avenatti is now indicted for numerous scams and
Chalupa is likely right behind him.
Three months ago creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti announced he was representing an
individual accused of being involved in the creation of the fake Russia-Trump dossier against
President Trump. His client, Alexandra Chalupa, also attended and no doubt put together a rally
for Avenatti outside the White House.
Now, the creepy porn lawyer is facing jail time and Chalupa is likely next!
As
we reported in December 2018, Andrii Telizhenko was approached by DNC operative Alexandra
Chalupa in early 2016. Chalupa wanted dirt on candidate Trump and his campaign manager Paul
Manafort. The Ukrainian embassy in Washington DC worked CLOSELY with the DNC
operative Chalupa.
Chalupa told Andrii she wanted Russian "dirt" on the Trump campaign.
The Gateway Pundit spoke with Telizhenko on the DNC Russia-gate Scandal –
Alexandra Chalupa was apparently hired by the DNC going as far back as 2013. According to
Politico:
A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American
diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing
pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching
Manafort's role in Yanukovych's rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who
funded Yanukovych's political party."
Politico also noted that Chalupa claimed that in October of 2015 she began investigating
Trump's ties to Russia. Why she began this investigation is completely unknown. Trump NEVER had
any ties with Russians. The only thing of significance that had happened at this point was that
Trump announced he was running for office. There was no apparent triggering event. Candidate
Trump had very limited contact with Russia or Russia businessmen.
Also, according to Politico, in January of 2016, Chalupa suddenly and out of the blue warned
the DNC about Paul Manafort. Manafort's name hadn't even been mentioned at this point in time.
Chalupa made a prediction that if Team Trump hired Paul Manafort that it would be clear and
convincing evidence that Trump had ties to Russia.
Manafort worked with Hillary's Campaign Manager John Podesta and his brother Tony in the
Ukraine. They worked to bring in US politicians to meet with Ukranian politicians.
It's unknown how much money these individuals received for their visit to the Ukraine or if
Chalupa was involved.
Politico
continued stating that the DNC had performed Trump – Russia research long before
Chalupa came along (i.e. January 2016) –
A DNC official stressed that Chalupa was a consultant paid to do outreach for the party's
political department, not a researcher. She undertook her investigations into Trump, Manafort
and Russia on her own, and the party did not incorporate her findings in its dossiers on the
subjects, the official said, stressing that the DNC had been building robust research books
on Trump and his ties to Russia long before Chalupa began sounding alarms."
Chalupa is also connected to Ukrainian by the name of Vasili Filipchuk, who ran the
organization labeled ICPS. Filipchuk too is expected of helping to write the phony Trump-Russia
dossier. The entity he works for ( ICPS ) stands for the International Center for Policy Studies
and it was founded by Open Society.
Open Society is a well
known George Soros funded organization that fronts as an entity that works "to build vibrant
and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable and open to the participation of all
people." In reality it is a far-left organization that works against freedoms embedded in the
US Constitution and across Europe.
Along with being connected to the fake Trump – Russia dossier and suspicious
individuals in the Ukraine, Chalupa also is involved in the creation of astro-turfed (i.e.
created by Democrat leadership) anti – Trump events in Washington D.C.
Chalupa also assisted in a fund raiser for fired and corrupt FBI leader Andrew McCabe
–
Chalupa
is another typical example of the corrupt leadership in the Democrat Party.She made up
fake stories against President Trump and then pushed them at Democrat funded rallies while
hiring a creepy porn lawyer to cover her misdeeds. What a nasty piece of work!
Alexandra Chalupa is as slimy as the day is long.
Let's hope the hammer is about to drop on this Soros-linked operative.
"... The Atlantic Council, along with the Brookings Institute and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, were the subject of an unflattering portrayal in a New York Times article, Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks : ..."
"... Irena Chalupa's ideological interests in Ukraine are aligned directly with those of Alexandra Chalupa. ..."
I wrote on the
role of Alexandra Chalupa – a Ukrainian-American DNC operative – who appears at
the center of the DNC's construction of information used in the Steele Dossier.
The role of former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland in disseminating the Dossier
– along with her involvement in shaping Ukraine – was also discussed.
The name Victor Pinchuk was mentioned.
Victor
Pinchuk is a Ukrainian billionaire. He is the founder of Interpipe, a steel pipe manufacturer. He also owns Credit Dnipro Bank,
some ferroalloy plants and a media empire. He is married to Elena Pinchuk, the daughter of former Ukrainian President Leonid
Kuchma. Pinchuk's been accused of profiting immensely from the purchase of state-owned assets at
severely below-market prices through political favoritism.
Pinchuk used his media empire to deflect blame from his father-in-law, Kuchma, for the
September 16, 2000 murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze. Kuchma was never charged but is
widely believed to have ordered the murder. A series of recordings would seem to back up
this assertion.
On April 4 through April 12 2016, Ukrainian Parliamentarian Olga Bielkov had
four meetings – with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic Studies),
Liz Zentos (National Security Council), Michael Kimmage (State Dept) and David Kramer (McCain
Institute).
Doug Schoen filed FARA documents
showing that he was paid $40,000 a month by Victor Pinchuk (page 5) – in part to arrange
these meetings.
Schoen attempted to arrange another 72 meetings with Congressmen and media (page 10). It is
unknown how many meetings took place.
Schoen has worked for both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Schoen helped Pinchuk establish ties with the Clinton Foundation. The Wall Street Journal
reported
how Schoen connected Pinchuk with senior Clinton State Department staffers in order to pressure
former Ukrainian President Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko – a political rival of
Yanukovych – from jail.
The relationship between Pinchuk and the Clintons continued.
In 2013, Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk welcomed current U.S. Democratic Party
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton onto the stage at his Yalta European Strategy, an annual
conference he funds to promote Ukraine's European integration and strategy, calling her: "a
real megastar."
Clinton and her husband Bill, the 42nd U.S. president, have been paid speakers at the annual
YES and other Pinchuk events. They describe themselves as friends of Pinchuk, who is known
internationally as a businessman and philanthropist.
To date, Pinchuk's charitable foundation has given $125 million to various causes, according
to his spokespeople.
Although exact numbers are not clear,
reports filed by the Clinton Foundation indicate that as much as $25 million of Pinchuk's
"charitable donations" went to the Clinton organization.
Victor Pinchuk , a steel magnate whose father-in-law, Leonid Kuchma, was president of
Ukraine from 1994 to 2005, has directed between $10 million and $25 million to the foundation.
He has lent his private plane to the Clintons and traveled to Los Angeles in 2011 to attend Mr.
Clinton's star-studded 65th birthday celebration.
Later, the Clintons would try to distance themselves from Pinchuk.
Emails made public Tuesday show a Ukrainian businessman and major Clinton Foundation donor
was invited to Hillary Clinton's home during the final year of her diplomatic tenure, despite
her spokesman's insistence in 2014 that the donor never crossed paths with Clinton while she
served as secretary of state.
Amid scrutiny of Clinton's ties to Pinchuk in 2014, the Democratic nominee's spokesman, Nick
Merrill, said Pinchuk had never met with Clinton during that time. He
told the New York Times that, "from Jan. 21, 2009, to Feb. 1, 2013," the Ukrainian
businessman "was never on her schedule."
Pinchuk, who has given up to $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, appeared on the guest
list that was sent between Dennis Cheng, an executive at the foundation, and Huma Abedin, then
Clinton's deputy chief of staff at the State Department, ahead of a June 2012 dinner. Abedin
noted in a subsequent email that the gathering would be hosted in Clinton's home.
Pinchuk's dinner invitation was exposed in a
series of emails obtained by Citizens United.
Melanne Verveer, a senior Ukrainian-American official at the State Department, often acted
as a go-between for Clinton and Pinchuk. Verveer conveyed
Pinchuk's best wishes to the secretary of state in Feb. 2010 after meeting with him in
Ukraine.
After speaking with Pinchuk in Sept. 2011, Verveer
informed Clinton that the businessman had been asked by Viktor Yanukovych, then the
president of Ukraine, to relay to her some of his diplomatic interests in deepening ties to the
rest of Europe.
The intersection of Pinchuk's advocacy for Yanukovych with Clinton's State Department is
noteworthy because Paul Manafort, former campaign manager for Donald Trump, was felled by his
connections to Yanukovych. Manafort resigned from the Trump campaign last week.
Hacked Podesta emails released via Wikileaks showed ongoing contact between Pinchuk and the
Clintons. From a March 30, 2015 email :
Victor Pinchuk is relentlessly following up (including this morning) about a meeting with
WJC in London or anywhere in Europe. Ideally he wants to bring together a few western leaders
to show support for Ukraine, with WJC probably their most important participant.
I sense this is so important because Pinchuk is under Putin's heel right now, feeling a
great degree of pressure and pain for his many years of nurturing stronger ties with the
West.
In addition to being a Clinton Foundation donor, Pinchuk is also on the International Advisory
Board of the Atlantic Counsel – an NATO-aligned American think tank specializing in
the field of international affairs.
Pinchuk's fellow Advisory Board members are industry leaders and former heads of state.
The Atlantic Counsel has been historically active in Ukraine through their Ukraine in Europe Initiative . More
recently, on January 19, 2017, the Atlantic Counsel
announced a partnership with Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Group.
Hunter Biden, former VP Joe Biden's son, sits on Burisma's board.
Biden was placed on Burisma's board after Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Geoffrey Pyatt held a phone conversation regarding installation of Arseniy Yatsenyuk in place
of then-President Yanukovych. Need of support from VP Biden was noted (more
here ):
On or before February 4 2014 – Call between Pyatt and Nuland discussing removal of
Yanukovych and installation of Yatsenyuk.
February 22, 2014 – Yanukovych was
removed as President of Ukraine.
February 27 2014 – Yatsenyuk was installed as Prime Minister of Ukraine.
Yatsenyuk would resign
in April 2016 amidst corruption accusations.
April 18 2014 – Hunter Biden was
appointed to the Board of Directors for Burisma – one of the largest natural gas
companies in Ukraine.
April 22 2014 – VP Biden travels to Ukraine and
offers support and $50 million in aid for Yatsenyuk's shaky new government.
The Atlantic Council, along with the Brookings Institute and the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, were the subject of an unflattering portrayal in a New York Times
article,
Foreign Powers Buy Influence at Think Tanks :
More than a dozen prominent Washington research groups have received tens of millions of
dollars from foreign governments in recent years while pushing United States government
officials to adopt policies that often reflect the donors' priorities, an investigation by The
New York Times has found.
The think tanks do not disclose the terms of the agreements they have reached with foreign
governments. And they have not registered with the United States government as representatives
of the donor countries, an omission that appears, in some cases, to be a violation of federal
law.
As a result, policy makers who rely on think tanks are often unaware of the role of foreign
governments in funding the research.
Each is a major recipient of overseas funds, producing policy papers, hosting forums and
organizing private briefings for senior United States government officials that typically align
with the foreign governments' agendas.
Some interesting connections run through the Atlantic Council.
Dimitry Alperovich – the CEO of Crowdstrike that "investigated" the hacking of the
DNC's servers is a Non-Resident
Senior Fellow at Atlantic. The FBI was refused access to independently examine the DNC
servers. Interestingly, Alperovich's bio appears to have been disabled.
The Crowdstrike findings have been repeatedly called into questioned:
Intel Vets
Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence – DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a
speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Forensics show that the
copying was performed on the East coast of the U.S.
New Questions Over Claim Russia Hacked the Election – Cybersecurity experts who were
first to conclude that Putin hacked presidential election abandon some of their claims against
Russia – and refuse to co-operate with Congress.
I encourage you to read the report. I think you'll find it surprisingly lacking in detail
– highly generalized with very little in the way of substance.
The report was technically created by a joint effort between the CIA ( former
Director John Brennan), FBI ( former Director James Comey) and the NSA ( current
Director Mike Rogers) – and assembled by the DNI ( former Director James
Clapper).
The joint report contains one significant caveat:
CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has only moderate confidence
.
I wouldn't call it a discrepancy, I'd call it an honest difference of opinion between three
different organizations and in the end I made that call. It didn't have the same level of
sourcing and the same level of multiple sources .
In essence, the DNI's report was constructed by just three men – former DNI Director
Clapper, former CIA Director Brennan and former FBI Director Comey. This report was then used to push the entire Russian Narrative. It's appearing
increasingly likely that Clapper either used or affirmed some data from the Steele Dossier
in the IC Assessment Report.
Evelyn Farkas – who famously
disclosed the plan to disseminate information gathered on President Trump, is a
Non-Resident
Senior Fellow at Atlantic. Farkas served as Obama's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia.
The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing
with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no
longer have access to that intelligence.
Irena Chalupa – does not appear to be related to
Alexandra Chalupa (I've been unable to confirm and have seen conflicting reports) –
is a Non-Resident Fellow at
Atlantic. Irena Chalupa is also a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. She
is a
former Director of the Ukrainian National Information Service (UNIS) – the Ukrainian
Congress Committee of America's Washington public affairs bureau. Irena Chalupa is also a member of
StopFake.org – Struggle Against Fake
Information About Events In Ukraine. Irena Chalupa's ideological interests in Ukraine are aligned directly with those of
Alexandra Chalupa.
Evelyn Farkas and Irena Chalupa worked together in 2014 on the Atlantic Council's
Coordinating on Ukraine .
Oleg Deripensky, a Russian oligarch once linked
to Paul Manafort, published an
Op-Ed in which he made the claim that George Soros was helping fund Fusion GPS.
He also highlighted a conversation between Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Victoria Nuland at
the Munich
Security Conference in February 2018.
I highlighted
Nuland's role in structuring the Ukrainian government in 2014.
I don't know about the Soros connection but I did find the Whitehouse-Nuland conversation
(Video is queued):
WHITEHOUSE: Even in an area [Climate Change] where the administration has carved out perhaps
the most irresponsible position it could, on an issue of global significance, nevertheless you
can't really resist the pressure of fact and science – and I guess what the Breitbart
crowd would call the Deep State – but what many of us would call knowledgeable
professionals who've given their lives to these things and actually know what they're talking
about
So even on that worst of all issues there's still a hope for continuity – at least in
the Deep State.
Note John Kerry smiling and applauding in the crowd.
NULAND: Well colleagues, you've now heard our bi-partisan, bicameral panel of Deep State
crowd loyalists give broad reassurance about continuity in U.S. leadership and in U.S. policy
overall.
For the record, Sheldon Whitehouse is a blithering idiot. Continue watching the video a moment longer to see Ex-Representative Jane Harman pay homage
to John McCain:
HARMAN: His voice, his presence, was instrumental in training generations of members of the
U.S. Congress on foreign policy issues.
NULAND: And the U.S. State Department
HARMAN: And the U.S. State Department too. He had his favorites, you being one Victoria.
I doubt John McCain has ever been right – in either policy or ideology. But he did
leave quite an unfortunate influence. These people all think the same. And they all think they know better than anyone else. Despite a tedious repetition of corruption and policy failures.
"... The worst of these massacres happened in Ghouta in August 2013 when 2000 civilian hostages (rebel claim) were gassed to death by rebels and their pre-White Helmets "civil defence". The OPCW was there to cover up the crime and to fabricate evidence to assign blame to Syria. ..."
Manufacturing a pretext for the U.S.
missile strike on Syria in April 2018 is nowhere near the biggest of OPCW's crimes. The
OPCW is an accessory , both before and after the fact to the crime of
mass murder.
It should now be clear to everyone that Syrian "rebels" gassed thousands of hostages in
cellars, most likely with chlorine gas, and then paraded the victims in White Helmets
snuff videos. OPCW conspired in this crime in both encouraging the terrorists to more murder
and by protecting them afterward by assigning blame to Assad and the Syrian government.
The worst of these massacres happened in Ghouta in August
2013 when 2000 civilian hostages (rebel claim) were gassed to death by rebels and their
pre-White Helmets "civil defence". The OPCW was there to cover up the crime and to fabricate
evidence to assign blame to Syria.
We have been documenting
these crimes and hoaxes at A Closer Look On Syria from December 2012. OPCW was used
from the beginning to manufacture consent for war. See for example:
Of course, the OPCW is already there! I highly suggest Caitlin Johnstone's article b
linked be read, which can be
found here .
We should expand on Petri's number of people involved in this crime to include all the
paid disinformation artists noted in Caitlin's essay at minimum. What becomes very clear in
all this is the total collusion with OPCW upper level management--those whom the
whistleblowers and their allies within OPCW petitioned--in these crimes as Petri contends.
Until they are visibly replaced, nothing issued by OPCW has any credence.
OPCW has shown to be a pure political entity, used at will by few regimes in the UN to
promote their agenda, b has done a tremendous job to humanity to bring the truth to the
public worldwide. Syrians have paid the price for UN leaders support to global terrorism for
too long. It must stop now.
"... "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."- Joseph Goebbels ..."
At yesterday's Thanksgiving table, fifteen adults present, there was not one word uttered
about impeachment, Russia, Ukraine, and, most notably, a certain Golden Golem of Greatness,
whose arrival at the center of American life three years ago kicked off a political hysteria
not witnessed across this land since southern "fire eaters" lay siege to Fort Sumter.
I wonder if some great fatigue of the mind has set in among the class of people who follow
the news and especially the tortured antics of Rep. Adam Schiff's goat rodeo in the House intel
Committee the past month. I wonder what the rest of congress is detecting among its
constituents back home during this holiday hiatus. I suspect it is that same eerie absence of
chatter I noticed, and what it may portend about the nation's disposition toward reality.
The dead white man Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) famously observed that "all truth
passes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and
third, it is accepted as self-evident."
America has been stuck in stage two lo these thirty-six months since Mr. Trump shocked the
system with his electoral victory over She-Whose-Turn-Was-Undoubted, inciting a paroxysm of
rage, disbelief, and retribution that has made the Left side of the political transect
ridiculous, and repeatedly, ignominiously so, as their fantasies about Russian "collusion" and
sequential chimeras dissolve in official proceedings.
The astounding failure of Mr. Mueller's report did nothing to dampen the violent
derangement. There was no rethinking whatsoever about the terms-of-engagement in the Left's war
against the populist hobgoblin. The solidarity of delusion remained locked in place, leading to
Mr. Schiff's recent antics over his false "whistleblower" and the enfilade of diplomatic
flak-catchers tasked to ward off any truthful inquiry into events in Ukraine.
But then, with the Thanksgiving shut-down, something began to turn. It was signaled
especially in the Left's chief disinformation organ, The New York Times , with a week-long
salvo of lame stories aimed at defusing the Horowitz report, forthcoming on December 9. The
Times stories were surely based on leaks from individuals cited in the IG's report, who were
given the opportunity to "review" the briefs against them prior to the coming release. The
stories gave off an odor of panic and desperation that signaled a crumbling loss of conviction
in the three-year narrative assault on the truth -- namely, that the US Intel Community
organized a coup to overthrow the improbable President Trump.
From this point forward, the facts of the actual story -- many of them already in the public
record, one way or another, and sedulously ignored by the news media -- will be officially
detailed by federal authorities outside the orbit of the coupsters, and finally beyond the
coupsters' control. The facts may include the uncomfortable truth that Mr. Mueller and his
helpers were major players in the bad-faith exercises of the Intel Community against the
occupant of the White House.
I'm not so sure that the Resistance can keep up the fight,
since their enemy is reality as much as reality's mere personification in Mr. Trump. The
violent opposition Schopenhauer spoke of in his three-stage model was just procedural in this
case, moving through the courts and committees and other organs of the state. I don't think the
Left can bring the fight to the streets. They don't have it in them, not even the ANTIFA corps.
The hard truths of perfidy and treachery in the upper ranks of government will rain down in the
weeks ahead, and when they do, there's an excellent chance that they will be greeted as
self-evident. The Times , the WashPo and the cable news networks will have no choice but to
report it all. My guess is that they will display a kind of breathlessly naïve wonder that
such things are so. Most remarkably, they might just assert that they knew it all along -- a
final twitch of bad faith as the new paradigm locks into place.
I expect that we will see something else happen along with that: a loud repudiation of the
Democratic Party itself, a recognition that it betrayed the mental health of the nation in its
lawless and demented inquisitions . I expect that sentiment will extend to the party's current
crop of candidates for the White House, to the delusional proposals they push, and perhaps even
to the larger ethos of the Wokester religion that has programmatically tried to destroy the
common culture of this country -- especially the idea that we have a duty to be on the side of
truth.
And then there is the Magnitsky Act, Behind the Scenes one showing in the US then banned in all Western countries. Two minute trailer
https://vimeo.com/286527081
I've never wanted to be wrong more in my life, but this IG report and the "investigation"
by Barr et al isn't going to "find" $hit. 99% of their time, effort, and energy has been
focused on what they absolutely have to report and destroying evidence they can get away
with. No big name, evil MFers will be touched by this. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not.
You are correct and the contempt they are going to face will render all of them
meaningless for the rest of their lives. If in doubt, ask Romney; if he gave someone
directions to a doughnut shop they would assume it was a lie.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."- Joseph Goebbels
The Horowitz report on 12-19-19. CNN has already front run the report and reveled a
nothing little fatty that will be blamed for the FISA abuse. There will be no bomb shells
that the mainstream media can't obfuscate. The county is divided and facts no longer matter.
The good news is the right is too polite to fight in the streets and the left are such
pussies nobody can really be afraid of them.
Democrats live in a lie. They live in a completely made up propaganda-supported la-la
land, and they get angry when the rest of the world recognizes those lies.
"... However, when it came to assessing whether or not the whistleblower, in reporting the second-hand information provided to him by White House persons familiar with the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call, had done so accurately, Atkinson did not review the actual records of the telephone call, noting that he "decided that access to records of the telephone call was not necessary to make my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible.'" ..."
"... Within days the details of these calls were leaked to the media , resulting in a series of unflattering articles being published by the mainstream media. While no direct evidence has emerged about who was responsible for leaking these calls, NSC staffers who worked in the White House at the time suspected the whistleblower. (One of the byproducts of this incident was the decision by NSC lawyers to move the records of Presidential phone calls to a more secure server , significantly limiting access by NSC staff.) ..."
"... When Hill arrived in April 2017 to assume her responsibilities as the NSC director for Russia and Europe, the whistleblower found himself without a job. ..."
"... The "whistleblower" was CIA and it seems 'he' just seized this transgression as the main chance for the security state to finally get rid of Trump, just as they have tried since his campaign statements for restoring detente with Russia. As Scott Ritter points out, careers have been made on the New Cold War. ..."
"... The purpose of "intelligence" is to enhance/preserve specific political relationships of the entity/entities for whom activities which are defined/framed as "intelligence" are undertaken, and hence "intelligence" is always "politicised" since it is a component of politics a.k.a. interactions defined/framed by the "initiators" implemented in interaction. ..."
"... Scott seems convinced that the NSC serves the administration, although it surrounds and outnumbers them, controls the information and narratives available to them, is controlled by secret tribes of the secret agencies, and acts against them everywhere when it disagrees. The administration are mere figureheads in a government by secret agencies lost in their own self-serving narratives. Any contrary administration would have to move in a shadow government by force right after election, and abolish the NSC. Not that it could get elected. ..."
"... It works the same in every country, whether monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, socialist, communist or various blends with democracy. Once you set up an unaccountable secret police or intelligence agency and empower it to spy on people, carry out various deceptions and allow it to operate outside the law, it becomes the real power, blackmailing and even murdering according to its own direction. ..."
"... I believe Scott is right on target with his presented material. We still don't know what happened with the JFK murder but we do know that CIA knew something big was up. So JFK get murdered and CIA prevents a thorough exacting investigation. I see CIA interference as being political. What else would it be be. CIA escaped any blame at the time and the president was gone and replace. Political. ..."
"... In this day and age CIA can't afford getting caught with gunpowder residue anywhere on it entity if a sitting president happens to catch a round or two. The alternative is to use all that money the Super Wealthy Elites have stashed and go openly political. Hiding in plan sight as always. ..."
"... The bottom line here is that a deputy national intelligence officer charged with overseeing intelligence activities regarding the Russian-Ukraine target used his position to initiate a Whistleblower complaint which failed to conform to the legal requirements required of such. ..."
"... A huge problem is that most US bureaucrats have never lived abroad and gone thru culture shock. They are so rigidly American they do not understand foreign cultures ..."
"... the MSM is spiking any negative Biden stories. Biden seems to be the CIA's preferred Democrat. ..."
"... Evidently he was so pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia (pointed out by Mike Cernovich who suggested he was involved in leaks, as noted in Foreign Policy back in 2017), that it must have been difficult for him to fall in line and do his required job, implementing new foreign policy with a new administration. Whether he "went native" or truly decided to over-ride the President's policies in favor of the old Obama "consensus community" policies for Ukraine, he has crossed several lines interfering with foreign policy and national security. ..."
"... This case is classical sedition. If the CIA wants to run the country, they should run for office (as several did and won as Democrats in 2018). ..."
"... The West's blanket condemnation of Russia and its so-called annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014 would suggest that more of us need to educate ourselves on the history of Russia and Crimea in particular before we whole heartedly swallow the narrative that our political leaders and media foist on us. ..."
"... "After considering the whistleblower's complaint and classified annex, the Criminal Division opted not to pursue charges, in effect determining that no crime had been committed." When the whistleblower refused to accept this decision, and instead took his complaint to Schiff, as a politicized weapon, he and anyone else involved should have been or now be charged with Sedition. (Obama would have thrown the whistleblower's butt in jail as he did so many others.) ..."
"... Stephen Cohen has emphasized the essential ability of elected Presidents to meet in private with foreign leaders, as every President since Kennedy has done (saving us from nuclear destruction in JFK's case and leading to the fall of the Soviet Union in Reagan's). That's where important deals are concluded and military, intelligence, and state members whose jobs depend on warmongering advantages, cannot and should not be allowed access to sensitive national security decisions. ..."
"... "The intelligence community somehow has been empowered to run the country and its politics since 2016 ." ..."
"... If one truly studies such things -- seriously -- objectively -- that date will be determined to be November 22, 1963. ..."
SCOTT RITTER: The 'Whistleblower' and the Politicization of Intelligence November 27,
2019 •
52 Comments
The whistleblower complaint has opened a window into the politicization of the intelligence
community, and the corresponding weaponization of the national security establishment, argues
Scott Ritter.
Special to Consortium News
The whistleblower. A figure of great controversy, whose actions, manifested in an
11-page
report submitted to the Intelligence
Community Inspector General (ICIG) on August 12 alleging wrongdoing on the part of the
president of the United States, jump-started an ongoing impeachment process targeting Donald
Trump that has divided the American body politic as no other issue in contemporary time.
His identity has been cloaked in a shroud of anonymity which has proven farcical, given that
his name is common knowledge throughout the Washington-based national security establishment in
whose ranks he continues to serve. While Trump
publicly calls for the identity of the whistleblower
to be revealed , the mainstream media has played along with the charade of confidentiality,
and Congress continues to pretend his persona is a legitimate national security secret, even as
several
on-line publications have printed it , along with an extensive document trail sufficient to
corroborate that the named man is, in fact, the elusive whistleblower.
There is no legitimate reason for the whistleblower's identity to remain a secret. The
Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff , (D-CA) has cited statutory protections that
simply do not exist while using his authority as chairman to prohibit any probe by his
Republican colleagues designed to elicit information about the whistleblower's identity. "The
whistleblower has a right, a statutory right, to anonymity," Schiff recently opined during
recent impeachment-related testimony. And yet The Washington Post, no friend of Trump,
was compelled to assign Schiff's statement
three "Pinocchios" , out of a scale of four, in rejecting the claim as baseless.
The myth of statutory protection for the whistleblower's identity has been aggressively
pursued by his legal counsel, Andrew Bakaj , the managing partner of the Compass
Rose Legal Group, which has taken on the whistleblower's case pro bono.
In a letter to the president's legal counsel, Pat Cippolone, Bakaj demanded that Trump
"cease and desist in calling for my client's identity", claiming that the president's actions,
undertaken via Twitter and in press briefings, constituted violations of federal statutes
prohibiting, among other things, tampering with a witness, obstruction of proceedings, and
retaliating against as witness.
All of Bakaj's claims are contingent upon the viability of the whistleblower's status as a
legitimate witness whose testimony can, therefore, be tampered, obstructed or retaliated
against. The legal foundation of the whistleblower's claims are based upon the so-called
Intelligence Community whistleblower statute , 50 USC § 3033(k)(5), which
stipulates the processes required to report and sustain an allegation of so-called "urgent
concern" to the U.S. intelligence community. An "urgent concern" is defined, in relevant part,
as: "A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or
deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity
within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving
classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy
matters."
The Call
At issue was a telephone call made between President Trump and the newly elected President
of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky , on July 25
of this year. According to the whistleblower's report to the ICIG, "Multiple White House
officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of
pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests."
President Trump, the whistleblower alleged, "sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take
actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid," an act which the whistleblower claimed
presidential abuse of his office "for personal gain."
Upon review of the whistleblower's report, which consisted of a nine-page unclassified
letter and a separate two-page classified annex, Michael K. Atkinson, the Inspector General of
the Intelligence Community, initiated an investigation of the complaint as required by the
whistleblower statute. This investigation must be completed within a 14-day period mandated by
the statute, during which time the ICIG "shall determine whether the complaint or information
appears credible."
While the statute is silent on the methodology to be used by the ICIG in making this
determination, Atkinson
had testified during his Senate confirmation hearing that, when it came to any
investigation of a whistleblower complaint, "I will work to ensure that ICIG personnel conduct
investigations, inspections, audits, and reviews in accordance with Quality Standards
promulgated by CIGIE (Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency) to keep
those activities free from personal, external, and organizational impairments." The CIGIE
standard in question requires that, "Evidence must be gathered and reported in an unbiased
and independent manner in an effort to determine the validity of an allegation or to resolve an
issue."
In a
letter transmitting the whistleblower
complaint to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Atkinson stated that he had
"determined that the Complainant (i.e., whistleblower) had official and authorized access to
the information and sources referenced in the Complainant's Letter and Classified Appendix,
including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject
matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant's
Letter and Classified Appendix."
However, when it came to assessing whether or not the whistleblower, in reporting the
second-hand information provided to him by White House persons familiar with the July 25
Trump-Zelensky phone call, had done so accurately, Atkinson did not review the actual records
of the telephone call, noting that he "decided that access to records of the telephone call was
not necessary to make my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern
'appears credible.'"
Atkinson declared that "it would be highly unlikely for the ICIG to obtain those records
within the limited remaining time allowed by statute," and opted to perform an investigation in
violation of the very CIGIE standard he had promise to adhere to in his Senate testimony. In
short, no evidence was gathered by the ICIG to determine the validity of the whistleblower's
allegation, and yet Atkinson decided to forward the complaint to the DNI, certifying it as
"credible."
The whistleblower statute allows the DNI seven days to review the complaint before
forwarding it to the House Committee on Intelligence, with comments if deemed appropriate.
However, in reviewing the actual complaint, Joseph McGuire, the acting DNI who took over from
Dan Coats, who was fired by President Trump in early August, had questions about whether or not
the matters it alleged fell within the remit of the whistleblower statute, and rather than
forwarding it to the House Intelligence Committee, instead sent it to the Justice Department
Office of Legal Counsel for legal review.
The Office of Legal Council, on September 3, issued a legal opinion
rejecting the ICIG's certification of the whistleblower complaint as constituting an "urgent
concern" under the law. "The complaint," the opinion read,
"does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence
activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence
community. Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication
between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant
received secondhand. The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory
definition of 'urgent concern' that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence
committees. We conclude that it does not. The alleged misconduct is not an 'urgent concern'
within the meaning of the statute."
DOJ Rejected Complaint as Urgent
As related in the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion, the Justice Department did, however,
refer the matter to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice for appropriate review.
After considering the whistleblower's complaint and classified annex, the Criminal Division
opted not to pursue charges, in effect determining that no crime had been committed.
Under normal circumstances, this would have concluded the matter of Trump's phone call with
Zelensky, and the second-hand concerns unnamed White House officials had reported to the
whistleblower. But this was not a normal circumstance. Far from diffusing an improperly
predicated complaint, the failure of the acting DNI to forward the whistleblower complaint to
the House Intelligence Committee, and the concurrent legal opinion of the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel rejecting the "urgent concern" certification of the ICIG, opened the
door for the whistleblower, through legal counsel, to reach out to the House Intelligence
Committee directly.
The whistleblower followed procedures set forth in the whistleblower statute detailing
procedures for a complaint, which had not been certified as an "urgent concern," to be
forwarded to Congress. The issue is that the matter was being treated by the ICIG, Congress and
the whistleblower's attorney's as an "urgent concern", a status that it did not legally qualify
for.
On September 24, Bakaj sent a "
Notice of Intent to Contact Congressional Intelligence Committees" to acting DNI McGuire
providing "formal notice of our intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees
directly" on behalf of the whistleblower, identified only as "a member of the Intelligence
Community." Almost immediately, Schiff announced via Twitter that
"We have been informed by the whistleblower's counsel that their client would like to speak to
our committee and has requested guidance from the Acting DNI as to how to do so. We're in touch
with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower's testimony as soon as this week."
Andrew Bakaj, whistleblower attorney. (Twitter)
Thus was set in motion events which would culminate in impeachment proceedings against
President Trump. On the surface, the events described represent a prima facia case for the
efficacy of statutory procedures concerning the processing of a whistleblower complaint. But
there were warning signs that all was not right regarding both the whistleblower himself, and
the processes involved leading to the whistleblower's complaint being presented to
Congress.
Political Bias?
Far from an exemplar in bureaucratic efficiency, the whistleblower complaint has opened a
window into the politicization of the intelligence community, and the corresponding
weaponization of the national security establishment, against a sitting president.
As I shall show, such actions are treasonous on their face, and the extent to which this
conduct has permeated the intelligence community and its peripheral functions of government,
including the National Security Council and Congress itself, will only be known if and when an
investigation is conducted into what, in retrospect, is nothing less than a grand conspiracy by
those ostensibly tasked with securing the nation to instead reverse the will of the American
people regarding who serves as the nation's chief executive.
The key to this narrative is the whistleblower himself. Understanding who he is, and what
role he has played in the events surrounding the fateful July 25 telephone conversation, are
essential to unravelling the various threads of this conspiracy.
Much has been made about the political affiliation of the whistleblower, namely the fact
that he is a
registered Democrat who
supports Joe Biden as the Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidential election. On the
surface this information is not dispositive -- the intelligence community is populated by
thousands of professionals of diverse political leanings and affiliations, all of whom have
been trained to check their personal politics at the door when it comes to implementing the
policies promulgated by the duly elected national leadership.
Indeed, Inspector General Atkinson, while acknowledging in his assessment of the
whistleblower's complaint an indication of possible political bias on the part of the
whistleblower in favor of a rival political candidate, noted that "such evidence did not change
my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible'". But
when one reverse engineers the whistleblower's career, it becomes clear that there in fact
existed a nexus between the whistleblower's political advocacy and professional actions that
both influenced and motivated his decision to file the complaint against the president.
A Rising Star
Like most CIA analysts, the whistleblower possessed a keen intellect born of
stringent academic preparation , which in the whistleblower's case included graduating from
Yale University in 2008 with a degree in Russian and East European studies, post-graduate study
at Harvard, and work experience with the World Bank.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a contemporary colleague of the whistleblower, has provided an apt
account for what is expected of a CIA analyst. "The CIA is an intensely apolitical
organization," Kendall-Taylor wrote . "As
intelligence analysts, we are trained to check our politics at the door. Our job is to produce
objective analysis that the country's leaders can use to make difficult decisions. We undergo
rigorous training on how to analyze our own assumptions and overcome biases that might cloud
our judgement."
The training program Kendall-Taylor referred to is known as the Career
Analyst Program (CAP) , a four-month basic training program run out of the CIA's in-house
University, the Sherman Kent
School , which "introduces all new employees to the basic thinking, writing, and briefing
skills needed for a successful career. Segments include analytic tools, counterintelligence
issues, denial and deception analysis, and warning skills."
Andrea Kendall-Taylor (Center for a New American Security)
The
standards to which aspiring analysts such as the whistleblower were trained to meet were
exacting, and included a requirement to be "independent of political considerations," meaning
the product produced should consist of objective assessments "informed by available information
that are not distorted or altered with the intent of supporting or advocating a particular
policy, political viewpoint, or audience." As an analyst, the whistleblower would have chosen a
specific specialization, which in his case was as a " Political Analyst " , charged with
examining "political, social, cultural, and historical information to provide assessments about
foreign political systems and developments."
By the time the whistleblower completed his application process with the CIA, which requires
a detailed background check, several rounds of interviews, and final security and psychological
evaluation before an actual offer of employment can be made, and by the time he finished his
basic analytical training, the U.S. had undergone a political and social revolution of sorts
with the election of Barack Obama as the 44 th president of the United States.
The whistleblower was assigned to the Office of Russian and Eurasian Analysis (OREA), within
the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, at a time when U.S.-Russian policy was undergoing a
radical transformation.
Under the guidance of Michael McFaul, President Obama's special advisor on Russia and the
senior director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council, the Obama
administration was seeking to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the election of
Dmitri Medvedev as Russia's president in 2008. Medvedev had succeeded Vladimir Putin, who went
on to serve as prime minister. Medvedev was a more liberal alternative to Putin's autocratic
conservatism, and McFaul envisioned a policy "reset" designed to move relations between the
U.S. and Russia in a more positive trajectory.
As a junior analyst, the whistleblower worked alongside colleagues such as Andrea
Kendall-Taylor, who joined OREA about the same time after graduating from UCLA in 2008 with a
PhD is Slavic and Eurasian studies. A prolific writer, Kendall-Taylor wrote extensively on
autocratic leaders and Putin in particular . Her work was in high demand at both the CIA
and NSC, which under the Obama administration had undergone a massive expansion intended to
better facilitate policy coordination among the various departments that comprised the NSC.
The whistleblower had a front-row seat on the rollercoaster ride that was U.S.-Russian
policy during this time, witnessing the collapse of McFaul's Russian "reset," Putin's return to
power in 2012, and the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine that led to the annexation of Crimea and
Russian support for rebels in the Donbas region.
During his tenure at OREA, the whistleblower obviously impressed his superiors, receiving
several
promotions and, in July 2015, he detailed to the NSC staff at the Obama White House as the
Director for Ukrainian Affairs. According to a former CIA officer, any high-performing analyst
who aspires to be promoted into the ranks of the Senior Intelligence Service must, prior to
that time, do a rotation as part of the overall policy community, which includes the NSC or
another department, such as Defense or State, as well as a tour within another directorate of
the CIA.
NSC positions were originally intended for senior CIA analysts, at the GS-15 level, but
waivers could be made for qualified GS-14 or "very strong" GS-13's (the whistleblower was a
GS-13 at the time of his assignment at the NSC, a reflection of both his qualification and the
regard to which he was held by the CIA.) NSC assignments do not coincide with the political
calendar -- detailees (as career civil servants who are detailed to the NSC are referred) are
expected to serve in their position regardless of what political party controls the White
House. When an opening becomes available (usually when another detailee's assignment has
finished), prospective candidates apply, and are interviewed by their senior management, who
forward qualified candidates to another board for a final decision.
Assignments to the NSC are considered highly sought after, and while the process for
application must be followed, the selection process is highly political, with decisions being
signed off by the director of the CIA. In the case of the whistleblower, his candidacy would
have been approved by both Peter Clement
, the director of OREA, and John Brennan , the CIA director.
Into the Lion's Den
By the time the whistleblower arrived at the NSC, the NSC staff had grown into a well-oiled
policy machine managing the entire spectrum of Obama administration national security
policy-making and implementation. The NSC staff operated in accordance with Presidential Policy Memorandum (PPM) 1 ,
"Organization of the National Security Council System", which outlined the procedures governing
the management of the development and implementation of national security policies by multiple
agencies of the United States Government.
Brennan briefing Obama May 3, 2010. He approved whistleblower. (Official White House Photo
by Pete Souza)
The vehicle for accomplishing this mission was the NSC Interagency Policy Committee
(NSC/IPC). The NSC/IPCs were the main day-to-day fora for interagency coordination of national
security policy. They provided policy analysis for consideration by the more senior committees
of the NSC system and ensured timely responses to decisions made by the president. NSC/IPCs
were established at the direction of the NSC Deputies Committee and were chaired by the
relevant division chief within the NSC staff.
The whistleblowers job was to develop, coordinate and execute plans and policies to manage
the full range of diplomatic, informational, military and economic national security issues for
the countries in his portfolio, which included Ukraine. The whistleblower coordinated with his
interagency partners to produce internal memoranda, talking points and other materials for the
National Security Advisor and senior staff.
The whistleblower reported directly to Charles Kupchan , the Senior Director for
European Affairs on the NSC. Kupchan, a State Department veteran who had previously served on
the NSC staff of President Bill Clinton before turning to academia, in turn reported directly
to Susan Rice, President Obama's national security adviser.
When the whistleblower first arrived at the NSC, he volunteered for the Ukraine portfolio.
Kupchan was impressed by the whistleblower's work ethic and performance, and soon expanded his
portfolio to include the fight against the Islamic State. The whistleblower was aided by
another organizational connection -- his colleague and mentor at OREA, Andrea Kendall-Taylor,
had been selected to serve in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as the d
eputy national
intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Among Kendall-Taylor's responsibilities was to
closely coordinate with the NSC staff on critical issues pertaining to Russia and Ukraine.
The whistleblower's arrival at the NSC staff also coincided with the start of Trump's
improbable candidacy for the presidency of the United States. As 2015 transitioned into 2016,
and it became apparent that Trump was the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party,
allegations about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia began to circulate within the
interagency. Trump's electoral victory in November 2016 , the shocked the whistleblower, like everyone else on the NSC
staff.
Alarmed By Trump on Russia
The line between policy and politics began to blur, and then disappeared altogether.
National Security Advisor Rice was becoming increasingly alarmed by the activities of the Trump
transition team, especially when it came to issues pertaining to Russia.
According to The Washington Post , "Rice apparently was closely monitoring the
high-profile investigation into Russian interference."
The President-elect had, during the campaign, openly advocated for better relations between
the U.S. and Russia and had even suggested that the Russian annexation of Crimea could
eventually be accepted by the U.S. This stance was anathema to the policies that had been
massaged into place by the NSC in general, and the whistleblower in particular. According to
multiple sources familiar with the whistleblower during this time, his animus against Trump was
palpable.
In December 2016, Rice was involved in the unmasking of the identities of several members of
the Trump transition team. Various sensitive intelligence reports were circulating within the
NSC regarding the interaction of unnamed U.S. citizens with foreign targets of intelligence
interest. In order to better understand the significance of such a report,
Rice has acknowledged that, on several occasions, she requested that the identity of the
U.S. persons involved be "unmasked."
The U.S. intelligence community is prohibited by law from collecting information about U.S.
citizens. As such, when a conversation undertaken by a foreign national of intelligence
interest was captured, and it turned out the person or persons whom the target was speaking to
was a U.S. citizen, the analysts preparing the report for wider dissemination would "mask", or
hide, the identities of the U.S. citizens involved. Under relevant laws governing the
collection of intelligence, up to 20 officials within the Obama administration had the
authority to unmask the identities of U.S. citizens. One of those was Rice.
In late December 2016, the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohammed bin
Zayed al-Nahyan, arrived in New York for a meeting with several top Trump transition officials,
including Michael Flynn, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and the President-elect's top
strategist Steve Bannon. Intelligence reports had been circulating about the UAE coordinating a
backchannel for the Trump transition team and Russia.
Zayed's arrival, which was unannounced and had not been coordinated with the U.S.
government, caused great concern among the NSC staff especially given the context of
allegations of collusion between Trump and Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016
election.
The principle NSC staffers who would logically been advising Rice on this matter were
Kupchan, the whistleblower, and
Sean Misko , a State Department detailee who served as the director for the Gulf Arab
States (According the NSC staffers who worked in the White House at the time, Misko and the
whistleblower were said to be close friends, frequently socializing with one another after
hours, and possessing a common dislike for Trump.)
Rice requested that the intelligence reports pertaining to Zayed's visit be subjected to
unmasking procedures.
While the
subsequent reporting about the three-hour meeting between Zayed and the Trump transition
team failed to uncover any evidence of a secret communications channel with Russia, Rice (who
would logically have been assisted by Kupchan and the whistleblower) facilitated the near
continuous unmasking of intelligence reports involving Flynn, who was in contact with Russian
officials, including Sergei Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
The Greatest Sin
Susan Rice, center, with Obama, March 10, 2009. (White House photo)
As a professional intelligence analyst detailed to the NSC, the whistleblower was committed
to a two-year assignment, extendable to three years upon the agreement of all parties.
President Obama's departure from the White House did not change this commitment. According to
NSC staffers who served in the White House at the time, the whistleblower, like many of his
fellow detailees, had grown attached to the policies of the Obama administration which they had
fought hard to formulate, coordinate and implement. They viewed these policies to be
sacrosanct, regardless of who followed in the White House.
In doing so, they had committed the greatest sin that an intelligence professional could
commit short of espionage -- they had become political.
In December 2016, the whistleblower was, based upon his role as a leading Russian analysts
advising Rice directly, more than likely helping unmask Flynn's communications with Russians; a
month later, he was working for Flynn, someone he had likely actively helped conspire against,
using the unfettered power of the intelligence community.
The Trump administration had inherited a national security decision-making apparatus that
was bloated, and which fostered White House micromanagement via the NSC. While the Obama NSC
had proven able to generate a prolificate amount of "policy", it did so by relying on a staff
that had expanded to the largest in the history of the NSC, and at the expense of the various
departments of government that were supposed to be the originators of policy.
As the new national security adviser, Flynn let it be known from day one that there would be
changes. One of his first actions was to hire four new
deputies who centralized much of the responsibilities normally tasked to regional directors
such as the whistleblower. Flynn was putting in place a new level of bureaucracy that shielded
professional detailees from top level decision makers.
Moreover, it recognized that the NSC, while staffed with professionals who are supposed to
be apolitical, was viewed by the White House as a partisan policy body whose work not only
furthered the interests of the United States, but also the political interests of the
president. When Trump included his top political advisor, Bannon, on the list of people who
would comprise the National Security Council (normally limited to cabinet-level officials), it
sent shockwaves through the national security establishment, which accused Trump of
politicizing what they claimed was an apolitical process.
But the reality was that the NSC had always functioned as a partisan decision-making body.
Its previous occupants may have tried to temper the level to which domestic politics intruded
on national security decision-making, but its presence was an unspoken reality. All Trump did
by seeking to insert Bannon into the mix was to be open about it.
Like the other professional detailees who comprised 90 percent of the NSC staff and were
expected to remain at their posts as part of a Trump administration, the whistleblower was
dismayed by the changes.
Some accounts of the early days of the Trump NSC indicate that the whistleblower was
defensive of the Ukraine policies he had helped craft during his tenure at the NSC.
When his immediate superior, Kupchan (a political appointee) departed the NSC, the
whistleblower was temporarily elevated to the position of senior director for Russia and
Eurasia until a new replacement could be found. (Flynn had reached out to
Fiona Hill , a former national intelligence officer for Russia under the administration of
George W. Bush, to take this job; Hill had accepted, but would not be available until
April.)
According to persons familiar with his work at the NSC during the Trump administration, the
whistleblower's frustration and anger soon led to acts of resistance designed to expose, and
undermine public confidence in President Trump.
Cut Out of Call to Putin
In late January 2017 Trump made several introductory telephone calls to world leaders,
including President Putin. Normally the NSC director responsible for Russia would help prepare
the president for such a call by drafting talking points and supporting memoranda, and then
monitor the call directly, either from within the Oval Office or from the White House situation
room.
According to sources familiar with the incident, Flynn did not coordinate Trump's call with
NSC staff, and as such the whistleblower, who was acting as the director for Russia and
European Affairs at the time, would have been cut out of the process altogether. When the
whistleblower tried to access the read out of the phone call afterwards, he found that no
verbatim record existed, only a
short summary released by the White House , presumably prepared by Flynn.
More frustrating was the fact that the official readout of the call released by the
Kremlin contained much more information, putting Russia in the driver's seat in terms of
defining U.S.-Russian policy priorities -- the very policy blunder the NSC was supposed to
prevent from happening. While searching for the non-existent records of the Putin-Trump
conversation, however, the whistleblower came across detailed verbatim transcripts of two other
calls made by Trump that day -- one with Mexico, and one with Australia.
On February 13, 2017,
Flynn resigned from his position as President Trump's national security adviser. The reason
given was Flynn's having misrepresented his conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak when
questioned by Vice President Mike Pence. For the whistleblower, whose previous work in the
Obama NSC appeared to help Rice's efforts to unmask the very conversations Flynn was being held
accountable for, this had to have been a satisfying moment. He had to have been even more
pleased by
Trump's choice to replace Flynn -- Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster, a decorated combat
veteran known for his intelligence and willingness to challenge the establishment.
McMaster rewrote the presidential guidance regarding the functioning of the NSC, replacing
the original Presidential Policy Memorandum 1 with a new version, PPM
4 , which removed Bannon from the NSC and restored much of the policy coordinating
functions that characterized the NSC under Obama.
Moreover, McMaster stuck up for
the professional detailees , such as the whistleblower. When Hill arrived in April 2017 to
assume her responsibilities as the NSC director for Russia and Europe, the whistleblower found
himself without a job.
But instead of being returned to the CIA, McMaster, who had come to know the whistleblower
during his first month as national security adviser,
appointed him to serve as his personal assistant . The whistleblower moved from his desk
next door in the Executive Office Building, where most NSC staffer work, to the West Wing of
the White House, a move which gave him direct access to every issue that crossed McMaster's
desk.
Oval Office Leak
The new job, however, did nothing to diminish the disdain the whistleblower had for Trump.
Indeed, the proximity to the seat of power may have served to increase the concern the
whistleblower had about Trump's stewardship. On May 10, President Trump played host to Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Kislyak. During the now-infamous meeting,
Trump spoke about the firing of former FBI Director Jim Comey; a sensitive Israeli intelligence
source related to the ongoing fight against ISIS in Syria; and alleged Russian interference in
the 2016 presidential election.
As McMasters' assistant, the whistleblower was privy to the readout of the meeting, and was
so alarmed by what he had seen that he sent an email to John Kelly , who at that
time was serving as director of the Department of Homeland Security, detailing the president's
actions and words. All materials relating to this meeting were
collected and secured in the NSC's top secret codeword server ; the only unsecured data was
that contained in the whistleblower's email. When the media subsequently reported on the
details of Trump's meeting with the Russians, the White House condemned the "leaking of private
and highly classified information" which undermined "our national security."
According to a NSC staffer who worked in the White House at the time, an internal
investigation pointed to the whistleblower's email as the likely source of the leak, and while
the whistleblower was not directly implicated in actually transmitting classified information
to the press, he was criticized for what amounted to unauthorized communication with an outside
agency, in this case the Department of Homeland Security. When his initial two-year assignment
terminated in July 2017, the White House refused to authorize a one-year extension (a courtesy
offered to the vast majority of detailees).
The whistleblower had become a liability,
publicly smeared by right-wing bloggers and subjected to death threats. He was released
from the NSC and returned to the CIA, where he resumed his role as a Eurasian analyst. Shortly
after the whistleblower left the NSC, the full transcripts of President Trump's January 28,
2017 conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Australia were leaked to the press. While
several colleagues in the NSC believed that the whistleblower was behind the leaks, McMaster
refused to authorize a formal investigation which, if evidence had been found that implicated
the whistleblower, would have effectively terminated his career at the CIA.
It is at this juncture the saga of the whistleblower should have ended, avoiding the turn of
events which ended up labeling him with the now famous (or infamous) appellation. However, in
June 2018 the whistleblower's colleague, Kendall-Taylor, ended her assignment as the deputy
national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. An announcement was made to fill the
vacancy , and the whistleblower applied.
Despite having left the NSC under a cloud of suspicion regarding the unauthorized disclosure
of sensitive information, and even though his anti-Trump sentiment was common knowledge among
his colleagues and superiors, the whistleblower was picked for a position that would put him at
the center of policy formulation regarding Russia and Ukraine, and the sensitive intelligence
that influenced such. His appointment would have been approved by Director of National
Intelligence Dan Coates.
Enter Vindman
The whistleblower was well versed in the collaborative functions of the deputy national
intelligence officer position, having worked with Kendall-Taylor during his time at the NSC. He
began to develop professional relationships with a number of individuals, including the new
director of Ukraine at the NSC, Army Lieutenant Colonel
Alexander Vindman . Vindman had extensive experience regarding Ukraine and had been
detailed to the NSC from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The two soon appeared to share a mutual
concern over President Trump's worldview of both Russia and Ukraine, which deviated from the
formal policy formulations promulgated by the interagency processes that both Vindman and the
whistleblower were involved in.
The whistleblower's concerns about President Trump and Ukraine predated the July 25, 2019
telephone call, and mirrored those expressed by Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, both in chronology
and content,
provided during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee . While Vindman was
critical of President Trump's deviation and/or failure to conform with policy that had been
vetted through proper channels (i.e., in conformity with PDD 4), he noted that, as president,
"It's his prerogative to handle the call whichever way he wants."
Vindman took umbrage at the non-national security topics brought up by the president, such
as investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, regarding their
relationship with a Ukrainian energy company,
Burisma Holdings , and other references to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
According to Vindman, it was this aspect of the telephone call Vindman believed to be
alarming, and which he subsequently related to an authorized contact within the intelligence
community. While Vindman remained circumspect about the identity of the intelligence community
official he communicated with about his concerns over Trump's Ukraine policy, the fact that the
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee refused to allow any discussion of this person's
identity strongly suggests that it was the whistleblower who, as the deputy national
intelligence officer for Russia and Ukraine, would be a logical, and fully legitimate,
interlocuter.
According to
an account published in T
he Washington Post, sometime after being informed by Vindman of the July 25
Trump-Zelensky telephone call, the whistleblower began preparing notes and assembling
information related to what he believed was untoward activity vis-à-vis Ukraine on the
part of President Trump and associates who were not part of the formal Ukraine policy making
process. He made numerous telephone calls to U.S. government officials whom he knew from his
official work as the deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Because much
of the information he was using was derived from classified sources, or was itself classified
in nature, the whistleblower worked from his office, using a computer system approved for
handling classified data.
Off Limits
From the perspective of security, the whistleblower's work was flawless. There was one
problem, however; investigating the actions of the president of the United States and officials
outside the intelligence community who were carrying out the instructions of the president was
not part of the whistleblower's official responsibilities.
Indeed, anything that whiffed of interference in domestic American politics was, in and of
itself, off limits to members of the intelligence community.
Robert Gates, a long-time CIA analyst and former CIA director, had warned about this
possibility
in a speech he delivered to the CIA in March 1992 on the issue of the politicization of
intelligence. "National intelligence officers", Gates noted, "are engaged in analysis and --
given their frequent contact with high-level policymakers -- their work is also vulnerable to
distortion."
There was no greater example of politicized distortion than the rabbit hole the
whistleblower had allowed himself to fall into. From Gates' perspective, the whistleblower had
committed the ultimate sin of any intelligence analyst -- he had allowed his expertise to
become tarnished by political considerations.
Worse, the whistleblower had crossed the threshold from advocating a politicized point of
view to becoming political -- that is, to intervene in the domestic political affairs of the
United States in a manner which influenced the political future of a sitting president of the
United States.
Once he had assembled his notes, he sought out staffers on the House Intelligence Committee
for guidance on how to proceed. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, had
hired two former members of the Trump NSC staff who had served at the same time as the
whistleblower.
One, Abigail Grace, had worked at the NSC from 2016-2018, covering U.S.-Chinese relations.
Grace was hired by Schiff in February 2019 for the express purpose of investigating the Trump White House.
A second NSC veteran was
hired in August 2019, around the same time that the whistleblower was preparing his
complaint. That staffer was none other than Sean Misko, the whistleblowers friend and fellow
anti-Trump collaborator.
Both Misko and the whistleblower departed the NSC in 2017 under a cloud. Misko went on to
work for the Center for New American
Security , a self-described bipartisan think tank set up by two former Obama administration
officials, Michèle Flournoy and Kurt M. Campbell, before being recruited by Schiff. It
is not known if Misko was one of the House Intelligence staffers the whistleblower approached,
or if there had been any collaboration between the whistleblower and Misko about the nature of
the complaint prior to Misko being recruited by Schiff.
After conferencing with the House Intelligence Committee staffers, the whistleblower sought
legal counsel. He reached out to a lawyer affiliated with Whistleblower Aid , a group of national security lawyers
who came together in September 2017 -- eight months after the inauguration of President Trump
-- to
encourage w histleblowers within the U.S. g overnment to come out agains Trump , and
provide legal and financial assistance to anyone that chose to do so. One of Whistleblower
Aid's founding members was a lawyer named Mark Zaid.
In the days following Trump's swearing in as president, Zaid turned to Twitter to send out
messages supportive of a "coup" against Trump that would lead to the president's eventual
impeachment. The identity of the lawyer who met with the whistleblower is not known. However,
this lawyer referred the whistleblower to Bakaj, a fellow member of Whistleblower Aid, who took
on the case and provided procedural guidance regarding the preparation of the complaint. Bakaj
later brought on Zaid and another lawyer, Charles McCullough, with close ties to Senator Chuck
Schumer and Hillary Clinton, to assist in the case.
On August 12, the whistleblower completed his complaint, and forwarded it to the
intelligence community inspector general, thereby setting in motion events that produced weeks
of hearings before the House Intelligence Committee that will very likely result in Trump's
impeachment.
Shielded from Questions
While the whistleblower, through counsel, had expressed a desire to testify before the House
Intelligence Committee about the issues set forth in his complaint, he was never called to do
so, even in closed-door session. The ostensible reason behind this failure to testify was the
need to protect his anonymity, a protection that is not contained within the relevant statutes
governing whistleblower activities within the intelligence community.
Later, as witnesses were identified from the content of the whistleblower's complaint and
subpoenaed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, both Schiff and Bakaj indicated
that the whistleblower's testimony was no longer needed, since the specific issues and events
covered in his complaint had been more than adequately covered by the testimony of others.
But the apparent reason Schiff and Bakaj refused to allow the whistleblower to testify, or
to be identified, was to avoid legitimate questions likely to be asked by Republican committee
members.
Namely, what was a deputy national intelligence officer of the U.S. intelligence community
doing investigating activities of a sitting president? Who, if anyone, authorized this
intervention in U.S. domestic political affairs by a CIA official? How did the whistleblower,
who had a history of documented animosity with the Trump administration that included credible
allegations of leaking sensitive material to the press for the express purpose of undermining
the credibility of the president, get selected to serve as a deputy national intelligence
officer? Who signed off on this assignment? What was the precise role played by the
whistleblower in unmasking the identities of U.S. citizens in 2016, during the Trump
transition?
Did the whistleblower maintain his friendship with Misko after leaving the NSC in July 2017?
Did the whistleblower collaborate with Misko to get the House Intelligence Committee to
investigate the issues of concern to the whistleblower before his complaint was transmitted to
the ICIG? Who did the whistleblower meet on the House Intelligence staff? What did they
discuss? Who was the lawyer the whistleblower first met regarding his intent to file a
complaint? Did the whistleblower have any contact with Whistleblower Aid prior to this
meeting?
Answers to these questions, and more, would have been useful in understanding not only the
motives of the whistleblower in filing his complaint -- was he simply a concerned citizen and
patriot, or was he part of a larger conspiracy to undermine the political viability of a
sitting president? There is no doubt that Congress has a constitutional right and obligation to
conduct proper oversight of the operations of the executive branch, and to hold the president
of the United States accountable if his conduct and actions are deemed unworthy of his office.
Whether or not the facts surrounding the July 25, 2019 telephone call between Trump and
Zelensky constitute grounds for impeachment is a political question for Congress to decide.
Intervening in Domestic Affairs
There is, however, the major issue looming in the background of this impeachment frenzy: the
intervention by elements of the intelligence community in the domestic political affairs of the
United States. There is no question that the whistleblower's complaint served as the genesis of
the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
The American people should be deeply concerned that an inquiry which could result in the
removal of a duly elected president from office was initiated in secrecy by a member of the
intelligence community acting outside the four corners of his legal responsibilities. The
legitimacy of the underlying issues being investigated by the House Intelligence Committee is
not at issue here; the legitimacy of the process by which these proceedings were initiated
is.
To find out what happened, the whistleblower should not only be identified, called before
the House Intelligence Committee, and other relevant Congressional committees, and be compelled
to answer for his actions.
Impeachment is a constitutional remedy afforded to the U.S. Congress to deal with the
political issues surrounding the conduct of a sitting president. If this constitutional remedy
can be triggered by the intelligence community in a manner which obviates laws prohibiting the
intrusion of intelligence agencies into the domestic political affairs of the United States,
and done so in a manner where the identities of the persons and organizations involved, along
with their possible motives, are shielded from both American people and those whom they elect
to represent them in Congress, then a precedent will have been set for future interventions of
this nature which undermine the very foundation of American democracy.
The political weaponization of intelligence represents a significant threat to the viability
of the American constitutional republic that cannot be ignored.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet
Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm,
and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
Great Article Scott. You are as right about the politicization of Intelligence you were
about there being no WMD's in Iraq.
There is a corollary to the old saw that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." The
power to surveil also carries the power to destroy.
FBI director J. Edgar Hoover used it (after WWII) to control or get what what he wanted from
politicians who had something embarrassing in their past or maybe a current affair.
FBI Director James Comey's attempt to Hoover president Trump didn't work. It does reveal
that the FBI hasn't changed much. Intelligence, especially the CIA, is so corrupted (read
politicized) it has to be considered a political faction. A very powerful political faction
that wants to run the country without being elected. If Russiagate was the coup d'essai
(first attempt) the impeachment is a coup de theatre.
Former US Senator from New York, and UN Ambassador, Danial Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003)
proposed disbanding the CIA and transferring its intelligence functions to the State Dept. He
also introduced a bill in the senate to do it. See onlinelibrary dot wiley dot com. –
"Do we still need the CIA" 15 pages pdf. If even half the CIA's 'deeds' were public and half
what it has failed to do or know became public, the voters would happily support Senator
Moynihan's bill.
Tedder , November 29, 2019 at 10:53
I always thought that focussing on Trump's rather idiotic and stupid obsession with
Ukraine and Joe Biden made little sense for impeachment, compared with a long list of valid
and important reasons of Trump's transgressions. The fact that the team who listened to the
call were disturbed by it but 'blew no whistle' implies that they probably just shrugged
their shoulders and looked away in embarrassment.
The "whistleblower" was CIA and it seems 'he' just seized this transgression as the main
chance for the security state to finally get rid of Trump, just as they have tried since his
campaign statements for restoring detente with Russia. As Scott Ritter points out, careers
have been made on the New Cold War.
Arnieus , November 29, 2019 at 10:30
Scott Ritter is obviously still a fearless truth teller. My first awareness of Scott was
an interview on CNN with the disgusting Paula Zahn during the months before the Iraq war.
Like the rest of corporate media, her job was obviously to be a cheer leader for "W" Bush's
disastrous war. She didn't know how to respond to Scott as he explained that as Chief Weapons
Inspector he had witnessed the elimination of anything that could be considered a WMD in
Saddam's Iraq. This interview, the exposure of the outdated plagiarized student thesis held
up as intelligence, the Downing St. memo, and the yellow cake lie outing of Valerie Plame all
added up to one thing. The Bush administration obviously knew there was no justification for
their "shock and awe" invasion. This was my awakening at age 50 I am embarrassed to admit. I
helped organize the local protest demonstrations of several thousand people in my area which
did no good of course. Millions of people all over the world could not stop it.
Mark Rabine , November 29, 2019 at 08:41
If you think it is proper, in fact imperative, to publically identify the whistleblower
(which is publically known anyway), then why do you keep referring to him as the
whistleblower? Not only iis it annoying it casts a shadow over the rest of the information
you present (without sources).
Consortiumnews.com , November 29, 2019 at 16:49
From Scott Ritter:
The idea behind my not including the name of the Whistleblower, all the while providing a
documentary trail that clearly identifies the individual in question, was to highlight the
absurdity of the ongoing decision by Congress and the Whistleblower's legal counsel to
pretend that he enjoys a modicum of anonymity. Perhaps my approach was too sophisticated by
far, but with all due respect, it certainly did not lack for courage.
OlyaPola , November 29, 2019 at 04:14
"the Politicization of Intelligence"
The purpose of "intelligence" is to enhance/preserve specific political relationships of
the entity/entities for whom activities which are defined/framed as "intelligence" are
undertaken, and hence "intelligence" is always "politicised" since it is a component of
politics a.k.a. interactions defined/framed by the "initiators" implemented in
interaction.
Often interactions deemed to facilitate de-mystification are facilitated/framed by
mystification a.k.a. perception management in which the "initiators" are also
immersed/subject to in some assay.
Bill Rood , November 29, 2019 at 00:49
Note that House Democrats just extended the PATRIOT act for 3 mos by stealthily attaching
it to a "must pass" bill.
Thank you, Scott Ritter, for this background info. I'm very upset about the Dems
protecting the whistleblower, who works for them, while persecuting others.
Sam F , November 28, 2019 at 19:34
Thanks for this detailed glimpse of secret operations at the top of the USG. Indeed
interventions of this nature "undermine the very foundation of American democracy" along with
the economic power of oligarchy that controls all branches of federal government and the mass
media.
Scott seems convinced that the NSC serves the administration, although it surrounds and
outnumbers them, controls the information and narratives available to them, is controlled by
secret tribes of the secret agencies, and acts against them everywhere when it disagrees. The
administration are mere figureheads in a government by secret agencies lost in their own
self-serving narratives. Any contrary administration would have to move in a shadow
government by force right after election, and abolish the NSC. Not that it could get
elected.
Bill Mack , November 28, 2019 at 16:21
In 1979 a presidential CAMPAIGN colluded with a foreign country for political leverage ,
and used it successfully .
Good investigative reporting in the tradition of Consortium News founder Bob Parry, who
was warned he would be "controversialized" and went full scale ahead anyway -- no, not
"anyway" -- rather ALL THE MORE, ALL THE STRONGER.
More than two years before his untimely death, Bob had it pretty much figured out, and
wrote it. See, for example The Foundering Russia-gate Scandal on Dec. 13, 2007 and Protecting
the Shaky Russia-gate Narrative on Dec. 15, 2017.
Needless to say, your VIPS colleagues are among those proud of your gutsy, professional
work. Perhaps Consortium News folks merit a reminder to send this piece of Scott's far and wide
-- and best BEFORE the politicians, who prefer not to understand why intelligence needs to be
apolitical, make the usual hay out of your findings.
This afternoon I told a close friend about your findings in getting the truth out. He
asked, Will this help Trump??
Aaaaaaaaagh, no, I said, this will help the TRUTH, which still matters. If the dumb Dems
can't find something more important and unconstitutional on which to impeach Trump, they are
beyond help.
Ray McGovern
Sam F , November 29, 2019 at 07:24
Yes, it is astounding that the Dems seek to impeach Trump for investigating their own
corruption, rather than exposing Rep corruption. I am doing the latter at one corner of the
state government level, and am sure that hundreds of times that could be found at the federal
level if the Dems were not equally enthusiastic kleptocrats and nepotists.
But we would be ahead even if Reps prosecute only Dems and Dems prosecute only Reps: the
public would at least see that Rep judges only convict Dems and probably the reverse as well.
Only the scum floats to the top in an unregulated market economy dumbed-down by
oligarchy-controlled mass media.
Fran Macadam , November 27, 2019 at 17:44
It works the same in every country, whether monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, socialist,
communist or various blends with democracy. Once you set up an unaccountable secret police or
intelligence agency and empower it to spy on people, carry out various deceptions and allow
it to operate outside the law, it becomes the real power, blackmailing and even murdering
according to its own direction.
robert e williamson jr , November 27, 2019 at 17:28
I believe Scott is right on target with his presented material. We still don't know what happened with the JFK murder but we do know that CIA knew
something big was up. So JFK get murdered and CIA prevents a thorough exacting investigation. I see CIA
interference as being political. What else would it be be. CIA escaped any blame at the time
and the president was gone and replace. Political.
Then Robert fell, a likely winner of the next election he was terminated.
In this day and age CIA can't afford getting caught with gunpowder residue anywhere on it
entity if a sitting president happens to catch a round or two. The alternative is to use all
that money the Super Wealthy Elites have stashed and go openly political. Hiding in plan
sight as always.
Veronica Roberts , November 27, 2019 at 15:26
Excellent report, Scott Ritter. Thank you. I have always trusted your reports and analysis
since the days of Iraq's supposed
weapons of mass destruction. You have really served the American people well.
phree , November 27, 2019 at 14:40
Interesting stuff. I'm certainly against politicization of intelligence. I am troubled
about the whistleblower not being willing and allowed to testify.
But the rest of this sounds very much like a conspiracy theory. I'll have to reread
Ritter's prior work, which I viewed very favorably. Given this mess, though, I'll have to
reconsider. Let's assume the whistleblower was out to get the President. What difference does
the whistleblower's motivations t make if the President was doing exactly what the
whistleblower said the President was doing? Prosecutors are always out to get criminals, and
we don't let the criminals go just because of that. Prosecutors get tips from all sorts of
unsavory people, such as informants and criminal competitors. Are they supposed to just
ignore those tips?
There are a number of other problems with this theory.
First, Ritter confuses "political" with "partisan." Foreign policy is necessarily
political -- can't be avoided. What it shouldn't become is partisan -- the party in power
shouldn't leverage the United States' national security interests to gain political power
over their domestic opponents. I hope we can all agree on that. When we say intelligence
shouldn't be political, we mean intelligence shouldn't be "fixed around the policy." Even
going into Iraq, as stupid as that was, and as bad as the intelligence agencies acted, that's
different than using national foreign policy to stick it to your domestic political rivals.
The Bushies and the neocons really thought it was in the national interest to go into Iraq.
It also isn't being "political" in the "partisan" sense to become wedded to a policy that you
helped developed, it just means you think that's the right policy and should be followed
regardless of which party or politician is in office. It's actually the opposite of
political. Fiona Hill is a perfect example: To her, Russia is and always will be evil and
duplicitous, and she's going to say that no matter which party is in the oval office. She may
not be right, but she sure isn't partisan. If you are convinced that the President is selling
the U.S. and the Ukraine out, what are you supposed to do?
Second, it is a real stretch to call phone calls to friends and acquaintances to verify
the reports of the July 25 call and the surrounding circumstances "an investigation" of the
president. Really? Sounds pretty deep statey to me.
Third, why does Ritter refer to the President's request of a "favor" of a Biden
investigation as "non-national security topics" rather than what it clearly was -- a request
for help that could only be primarily for Trump's personal benefit in our domestic politics?
Such sophistry is troubling and revealing. If the whistleblower's claim is true, and it sure
looks like it is based on publicly available evidence, Trump was giving Ukraine $391 Million
reasons to fabricate evidence on Biden. Even the mere announcement, as Sondland says, would
be politically damaging to the candidate who polls the best against Trump in key
constituencies with no benefit at all to the U.S.'s national security. That's why the story
is troubling, not because it related to "non-national security topics."
Fourth, who else other than an anti-Trump lawyer is the whistleblower supposed to choose?
A pro-Trumper? Ridiculous criticism.
Fifth, he's got friends here and there, and he might have leaked. This is just more "deep
state" conspiracy nonsense, and the old look at all of this smoke, there must be a fire. It
was so smoky and he was such a swampy deep stater that he was rehired into the White House
despite those concerns? Yeah, maybe, or maybe the suspicions were not substantiated. And,
again, what does any of that have to do with Trump essentially soliciting a bribe in exchange
for aid and/or a White House meeting. All this shows is that Trump, who complains that
they're all out to get him, was stupid enough to get caught. Because he was stupid enough to
rely on Rudy Giuliani.
So, this would make a nice spy novel, but it is pretty weak tea to support the claim that
the Whistleblower did anything other than report what he thought was an improper and likely
illegal act, and even weaker tea to support a claim that we ought to just ignore the whole
scandal.
Withholding aid and a White House meeting unless Ukraine agreed to announce an
investigation the primary purpose of which is to benefit the President personally and
politically is wrong. It's wrong for Trump and it will be wrong for every president of any
party. If Ritter isn't alarmed about that, it says more about him than it does about the
whistleblower. If Ritter isn't also troubled by that allegation, and the evidence that has
come out to support it, his judgment is more suspect than the whistleblower's.
Consortiumnews.com , November 29, 2019 at 17:09
From Scott Ritter:
The bottom line here is that a deputy national intelligence officer charged with
overseeing intelligence activities regarding the Russian-Ukraine target used his position to
initiate a Whistleblower complaint which failed to conform to the legal requirements required
of such. Many sins are conducted by officials "under the cover of law", and this is one. You
can spin and cherry pick and obfuscate the article all you like, but you can't avoid the
reality that an intelligence officer, operating under a veil of secrecy, initiated a
political action under the color of law designed to unseat the President of the United
States. At a minimum this individual should be identified and subjected to an appropriate
amount of investigation as to his motive and that of those who collaborated/conspired with
him.
John Neal Spangler , November 27, 2019 at 14:12
Anner is right. A huge problem is that most US bureaucrats have never lived abroad and
gone thru culture shock. They are so rigidly American they do not understand foreign
cultures
jhawk620 , November 27, 2019 at 12:12
this is an historical abstract into the machinations of bureaucrats within the U S
government. Well worth the time to read it.
Ojkelly , November 27, 2019 at 11:38
Blowing the whistle on the whistle blower! Great article. He learned well.. I am still in
shock from Morrell's op ed in NYT, "I used to run the CIA and I am for Hillary Clinton".
I know the morels post the government career doesn't include a job at Booz Allen or SAIC or $
think tank world, just a desk at the Clinton Foundation BGS. Plus only a few crumbs from CBS
and CNN. Maybe that is an instructive object lesson for other senior retiring officials.
michael , November 27, 2019 at 19:52
Good point, although the MSM is spiking any negative Biden stories. Biden seems to be the CIA's preferred Democrat.
Heavy published their "five facts" on the presumed whistleblower several days ago, including
that he worked as the point man with Biden on Ukraine issues. Evidently he was so
pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia (pointed out by Mike Cernovich who suggested he was involved in
leaks, as noted in Foreign Policy back in 2017), that it must have been difficult for him to
fall in line and do his required job, implementing new foreign policy with a new
administration. Whether he "went native" or truly decided to over-ride the President's
policies in favor of the old Obama "consensus community" policies for Ukraine, he has crossed
several lines interfering with foreign policy and national security.
Ritter mentions treason, but that is only applicable to wartime. This case is classical
sedition. If the CIA wants to run the country, they should run for office (as several did and
won as Democrats in 2018).
Llitchfield , November 27, 2019 at 20:55
Exactly. The relevant timeline is not the 2020 election.
The relevant timeline is of VP Biden's alleged activities on behalf of his son while serving
as VP and as the Obama administration point man on Ukraine. The sequence whereby various
phone calls by Biden and his son resulted in monies departing Ukr bank accounts and arriving
in American bank accounts Those are the activities that need to be investigated. Before Biden
can dream of running for POTUS.
It is in a sense coincidence that Biden's activities became known to the public and others at
this moment in time.
AnneR , November 27, 2019 at 08:09
Mr Ritter's own anti-Russian bias is clearly on display throughout this piece, which
reduces considerably its pretensions toward objectivity.
As for the politicization of the secret agencies – as a fairly recent phenomenon or
so it would seem from Mr Ritter's piece – from my reading and understanding of the past
70+ years, these agencies and their forebears have *Always* been politically biased. Not
necessarily regarding whichever of the dual headed monopoly party that has controlled US
politics for even longer, but biased always on behalf of the Ruling Elites.
As for the educational attainments of these secret agencies' staffs and their supposed
knowledge of, in this instance, Russia and other eastern European/Eurasian countries, I would
suggest that they apparently understand very little about Russia particularly, no matter how
well they speak, read and write the language; and what they remain steeped in, for reasons
having to do with the insatiable desire for the US to remain *the* hegemon and the political
biases of their university tutors/professors which they clearly absorb (their leanings
probably already in those directions anyway), is the COLD WAR US/western erroneous
apprehension of what the USSR intended. Of course Russia (the USSR before) want to dominate
the world – we do, so obviously other such nations (China being the other one) want to
overtake us. We visit war, coups, invasions, destruction, siege warfare (sanctions) on every
nation that won't do as we want – therefore Russia and China want to do exactly the
same thing to us and the rest of the world.
Apparently the Anglo-American ruling elites and their instruments (such as the staffs of
these agencies) are utterly incapable of conceiving of, perceiving that other cultures exist
and that those cultural perspectives are *NOT* the same as ours, do not want to be exactly
like ours (rightly so). WE cannot, do not, are utterly unwilling, are incapable, lack the
imagination to try to walk in the footwear of another, very different culture. But for the
world's sake, we need to start doing so. Now.
Actually, the anti-Russian bias of the author is not clear at all. I surmise that Anne is
displeased by what he did not write. For example, there is a revolving door between academia
and CIA, and no field is more contaminated than Russian and East European studies. For
details, reading "Team B" at Wikipedia is a good start.
Skip Scott , November 27, 2019 at 13:52
How true. The CIA (Capitalism's Invisible Army) killed JFK when I was seven years old.
They've been in charge my whole life. Assassinating a sitting president isn't "political"? I
would think its way beyond "allowing your expertise to be tarnished by political
considerations". It is willful blindness to think there is any remnant of a "constitutional
republic" in the USA, especially from a former "intelligence" officer.
Reading Putin's speeches and interviews, it is plain to see that he is interested in the
welfare of his citizens, and maintaining sovereignty by refusing vassal status to Empire.
Imagine if we had a president truly committed to serving "We the People".
CharlieK , November 29, 2019 at 05:27
Yes, Anne, there is an uncontested, imperial mindset that seeps through the US body
politic. And a central part of that imperial mindset is the demonization of Russia, of
everything Russian, and anything that Russia might do. This has been ongoing for at least
over 100 years, since the revolution of 1917.
It is so ingrained into the lifeblood of this
country that to challenge it results in being condemned as a heretic. One perfect example is
the delusional version of events surrounding Crimea, which was a part of Russia for centuries
until Khrushchev "transferred" Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukranian SFSR in 1954.
Who
even bothers with such historical facts! Moreover, it was incredible to watch the impeachment
hearings, as everyone in the room, Republican and Democrat, sat around and discussed Ukraine
as if it was ours to control. Imagine for one second if Russia (or China) were discussing
Mexico in the same terms, or if they had intervened in a similar fashion as the US National
Security State did to midwife the overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine. Under such
circumstances we would probably be ready to declare war.
All of our meddling in Ukraine is
for the sole purpose of solidifying US hegemony and undermining Russia. Would the US tolerate
Mexico joining a military bloc a la NATO that was a part of a Russian global military
alliance? To ask the question is itself heretical. Anne, your declaration that the US is
unwilling and genetically incapable of walking in the footwear of another, very different
culture is totally accurate. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatsoever that this
imperial mindset is likely to change. And if history is any lesson, this kind of imperial
mindset never changes until it is forced to do so, as Germany and Japan learned as a result
of WWII.
Sally Snyder , November 27, 2019 at 08:03
As shown in this article, there is a key aspect to the entire anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine
story that has received no coverage by the mainstream media:
The West's blanket condemnation of Russia and its so-called annexation of the Crimean
peninsula in 2014 would suggest that more of us need to educate ourselves on the history of
Russia and Crimea in particular before we whole heartedly swallow the narrative that our
political leaders and media foist on us.
TimN , November 27, 2019 at 07:41
Just as I suspected, the CIA directly interfered in US politics. Great article, but why
the coy insistence on not naming the "whistle-blower, " yourself, Scott? And of course
"whistle-blower" should be in quotes throughout the article, no? His name is Eric
Ciaramella.
This is simply Russiagate 2.0, with the "Intelligence" agencies having run completely amok at
this point. Very disturbing, but not really surprising.
Jeff Davis , November 29, 2019 at 08:49
" why the coy insistence on not naming the "whistle-blower, "
Indeed, the universal coyness in the repetitive use of the term "the whistleblower",
beyond becoming now tedious and annoying, has so embedded the term in discussions of this
issue, that it has now become the default usage. To the point where writing Eric Ciaramella,
without explaining that he is the presumed "the whistleblower", would leave one wondering who
this Eric person is. To overcome this problem, I would suggest, at least as a temporary
measure, that the term "Eric Ciaramella a.k.a. 'the whistleblower' "be used instead.
Consortiumnews.com , November 29, 2019 at 16:48
From Scott Ritter:
The idea behind my not including the name of the Whistleblower, all the while providing a
documentary trail that clearly identifies the individual in question, was to highlight the
absurdity of the ongoing decision by Congress and the Whistleblower's legal counsel to
pretend that he enjoys a modicum of anonymity. Perhaps my approach was too sophisticated by
far, but with all due respect, it certainly did not lack for courage.
michael , November 27, 2019 at 06:36
Excellent detailed summary of the SNAFU of politicized national foreign policy that has
led to the unhinged continual neocon/ neolib invasions and coups and sanctions this
century.
The whistleblower's complaint was rejected as "not urgent" by the DNI with the government
lawyers' advice (rejected as most whistleblower's complaints are in government, for better or
worse).
"After considering the whistleblower's complaint and classified annex, the Criminal Division
opted not to pursue charges, in effect determining that no crime had been committed."
When the whistleblower refused to accept this decision, and instead took his complaint to
Schiff, as a politicized weapon, he and anyone else involved should have been or now be
charged with Sedition. (Obama would have thrown the whistleblower's butt in jail as he did so
many others.)
The whole point of Electing a President is to change ineffective policies (in the new
President's view), particularly in foreign policy. Unelected expert advisers are only that.
While Ciaramella and Vindman may feel the consensus community foreign policy agendas are
sacrosanct and untouchable by any new President, their only recourse is to advise, make their
arguments, and as the constitution states, Heads of Departments can disagree in writing. Or
they can resign.
As Thomas Jefferson noted "the President is the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it is from him alone 'that foreign nations or their agents
are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'; that whatever he communicated as
such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the expression of the nation'; and that
no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or 'to interpose between him and any
other branch of government, under the pretext of either's transgressing their functions.'
There is a major difference between oversight by Congress and interfering in executive branch
functions (such as taking up a rejected whistleblower's complaint for political reasons.
Where were these people with Snowden's, and Manning and Assange's much more serious
complaints?).
Stephen Cohen has emphasized the essential ability of elected Presidents to meet in private
with foreign leaders, as every President since Kennedy has done (saving us from nuclear
destruction in JFK's case and leading to the fall of the Soviet Union in Reagan's). That's
where important deals are concluded and military, intelligence, and state members whose jobs
depend on warmongering advantages, cannot and should not be allowed access to sensitive
national security decisions.
As Chuck Schumer said ""Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have
six ways from Sunday at getting back at you". This is essentially the rotten core of American
government today. The intelligence community somehow has been empowered to run the country
and its politics since 2016, which is much more dangerous than anything the Russians could
ever do.
Litchfield , November 27, 2019 at 21:16
Isn't there also something in the Constitution that prohibits anyone from conducting an
"independent" foreign policy? That is, the president and the State Department (part of the
executive branch) are the ones who make foreign policy. A senator, say, can't go off on his
or her own, travel to a foreign country, and advance different policies from those advanced
by the POTUS and State. In this respect McCain was way out of line. Maybe because he thought
he *should* have been the pres. He should have been punished publicly for his
transgression.
Looks like it it up to the Orange One to draw a line on these off-the-reservation
activities, whether by those in Congress or in the national security apparatus. They should
all be charged with sedition.
David Otness , November 27, 2019 at 23:41
"The intelligence community somehow has been empowered to run the country and its politics
since 2016 ."
If one truly studies such things -- seriously -- objectively -- that date will be determined
to be November 22, 1963.
A mainstream media and academic expert this week issued a rare admission : that pretty much
everything the establishment has fed the public on Syria is false or distorted; but it remains
that after tragic eight-year long war is slowly coming to a close, new indisputable facts are
coming to light. " Truth did not matter at all," he admits after years of providing commentary
for mainstream publications.
In a lengthy thread on Twitter, counter-terrorism author and
assistant professor of political science and public policy at Northeastern University Max
Abrahms exposed how he saw the 'narrative managers' at work from the inside of the
establishment think tank world and media. As his own research came to uncover and document the
truth of what was happening in Syria, "the media would excise me and the research from their
stories" he revealed. His work in the early years of the war
appeared in The New York Times and other major outlets, however, he was increasingly
censored and pushed out of a number of platforms for speaking inconvenient truths.
Below is his full commentary , written in the
wake of the new OPCW leaks which the mainstream is still trying hard to ignore.
Every day there are new revelations that the "rebels" were in cahoots not only with Al Qaeda
but also ISIS and official reports of Assad using chemical weapons were doctored according to
the reports' own authors.
Were you ever skeptical that Assad was authorizing chemical weapons attacks when they were
the one thing that put his winning the war at risk?
Authors of the official reports linking him to chemical weapons usage have now supplied
evidence that their own reports were doctored .
When I was interviewed about Syria's military using chemical weapons, I expressed skepticism
as Assad bucked the political science literature by engaging in the one conduct that would
reverse his hard-fought victory.
But the media would excise me and the research from their stories.
The #1 story should be that authors of the official reports linking Assad to WMD usage have
supplied evidence that they were doctored in defiance of the scientific evidence and exploited
to push regime change in Damascus, which risked creating the Islamic State war with Russia.
Until you get how you were duped into supporting regime change in Syria you'll get duped
into supporting other costly ventures to the local population , international stability and our
counterterrorism efforts.
The mainstream narrative of the Syria conflict has imploded.
Every day there are new revelations that the "rebels" were in cahoots not only with Al
Qaeda but also ISIS & official reports of Assad using chemical weapons were doctored
according to the reports' own authors.
The story of doctored WMD reports and Al Qaeda-led rebels must be told.
What happened in
Syria is the American political establishment decided that the ends justify the means. Truth
did not matter at all. We were told Assad must go based on WMD reports their own authors say
were doctored to support "rebels" who were Al-Qaeda-led and helping ISIS.
Watch this interview and determine yourself whether you find trustworthy the official report
linking Assad to the chlorine attack which was sold in the
sold in the media as casus belli
for toppling Assad and has now been exposed by the fact-finders themselves as doctored.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/SMSyLg1E49M
If you think politicians, think tanks and media got a lot wrong in the Iraq war wait until
you hear about the Syria war.
If you cheered for another regime change war then it doesn't matter whether the casus belli
lacks evidence. The media is unmoved that multiple scientists who made up the official
investigation doubt that the Syrian military was behind the attacks or the use of chlorine at
all.
This is how they roll out new deep state Mockingbird Media clones.
The older completely discredited clones are replaced with new ones who pretend to have
been right there with us all along.
Look at Obama. One solitary vote among so many regarding Iraq and he gained the anti-war
vote and a Nobel Prize. Then he went about personally making the kill orders by drone,
allowing the wicked witch to overthrow Syria and sodomize their leader with a bayonet. Then
on to Syria, various African countries, etc.
I'm sure this *** has written lots on returning the Golan Heights to Syria, returning the
West Bank to the Palestinians, renouncing foreign aid to Israel, etc. Right? Not.
The mendacity of 'the system' can be infuriating when you and your work is targeted.
What I see today is not any different in any way from what my elders told me about the
Third Reich and what I heard from East Berlin and the Soviet Union under Stalin and
successors. I grew up in West Berlin and we did meet people, heard things.
Heil Hegemon - and Heil to all its lackeys! Heil!!!
Ron Paul was trying to tell everyone right from the git-go that the Syrian gas attacks
were a false flag, and the evidence and logic supported a false flag operation. Even more
annoying, the 100 or so Tomahawk missiles cost US taxpayers about a $million each. But maybe
the missiles were getting old, and the military needed some practice shots.
Steele is credible. I believe that the OPCW doctored the reports upon instructions. The
narrative management on Syria has totally destroyed the trust in the western governments and
has demonstrated that the US, the UK and the EU are not behaving any better than China or
Russia.
Someone needs to make an argument as to why we should believe any of these guys. I mean,
after you have been proven liars so many times, should we not throw the rotten tomatoes?
America will tell any lie, commit any atrocity, on behalf of its military industrial
complex, bankster, Zionist elite, while manufacturing consent for its evil by its corrupt
complicit Mainstream Media. Is that even news?
It doesn't matter Max, we already knew all this news about Syria was fake. When they were
trying to fulfill an agenda, which was to overthrow Syria for the sake of Israel, since Syria
is part of this fictitious promised land, their lies help support this agenda. Just like the
Zionist attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon with remote controlled airplanes
and pre-planted controlled demolition explosives. They were followed up with a bunch of lies
to the entire world telling us it was a handful of Muslims who have never flown jumbo jets
before. And they performed top gun maneuvers with these jumbo jets and breached perhaps the
greatest air defense system in the world with only primitive box cutters. I totally believe
the US and Israel covertly created ISIS. And the support funds came from the Zionist
controlled printing presses, and from the pentagon budget that was unaccounted for. But
unfortunately, most Americans still drink the Kool-aid. They continue to believe their lies.
And because of this, they will keep doing what they are doing.
Here's Jeffrey Epstein's BFF and Mossad handler Ehud Barak pinning the israeli 9/11 false
flag on the Osama bin Laden donkey within hours of the attack.
A chief architect of 9-11, Ehud Barak, interviewed on BBC an hour after attacks
That was a sloppy *** false flag too. The "agencies" are getting lazy because they own the
press and Americans are incredibly dumbed down on foreign policy. The got away with 2 planes
collapsing 3 WTC buildings so maybe they figure why bother even making it look
convincing.
Since it follows a pattern, it's not even just Syria. The US regime is a state sponsor of
terrorism, by their own definition, and go into countries and create chaos and revolution,
attempting regime change, creating a crisis they then use as "justification" for escalating
into open conflict against the victim. Accuse the victim nation of crimes, blanketing the
world in propaganda to delude the masses. Try to focus their attention on a single bad guy in
their narrative, a "brutal dictator" or whatnot. Attack by proxy and directly, sanction,
bomb, etc until the victim is left unable to produce for their own needs, making them
dependent, and then going in to apply the chains of debt to the victim to pay the empire to
rebuild what they destroyed. Everyone gets rich, increased resources from theft, testing of
weapons systems, dominion over the new vassal nation, etc, while the victim is
subjugated.
The "memo" Wesley Clark refers to came directly from zionist war criminal Paul Wolfowitz
who was whispering in the ear of Donald Rumsfeld the whole way.
Wolfowitz is perhaps better known not for writing the Wolfowitz Doctrine but for
co-authoring Rebuilding America's Defenses, a report released in September 2000 by Zionist
neocon think tank PNAC (The Project for a New American Century). The PNAC membership list is
a "Who's Who" of American Zionist New World Order conspirators – in addition to
Wolfowitz the list includes **** Cheney Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Kagan, I. Lewis (Scooter)
Libby, Richard Perle, Doug Feith and many others.
"The mainstream narrative of the Syria conflict has imploded."
"Every day there are new revelations that the "rebels" were in cahoots not only with Al
Qaeda but also ISIS & official reports of Assad using chemical weapons were doctored
according to the reports' own authors."
Bless you for trying, but you would do less damage by quietly withdrawing. You just look
silly. USA spent 4+ years fighting ISIS, during which time ISIS spread across the middle
East. Russia stepped in with 40 aircraft, funded through their normal air force training
program, and destroyed ISIS in 9 months.
Either Russians are superhuman warriors, or the west was lying when it claimed to be
fighting ISIS. Which is it?
Now after her deposition Aaron should interview Fiona Hill. I would like to see how she would lose all the feathers of her cocky
"I am Specialist in Russia" stance. She a regular MIC prostitute (intelligence agencies are a part of MIC) just like Luke Harding. And
probably both have the same handlers.
Brilliant interview !
Harding is little more than an intelligence asset himself and his idea of speaking to "Russians" is London circle of Russian emigrants
which are not objective source by any means.
He's peddling a his Russophobic line with no substantiation. In fact, the interview constitutes an overdue exposure of this pressitute.
Notable quotes:
"... He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. ..."
"... This interview is a wonderful illustration of everything that is horribly wrong with corporate media. I hope it goes viral. ..."
"... Very well put! Everything that is labeled as "conspiracy theory" when aimed towards the West, is "respectable journalism" when aimed at Russia. ..."
"... Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman "all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil. ..."
"... Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises '' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling the postal service company for transportation costs. ..."
"... Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate to The Real News. ..."
"... GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC server was hacked. ..."
"... Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking. ..."
"... NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election. Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller? LIAR!!!! ..."
"... Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here. ..."
"... His logic seems to be: Putin does things we don't like -> Trump getting elected is something we don't like -> Putin got Trump elected. ..."
That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence
(something like Russia's Richard Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is to go and speak to a bunch
of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western intelligence agencies. That's not how you're going to
get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on
"oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season.
Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really,
its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations
of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding
for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be involved in murdering
journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course
if someone here discusses he death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian were
to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
That is the video about fire arm legalization "cockroaches ", even if you are not Russian speaking it's pretty graphic to understand
the idea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8ILxqIEEMg
And FYI - Central Asian workers do the low-wage jobs in Moscow, pretty like Mexicans or Puerto Ricans in US. Yet, that "future
president" is trying to gain some popularity by labeling and demonizing them. Sounds familiar a bit?
"definitelly ddissagree with that assertation about Alexei he's had nationalist views but he's definitely not far right and
calling him a tool of US intelligence is pretty bs this is the exact same assertation that the Russian state media says about
him."
I disagree that there is any evidence of Navalny being tool of US intelligence, but you are wrong for not recognizing
that Navalny is ultranationalist. His public statements are indefensible. He is a Russian ultra nationalist, far right and a racist.
Statements about cockroaches, worse than rats, bullets being too good etc - there is no way to misunderstand that.
Navalny is a corrupt ex-politician just like his mentor that was caught red-handed taking a bribe from a German businessman
"all on camera" at a restaurant. Most of corrupt politicians and businessmen that get caught by the Russian government always
cry that they are politically repressed and the government is evil.
Navalnys brother was the owner of a small transport company that Navalny helped secure contracts with government enterprises
'' anywhere in the world that would be a conflict of interest" but that's not why he is in jail! His brother is in jail for swindling
the postal service company for transportation costs.
@trdi I am a Russian. And I remember the early Navalny who made me sick to my stomach with absolutely disgusting, RACIST, anti-immigration
commentaries. The guy is basically a NEO-NAZI who has toned down his nationalist diatribes in the past 10 or so years. Has he
really reformed? I doubt it.
MrChibiluffy, Navalny became relatively popular in Russia precisely at that time, especially during the White Ribbon protests
in 2011/2012. I remember it very well myself.
I am Russian and I lived in Moscow at that time and he was the darling of the Russian opposition. He publicly defined his views
and established himself back then and hasn't altered his position to this day.
What's more important is that around 2015 or so he made an alliance with the far-right and specifically Diomushkin who is a
neo-nazi activist. I understand that people change their views, it's just that he hasn't.
Nikita Gusarov it still feels like the best chance for some form of populist opposition atm. Even though they just rejected
him he has a movement. Would you rather vote for Sobchak?
Lets not forget that one reason many voted for Trump was his rhetoric about improving the peace-threatening antagonism towards
Russia, especially in order to help resolve the situation in Syria. It's not like it was secret he was trying to hide. He only
moderated his views somewhat when the Democrat-engineered anti-Russian smear campaign took off and there was a concerted effort
to tie him to Russia.
Is it crime surround yourself with people that will help you fullfill your pledges?
Yep, when he talked about murdering journalists, I paused the video and told my girlfriend about the murder of Michael Hastings.
Oh an PS the USA puts journalists in Guantanamo. We play real baseball.
Aaron Mate is a brilliant interviewer. He keeps a calm demeanor, but does not let his guest get away with any untruths
or non sequiturs. This one of the many reasons I love The Real News. I encourage anyone who appreciates solid journalism to donate
to The Real News.
GREAT follow up questions Aaron... Harding did not expect to get a real reporter... he obfuscates and diverts to other
issues because he can not EVER provide any evidence... Going to Moscow will not tell you anything about whether or not the DNC
server was hacked.
Luke Harding is a complete and total idiot. He kept qualifying his arguments with "I've been to Moscow... I don't know
if you know this, but I've been to Moscow..." and even at one point, "Some of my friends have been murdered." LOL, sure, whatever
you say, Luke! Like you're so big time and such an all star journalist who isn't just trying to capitalize on the wild goose chase
that is psychologically trapping leftists into delusions and wishful thinking.
NSA monitors every communication over the internet. if the Russians hacked the DNC, there would be proof, and it would
not take years to uncover. Look at the numbers: Clinton spent 2 billion, Russian "agents" spent 200k to "influence" the election.
Great job Aaron for holding this opportunist's feet to the fire. Oh he's a story teller all right. You know a synonym of storyteller?
LIAR!!!!
Wow Aaron Matte NICE JOB. I'm only half through, I hope you don't make him cry. Do u make him cry? Did I hear this guy say
he's ultimately a storyteller? Lol.
It may seem like Trump has an alarming amount of associations with Russia, because he does.. that's how rich oligarchs work.
But it's all just SPECULATION still. Why publish a book on this without a smoking gun to prove anything? Collusion isn't even
a legal term, it's vague enough for people to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. People investigating and reporting on
this are operating under confirmation bias. Aaron, you're always appropriately critical and you're always asking the right questions.
You seem to be one of the few sane people left in media. Trump is a disgrace but there still is no smoking gun.
Omg a bunch of unproven conspiracy crap.. Hes making so many factual wrong statements I don't know where to start here..
How would anyone in the years before his candidacy have thought Trump would gain any political relevance. I mean even the pro
Hillary media thought until the end, their massive trump coverage would only help to get him NOT elected, but the opposite was
the case. This guy is a complete joke as are his theses. Actually reminding me of the guardian's so called report about Russian
Hacking in the Brexit referendum. Look here if you want to have a laugh
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/12/how-097-changed-the-fate-of-britain-not.html
Collusion Rejectionist! Ha Ha. Funniest interview ever. Well done Aaron. The Real News taking a stand for truth. So what's
in the book if there's no evidence? Guardian journalism? Stop questioning the official narrative, oh and have you heard of Estonia.
:)) ps that smiley face was not an admission of my working for the Kremlin.
Best interview ever. Aaron held him to his theories and asked what evidence or proof he had and he didn't come up with one
spec of evidence only hearsay and disputed theories. What a sad indictment this is on America. 1 year on a sensationalized story
and still nothing concrete. What a joke and proof of gullibility to anyone who believes this corporate media Narritive. I guess
at least they don't have to cover policies like the tax theft or net neutrality. This is why we need The Real news.
I'd rather have American business making business deals with Russia for things like hotels, rather than business deals with
the Pentagon to aim more weapons at the Russians. When haven't we been doing business with Russians? We might as well investigate
Cargill, Pepsi, McDonald's, John Deere, Ford, and most of our wheat farmers.
"... The EU are, really, really pissed with the USA for making this happen. ..."
"... So the EU lost Russia and for the bobby prize they got the entirely corrupt Ukraine instead ..."
"... You will know when the **** has well and truly hit the fan for the Ukraine, when the USA finally uncovers some 'er' surprise evidence that the Ukraine government actually shot down that Malaysian flight and hit them with across the board sanctions to well and truly cripple it prior to trying to dump it back on Russia but the EU gets stuck with it for a while longer, to become a festering den of organized crime in the EU. ..."
The EU are, really, really pissed with the USA for making this happen. They had always
hoped to get a broken up Russia into the EU and now, instead, they will have to deal with a
Russia China economic union with strong defense ties and whole bunch of other countries
around the globe tied to it.
So the EU lost Russia and for the bobby prize they got the entirely corrupt Ukraine
instead, almost like the USA wanted to **** the EU up with the Ukraine on purpose (they just
wanted to **** over Russia and got way too greedy trying to pillage the Ukraine and turned
the entire mess into a real **** show, that only has one way forward for the Ukraine, grovelling back to Russia and Russia will make higher and higher demands of them because who
wants to deal with a entirely corrupt **** show).
You will know when the **** has well and truly hit the fan for the Ukraine, when the USA
finally uncovers some 'er' surprise evidence that the Ukraine government actually shot down
that Malaysian flight and hit them with across the board sanctions to well and truly cripple
it prior to trying to dump it back on Russia but the EU gets stuck with it for a while
longer, to become a festering den of organized crime in the EU.
Russia still says some nice things about the Ukraine but they are in no hurry to get them
back.
If, for example, Russia decides to cur Kiev from Southern regions and split the country into two, the USA can do nothing to
help Ukraine. If the USA are engaged in the conflict in Ukraine they will need to fight the Russian army with conventional weapons
in their own backyard and on conditions that Russian impose including the risk of escalation into a nuclear war. They are
not prepared for such a development.
Notable quotes:
"... The United States engaged in unnecessary wars, and when these wars were easily won on the immediate battlefield, the unplanned for occupations lead to guerilla insurgencies that were not so easy for a conventional military to confront. The U.S. Army was not prepared for guerilla warfare in urban areas, nor for the brutal and immoral tactics that their new enemies were willing to engage in. ..."
"... After a decade of fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan and almost as long in Iraq, the U.S. leadership decided to destroy the sovereign nation of Libya, and foment a war in Syria immediately afterward. There is no doubt with the knowledge of historic events today, that the CIA and State Department facilitated a foreign invasion of Syria of Islamist radicals. ..."
In the Department of Defense authored summary of the National Defense Strategy of the United
States for 2018, Secretary James Mattis quite succinctly sets out the challenges and goals of
the U.S. military in the immediate future. Importantly, he acknowledges that the U.S. had
become far too focused on counter-insurgency over the past two decades, but he seems to miss
the causation of this mission in the first place. U.S. foreign policy, and its reliance on
military intervention to solve all perceived problems, regime change and imperialist
adventurism, resulted in the need to occupy nations, or destroy them. This leads to the growth
of insurgencies, and the strengthening of long simmering religious radicalism and anti-western
sentiment in the Middle East and Central Asia. The U.S. military willfully threw itself
headlong into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The United States engaged in unnecessary wars, and when these wars were easily won on the
immediate battlefield, the unplanned for occupations lead to guerilla insurgencies that were
not so easy for a conventional military to confront. The U.S. Army was not prepared for
guerilla warfare in urban areas, nor for the brutal and immoral tactics that their new enemies
were willing to engage in.
They obviously had not reflected upon the Soviet experience in
Afghanistan, nor the nature of their new enemies. As casualties mounted due to roadside IEDs,
snipers, and suicide bombers hidden amongst civilians, the U.S. military and the defense
industry were forced to find ways to protect soldiers and make vehicle less vulnerable to these
types of attacks. This resulted in vehicles of every description being armored and new IED
resistant vehicles being designed and fielded in large numbers. This in turn, equated to a vast
amount of time, effort and money. It also focused both the U.S. military services and the
defense industry away from fighting conventional wars against peer adversaries.
After a decade of fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan and almost as long in Iraq, the U.S.
leadership decided to destroy the sovereign nation of Libya, and foment a war in Syria
immediately afterward. There is no doubt with the knowledge of historic events today, that the
CIA and State Department facilitated a foreign invasion of Syria of Islamist radicals.
They
funded and armed these groups, provided clandestine training, and facilitated the logistical
movement of fighters and weapons into a sovereign nation to cause its disintegration. In these
two examples they decided not to occupy these countries, but to destroy all semblance of
ordered society and replace it with brutally violent chaos. The U.S. political and military
leadership seems to have learned that their past adventurism resulted in costly occupations,
yet instead of refraining from using the military option as a tool to alter geopolitical
realities they did not like, they merely opted to abandon the responsibility of occupation and
reconstruction all together.
... ... ...
Atrophy and Exhaustion
The U.S. military has been engaged in counterinsurgency warfare in Afghanistan for over
seventeen years. The disastrous invasion of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, and
counterinsurgency operations in a host of nations including, but not limited to Yemen, Somalia,
Niger and Nigeria, have all taken a toll on the U.S. military. Not only has a great deal of
military hardware been destroyed, but a great deal of equipment has been worn out and
essentially must be retired from service. More importantly, the constant deployments have
undermined the personnel needs of all services, with thousands of men having been killed or
physically and psychologically maimed for life. Tens of thousands of the most skilled
commissioned and non-commissioned officers have left the services, many of them having served
multiple combat deployments.
The fact that 62% of U.S. Navy's F-18s are not mission capable is not an anomaly. In 2017,
approximately 72% of all U.S. Air Force aircraft were not flight worthy. Many of the airframes
are quite old, yet well within their engineered service life, but most are in need of
maintenance. Both the Navy and Air Force claim that there is not enough money in their
respective budgets to procure the needed spare parts to keep these aircraft flying. One would
wonder that if this is the case, why tens of billions of dollars are being poured into new
aircraft when existing fleets are being left in disrepair. The decisions being made in the
upper echelon of the DOD are quite perplexing for the thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen
struggling to keep weapons and vehicles ready for action.
The U.S. Army finds itself looking for buyers of surplus MRAPs, vehicles of little utility
in a major conventional war with a peer adversary, while at the same time lacking spare parts
and munitions for armored vehicles and artillery systems. While the Army has made some progress
in procuring the first of the 49,099 JLTVs it wants, it is far behind in all other armored
vehicle procurement and development programs. BAE has delivered the first batch of 29 AMPVs to
the U.S. Army for extensive testing before the decision can be made to start low rate initial
production (LRIP). Once the LRIP begins, it is estimated that BAE will be able to produce
approximately 262 units annually, unless the company's main manufacturing facility in
Pennsylvania is expanded. The initial contract is worth $1.6 billion USD. The Army wants at
least 3,000 AMPVs of six different main variants to replace the thousands of M113 armored
vehicles still in service. The M113 first saw service in 1962 and a replacement for the
venerable vehicle has been required for decades.
Defense Secretary James Mattis made it crystal clear in his National Defense Strategy that
the U.S. must rebuild its conventional warfare capabilities. The U.S. Army's proposed 2019
budget lays bare the new priorities of a service facing a major transition in priorities.
Procurement of tracked combat vehicles, as well as artillery rounds, rockets and missiles
account for much of this latest budget request. Procurement is up by 18.4% over the previous
year, with procurement of weapons and tracked vehicles up 84% over the previous year. Although
upgrading of the M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzer to the M109A7 level is down by 56%
compared to 2018, procurement of 155mm artillery rounds is up a whopping 800%.
The percentage of total procurement directed toward weapons and tracked combat vehicles in
the 2019 proposed budget denotes that the U.S. Army recognizes its weakness in conventional
warfighting capability.
This chart clearly shows the desire on the part of the U.S. Army to upgrade and rearm
conventional capabilities. 155mm artillery rounds and Army Tactical Missile System upgrades to
the M207 MLRS are at the top of the list, followed by MBT upgrades and acquisition of new AMPV
vehicles.
As the U.S. Army attempts to rebuild its aged and depleted armored brigade combat teams and
conventional and rocket artillery, the U.S. Navy and Air Force are facing their own challenges.
The Navy finds itself in a position that is far from enviable, but was very easy to predict.
Having dumped $38 billion USD into two failed new classes of warships and a further $13 billion
into a new aircraft carrier that will likely not become operational until 2022, the service is
currently in the process of realigning its priorities. The service is struggling to procure the
new Virginia Class SSN and Columbia Class SSBNs that are required to ensure the
viability of the nation's nuclear deterrent triad well into the foreseeable future. These
defensive weapons programs, which are integral to U.S. national security, could have benefitted
greatly from the $50 billion wasted on the LCS, DDG-1000 and Gerald R. Ford programs.
Russia and China have spent the same time wasted by the U.S. Navy on updating and modernizing
their own submarine forces, chiefly their ballistic missile submarines.
Institutional
Corruption
If one had to identify the main reason behind the utter failure of the U.S. political
establishment and military leadership, both civilian and in uniform, to identify and prioritize
weapons programs and procurement that was truly in line with the national defense needs of the
country, it would be the institutional corruption of the U.S. military industrial complex. This
is not a fault of one party, but is the inevitable outcome of a thoroughly corrupted system
that both generates and wastes great wealth at the expense of the many for the benefit of the
few.
Massive defense budgets do not lead to powerful military forces nor sound national defense
strategy. The United States is the most glaring example of how a nation's treasure can be
wasted, its citizens robbed for generations, and its political processes undermined by an
industry bent on maximizing profitability by encouraging and exacerbating conflict. At this
point it is questionable that the United States' could remain economically viable without war,
so much of its GDP is connected in some way to the pursuit of conflict.
There is no doubt that the War Department was renamed the Department of Defense in an
Orwellian sleight of hand in 1947, just a few years after end of World War II. The military
industrial complex grew into a monolith during the war, and the only way to justify the
expansion of the complex, was by finding a new enemy to justify the new reality of a massive
standing military, something that the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids. This unlawful state
of affairs has persisted and expanded into a rotten, bloated edifice of waste. Wasted effort,
wasted wealth and the wasted lives of millions of people spanning every corner of the planet.
Tens of thousands of brave men and women in uniform, and millions of civilians of so many
nations, have been tossed into the blades of this immoral meat grinder for generations.
President Donald Trump was very proud to announce the largest U.S. military budget in the
nation's history last year. The United States spent (or more accurately, borrowed from
generations yet to come) no less than $874.4 billion USD. The declared base budget for 2017 was
$523.2 billion USD, yet there are also the Overseas Contingency Operations and Support budgets
that have to be considered in determining the total cost. The total DOD annual costs have
doubled from 2003 to the present. Yet, what has the DOD really accomplished with so much money
and effort? Very little of benefit to the U.S. tax payer for sure, and paradoxically the
exorbitant waste of the past fifteen years have left every branch of the U.S. military
weaker.
The U.S. Congress has the duty and responsibility of reigning in the military adventurism of
the executive branch. They have the sole authority to declare war, but more importantly, the
sole authority to approve the budget requests of the military. It is laughable to think that
the U.S. Congress will do anything to reign in military spending. The Congress and the Senate
are as equally guilty as the Executive in promoting and benefitting from the military
industrial complex. Envisioned as a bulwark against executive power, the U.S. Congress has
become an integral component of that complex. No Senator or Representative would dare to go
against the industry that employs so many constituents within their state, or pass up on the
benefits afforded them through the legalized insider-trading exclusive to them, or the
lucrative jobs that await them in the defense industry and the many think tanks that promote
continued prosecution of war.
Possible Reforms
It would be quite simple for the U.S. Department of Defense to rectify the current endemic
problems that have rendered it weaker and less prepared for a major conventional conflict with
a peer adversary. The greater challenge is transforming the relationship between the federal
and state governments back to the constitutionally intended one, and to dissolve the powers of
the now allied executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. This
would undermine the ability of the military industrial complex to coerce the nation into
working against the interests of the states and the citizenry. The military industrial complex
and the Deep State that serves it can only exist when power is greatly concentrated in a
federal system.
... ... ...
Conclusion
The United States stands at a crossroads in many respects, and the nation's military equally
so. All empires experience a period of over-expansion, military, economic and political
over-reach and imbalance. The United States has followed in the wake of the many imperialist
endeavors before it, with apparently little lessons having been learned. Imperialism is the
inevitable result of power devoid of wisdom and humility. A nation borne out of a revolution
against empire and absolutism has itself devolved into a much more dangerous and immoral avatar
of its former oppressor. This must change.
While Defense Secretary Mattis clearly acknowledged the need to transform the U.S. military
and realign it in a direction more focused on fighting and winning a conventional conflict with
the near peer adversaries he identified as Russia and China, one can only hope that he realizes
how the U.S. military that he served in for decades, got to the deplorable state that it now
finds itself in. The greatest enemy that the U.S. military has fought for the past seventy
years is undoubtedly the military industrial complex that it is an integral component of. The
Soviet Union, North Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and
Syria were never as much of a threat to the U.S. Armed Services as the corrupt military
industrial complex and the Deep State that serves as its guardian.
The United States military is in the weakest state of material strength and readiness since
the conclusion of the Cold War. The conventional ground forces of the Army have been
transformed into a force bent on occupation and counterinsurgency. Its heavy armored formations
are in a state of disrepair and material inferiority vis-a-vis its most capable theoretical
adversaries. The cornerstone of American power projection and intimidation, the aircraft
carrier strike groups, are a sad shadow of their former self. The carrier air wing, the entire
reason that an aircraft carrier exists in the first place, has devolved into a tool of
increasingly limited utility, with an ever diminishing reach.
The corrupt military industrial system that permeates every facet of American economic,
political and even cultural life has sucked the very lifeblood from the nation, eroded its
morality, bankrupt its economic future, and stolen a generation of its most patriotic and
selfless sons and daughters. While James Mattis acknowledges the challenges facing the national
security of the United States, he clearly misattributes the blame and misidentifies the very
real adversary. Russia and China are not existential threats to the continued welfare of the
American state. James Mattis need only look in the mirror to see the real threat, for he has
come to represent the cabal of special interests that enslaves the nation and constitution he
has pledged to serve, and holds the remainder of the world equally hostage.
There is very little chance that the reforms mentioned in this analysis will be adopted, or
that the United States will move in a direction that brings it back to its inception as a
constitutional republic. The interests of the military industrial complex in promoting
conflict, and maximizing financial profit will continue to steer the United States military,
and the nation as a whole, on an unsustainable and self-destructive path. There is little doubt
that if the Deep State pushes the nation to war against Russia or China, and likely an alliance
of the two, that the United States military has ever been in a weaker position. Such a conflict
would be of no benefit to any of the nations concerned, yet many potential flash points exist
that could lead to a conflict, including the South China Sea, Syria or Ukraine. As the United
States plays catch-up after decades of military adventurism, China and Russia have spent that
same time patiently and judiciously gathering their strength. The scenario of a one-sided
victory in favor of the United States is pure fantasy, existing only in the daydreams of the
emperor who wears no clothes.
Can we view MIC as analog of cancer cells what want to multiply no matter what?
Notable quotes:
"... So what exactly is the U.S. grand strategy with regard to Russia? ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
"... Bolshevism may be dead, but Russian nationalism, awakened by NATO's quick march to Russia's ancient frontiers, is alive and well. ..."
"... "Are the American people aware of the costs and risks inherent in such a policy?" ..."
Kiev has several patrol boats in the Sea of Azov, with a few more to be
transferred there in coming months. Russia's navy could sink those boats and wipe out that base
in minutes.
Are we going to send our Navy across the Black Sea to protect Ukraine's naval rights inside
a sea that has been as historically Russian as the Chesapeake Bay is historically American?
Poland this week invited the U.S. to establish a major base on its soil, for which the Poles
will pay $2 billion, to be called "Fort Trump."
Trump seemed to like the idea, and the name.
Yet the Bush II decision to install a missile defense system in Poland brought a Kremlin
counter-move: the installation of nuclear-capable Iskander cruise missiles in Kaliningrad, the
former German territory on Poland's northern border annexed by Stalin at the end of World War
II.
In the Balkans, over Russian protests, the U.S. is moving to bring Macedonia into NATO. But
before Macedonia can join, half of its voters have to come out on September 30 to approve a
change in the nation's name to North Macedonia. This is to mollify Greece, which claims the
birthplace of Alexander the Great as it own. Where are we going with all this?
With U.S. warships making regular visits into the Eastern Baltic and Black Sea, the
possibility of a new base in Poland, and growing lethal aid to Ukraine to fight pro-Russian
rebels in the Donbass and the Russian navy on the Sea of Azov, are we not crowding the Russians
a bit?
And are we confident the Russians will always back down?
When Georgia, believing it could kick Russian peacekeepers out and re-annex its seceded
province of South Ossetia, attacked in August 2008, the Russian army came crashing in and ran
the Georgians out in 48 hours.
George W. Bush wisely decided not to issue an ultimatum or send troops. He ignored the hawks
in his own party who had helped goad him into the great debacle of his presidency: Iraq.
So what exactly is the U.S. grand strategy with regard to Russia?
What might be called the McCain wing of the Republican Party has sought to bring Ukraine and
Georgia into NATO, which would make the containment of Russia America's policy in
perpetuity.
Are the American people aware of the costs and risks inherent in such a policy? What are the
prospects of Russia yielding always to U.S. demands? And are we not today stretched awfully
thin?
Our share of the global economy is much shrunk from Reagan's time. Our deficit is
approaching $1 trillion. Our debt is surging toward 100 percent of GDP. Entitlements are
consuming our national wealth.
We are committed to containing the two other greatest powers, Russia and China. We are tied
down militarily in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, with the War Party beating the drums
for another larger war with Iran. And we are sanctioning adversaries and allies for not
following our leadership of the West and the world.
In looking at America's global commitments, greatly expanded since our Cold War victory, one
word comes to mind: unsustainable.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more
about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the
Creators website at www.creators.com.
Largely right. However "entitlements" are not consuming wealth. Crony capitalism and unbridled
militarism are. 800 billion per year of military spending , which is unaccountable, unaudited
and is in addition to black budgets is a major problem. In addition, it seems crimes by the
financial sector -- even when local governments are defrauded, are never punished in a way that
acts as a deters future crimes. Nobody ever goes to jail.
Tackling these internal enemies instead of trying to cook up new enemies and crises would
definitely help.
Have to remind Pat that South Ossetia was a very rebellious part of an independent Georgia only
from 1918-1921. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia#South_Ossetia_as_a_part_of_the_Soviet_Union
After the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 a CIS peacekeeping force had conrrol over South
Ossetia till August 2008.
April 2008 US promised Georgia NATO membership. Georgia was part of the willing coalition in
Iraq and US armed and trained Georgia attacked South Ossetia in August 2008 shortly after
Rice's visit in July 2008.
So the whole claim of Georgia to South Ossetia is bogus anyway.
One problem with America's fealty to Israel is that it prioritizes countering Russia over
China. Left to her own devices, America would probably try to play one country off the other to
prevent them from joining forces. However, Russia is far more active than China in the Middle
East and is therefore of much greater concern to the Israelis. Once again, the "No Daylight"
policy with Israel costs the US dearly.
Odd statement. Entitlements can't consume anything. Though they do change what is consumed.
By transferring wealth from one person to another, different choices about consumption will be
made. Like more healthcare and less video games.
Military spending on the other hand is a pure consumption of wealth. Tanks and bombs add
zero value to our wealth and put vital raw materials to use to no good effect.
"Are the American people aware of the costs and risks inherent in such a policy?"
Yes. Which is why Trump was voted in as President.
Perhaps the hesitancy of Putin's response to provocations is that it is almost impossible to
gauge what a counter response might be. If Trump is in control, he is known to be
unpredictable. It seems that Trump is not, however, in control. If true, then a counter
response is even more unpredictable and it is not even clear exactly who to deal with, let
alone what their motives might be.
We won the first Cold War but failed to completely disarm Russia and turn them into West
Germany. We became infuriated that they did not become remain completely submissive to us and
started a second Cold War using the full arsenal of the first Cold War tactics. This includes
information war demonization, isolation, to be followed by an arms race. We will either succeed
this time or die trying, either figuratively or literally. God's not on our side this time.
Bolshevism may be dead, but Russian nationalism, awakened by NATO's quick march to Russia's
ancient frontiers, is alive and well.
Because the Cold War was never about "Bolshevism" in the first place, d'uh! As for the
"Russian nationalism" – what's wrong with that? Why only the US can be nationalist
("unique", "indispensible", "shining beacon of Freedom", etc.), while other countries are
shamed for that? If you don't have the nationalism, then you have it's opposite –
"internationalism". What kind of internationalism can the US offer to other countries besides
becoming American patriots within their respective countries?
"Are the American people aware of the costs and risks inherent in such a
policy?"
That presumes that the American people are in charge of anything when it comes to the
governance. Rather naive notion all things considered.
"... In contrast, the transatlantic alliance should advance American and European security. Absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union, thereby pushing the alliance up to the Russian Federation's border, proved to be a foolish move because it violated assurances made to Russian leaders. Despite being former KGB, Vladimir Putin never appeared to be ideologically antagonistic toward America. However, when he perceived Washington's behavior as threatening -- including dismembering Serbia, backing revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and promising to include both nations in NATO -- it encouraged him to respond violently. ..."
"... Admitting new members is never costless. Aid will be necessary to improve their militaries. Moreover, newer members sometimes become the most demanding, like the Baltics and Poland, which insist that they are entitled to American bases and garrisons. ..."
"... Continuing expansion also reinforces the message that NATO is hostile toward Russia. That's the only country allies are joining to oppose, after all. Obviously, there are plenty of other reasons Moscow should distrust the United States, but reinforcing negative perceptions for no benefit at all is bad policy. ..."
America Doesn't Need Another Weakling NATO Ally Macedonia is the latest nation invited into the alliance, but how does
that enhance America's (or Europe's) security?•
July 19,
2018
Utenriksdept /
cc At last week's NATO summit, President Donald
Trump denounced the allies for taking advantage of American taxpayers. Then he approved their latest subsidies. He even agreed to
invite a military weakling, Macedonia, to join NATO, which will add yet another nation to our military dole.
When George Washington warned Americans against forming a "passionate attachment" to other countries, he might have been thinking
of the Balkans. Indeed, a couple decades later, John Quincy Adams criticized proposals to aid Greece against the Ottoman Empire,
which then ruled that region. America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy," he intoned.
On into the 20th century, the Balkans were in turmoil. Germany's "Iron Chancellor," Otto von Bismarck, warned that "the great
European War would come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans." That's exactly what happened in 1914.
It took decades and two world wars for the Balkans to stabilize. But after the Cold War ended, Yugoslavia, which had emerged from
Europe's previous convulsions, broke apart. One of the smaller pieces was Macedonia.
The battles among the Serbians, Croatians, and Bosnians were bloody and brutal. In contrast, Macedonia provided comic relief.
The small, mountainous, landlocked nation of two million people won its independence without a fight in 1991, though Athens launched
a verbal and economic war against Skopje over the latter's use of the name "Macedonia."
Perhaps modern Greeks feared that a resurrected Alexander the Great would lead the newly freed Macedonian hordes south and conquer
Greece. Skopje entered the United Nations under the provisional name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, or FYROM. In June, after
only 27 years, the two governments agreed that Macedonia/FYROM would be called the Republic of North Macedonia -- though the decision
must still be ratified by the Macedonian people in a referendum.
More serious was the insurgency launched by ethnic Albanians who made up about a quarter of the nation's population. The battle
two decades ago over Kosovo inflamed ethnic relations in Macedonia, eventually resulting in a short-lived insurgency. Although the
fighters disarmed, Skopje's politics remained nationalist and difficult. Last year, a more liberal administration took over, but
the country's democratic institutions remain fragile.
Indeed, Freedom House only rates the nation "partly free." The group cites voter intimidation, political patronage networks, violent
protests, and problems with judicial impartiality and due process. Particularly serious were the threats against press freedom, which
led to a rating of "not free" in that area. While NATO's newer members tend to score lower than "Old Europe," as Donald Rumsfeld
once referred to the original allies, Macedonia is a step further down. Only Turkey, an incipient dictatorship, is worse: it almost
certainly would not be considered for membership today.
None of this mattered last week, however. After suffering Trump's many slings and arrows, alliance members approved an invitation
for Skopje to join NATO. Macedonian lawmaker Artan Grubi called it "our dream coming true. We have been in the waiting hall for too
long."
That's because Macedonia had hoped for an invite back in 2008 at the Bucharest summit, but was blocked by Athens over the name
dispute, and has wanted to join ever since. Macedonia's Defense Minister Radmila Sekerinska said, "With NATO membership, Macedonia
becomes part of the most powerful alliance. That enhances both our security and economic prosperity." Money and status are expected
to follow.
But how would this benefit the United States and other NATO members? James Ker-Lindsay at the London School of Economics made
the astonishing claim that "opening the way for the country to join NATO would be a big win for the organization at a crucial time
when concerns over Russian influence in the Western Balkans are growing in many capitals." As Skopje goes, so goes Europe? Not likely.
If Washington and Moscow are engaged in a new "great game," it is not a battle for Macedonia.
In fact, Macedonia is a security irrelevancy, destined to require American aid to create the pretense that its military is fit
for the transatlantic alliance. Skopje spent just $112 million on its armed forces last year, ahead of only one NATO member, Montenegro.
That was barely 1 percent of its GDP, putting Macedonia near the back of the NATO pack.
With an 8,000-man military, one is tempted to ask, why bother? But then one could similarly pose that query to several other NATO
members. Skopje's military is roughly the same size as Albania's, slightly bigger than Slovenia's, and about four times the size
of Montenegro's. None will be of much use in a conflict with the only conceivable threat, Russia.
So why bring Macedonia into NATO?
Some American policymakers see alliance membership as a means to socialize nations like Macedonia, helping them move towards democracy.
However, the European Union, which sets standards governing a range of domestic policies, has always been better suited to this task,
and EU membership imposes no security obligations on Washington. With the name controversy tentatively resolved, Skopje could begin
the EU accession process -- if the Europeans are willing. That is properly their -- not Washington's -- responsibility.
In contrast, the transatlantic alliance should advance American and European security. Absorbing former members of the Warsaw
Pact and Soviet Union, thereby pushing the alliance up to the Russian Federation's border, proved to be a foolish move because it
violated assurances made to Russian leaders. Despite being former KGB, Vladimir Putin never appeared to be ideologically antagonistic
toward America. However, when he perceived Washington's behavior as threatening -- including dismembering Serbia, backing revolutions
in Georgia and Ukraine, and promising to include both nations in NATO -- it encouraged him to respond violently.
The Balkans are peripheral even to Europe and matter little to America's defense. The states and peoples there tend to be more
disruptive and less democratic than their neighbors, reflecting the region's unstable history. (North) Macedonia's 8,000 troops aren't
likely to be reborn as the Spartan 300 and hold off invading Russians. So why should America threaten war on Skopje's behalf?
Admitting new members is never costless. Aid will be necessary to improve their militaries. Moreover, newer members sometimes
become the most demanding, like the Baltics and Poland, which insist that they are entitled to American bases and garrisons.
Expansion also complicates alliance decision-making. No doubt, Washington wishes its European allies would do what they're told:
spend more, shut up, and deploy where America wants them. That doesn't work out very well in practice, alas, as Trump has discovered
in Europe (though nations with smaller militaries are more likely to acquiesce than nations with bigger ones). An organization of
30 members, which NATO will become if Macedonia is added, is a more complex and less agile creature than one of 16, the number that
existed before NATO raced east.
Continuing expansion also reinforces the message that NATO is hostile toward Russia. That's the only country allies are joining
to oppose, after all. Obviously, there are plenty of other reasons Moscow should distrust the United States, but reinforcing negative
perceptions for no benefit at all is bad policy.
Finally, expanding the alliance is nonsensical in light of the president's criticisms of the Europeans. Hiking U.S. military spending,
increasing manpower and materiel deployments in Europe, and adding new members all contradict his demand that the allies do more
and signal that the president is not serious in his demands. That leaves the Europeans with little incentive to act, especially since
most of their peoples perceive few if any security threats.
Yet again President Trump has been exposed as a thoughtless blowhard. His rabid supporters have likely enjoyed his confrontational
rhetoric, but he has done nothing to turn it into policy. The Europeans need only wait for his attacks to ebb and then they can proceed
much the same as before. The status quo will continue to reign, impervious to change.
Montenegro always resembled the Duchy of Grand Fenwick from the delightful novel The Mouse that Roared . Macedonia is
the Duchy of North Grand Fenwick, a slightly larger neighboring state with similar features but additional problems. Neither is remotely
relevant to American security. America doesn't need yet another security black hole as an alliance partner.
But, according to the CNN (the original source), Germany will still not disbuse anywhere
near the 2-3% minimum required for each member.
At this point, many people here must've been asking: why doesn't the other NATO members
rise their contributions, since, as capitalist nations, it could provide them a consumerist
black hole (infinite demand) a la Keynes? After all, what works for the USA should work for
them, right?
"... With it becoming ever more clear that the US government and media have been covering up especially the Democratic Party's collusion with Ukraine's government in order to facilitate the self-enrichment of DP leaders' family members, undermine the presidential candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump (however unpresidential he may be) and foment liberal-socialist revolutions globally, the participants are moving into high gear propaganda mode. ..."
"... The most erroneous and deliberate omission in the piece is directly germane to the Trump's delay of the arms supplies. That is, the Barack Obama administration had more than two years to send such arms and did not do so. Moreover, this failure occurred at the height of the civil war and relatively large-scale military operations, not during a shaky ceasefire. So again we have partisan attacks masquerading as foreign policy analysis. This -- the American tendency to distort the reality of foreign affairs and the nature of various foreign countries and regimes, especially Russian and Ukraine today by both sides of the aisle in order to score points in the domestic political competition -- is one of the most deleterious aspects of American politics, and there are many such aspects. ..."
With it becoming ever more clear that the US government and media have been covering up
especially the Democratic Party's collusion with Ukraine's government in order to facilitate
the self-enrichment of DP leaders' family members, undermine the presidential candidacy and
presidency of Donald Trump (however unpresidential he may be) and foment liberal-socialist
revolutions globally, the participants are moving into high gear propaganda mode.
This is apparently a move by the
Democratic establishment to escalate the confrontation with the White House by adding to the
charge that Trump held up financial assistance to Ukraine until Ukrainian President Volodomyr
Zelenskiy renewed Ukraine's investigation of the Bidens' corrupt activities the charge that
Trump also held military assistance hostage in return for an investigation of the Bidens.
Unfortunately, Ignatuis's 'narrative' falls flat on its face when it is understood, as former
US National Security Council Europe-Eurasia chief Fiona Hill testified to Congress in the
impeachment hearings that the hold up was part of a general delay caused by a broad policy
review conducted by the incoming Trump administration ( https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/FionaHill-compressed.pdf
, pp. 227-8).
Ignatius writes that while Trump fiddles, Ukraine burns, that Ukrainians died while, if not
because Trump withheld military aid to Kyiv:
"As Ukrainians were struggling with near-daily shellfire, Trump appeared to treat military
aid appropriated by Congress as a personal political tool." "Trump's Ukraine machinations have
yielded something like what we've seen in these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power
and a corresponding increase in Russia's military and diplomatic leverage." (Here he cites
Syria specifically.) "Russian diplomatic gains have also been evident in Ukraine. While Trump's
lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was flitting around the country disparaging U.S. diplomats, Moscow
was seeking a deal to stabilize Ukraine on favorable terms. The Russians are now discussing an
agreement with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – the man Trump importuned in his
infamous July 25 phone call for a 'favor' in investigating his political rivals in return for
military help." Ignatius hits this point again: "Zelensky has pressed ahead with his peace
efforts, and Ukrainian and Russian-backed forces have now disengaged at Zolote and two other
crossing points."
Ignatius blames several deaths on Trump's weapons' supply delay, as he tries to make the
debate over Ukraine policy, as he states explicitly, "more visceral" -- that is, emotional --
rather than rational. To achieve this effect, he closes his article with supposed dramatic
effect: "Here are some details from recent OSCE cease-fire monitoring reports: On Oct. 5, a man
and a woman died after a grenade exploded in their apartment in Kurakhove; on Oct. 24, a man
was injured by shrapnel near Luhansk; on Nov. 1, a man was injured by shelling in Spartak. As
you watch the impeachment hearings, remember this basic fact: While Trump was playing politics
on Ukraine, people who depended on U.S. military aid were getting killed and wounded."
Like
Canadian Professor Paul Robinson, when I read this I immediately smelled a rat, but Prof.
Robinson beat me to the punch in exposing this falsehood. As it turns out, these casualties of
the civil war are all almost certainly to have been inflicted by the pro-Kyiv Madian forces and
not by the separatists. In the case of the grenade exploding in the apartment, neither of the
warring sides appears to be responsible, since a criminal was opened in the matter, suggesting,
no one fired or threw the grenade into the apartment, since a criminal case was opened. In all
cases, Ignatius's casualties occurred in areas controlled by the rebels, suggesting the
Ukrainian government forces fired on rebel territory, inflicting the casualties (
https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/trump-is-killing-ukrainians/
). Whatever the case, Ignatius would have no way of knowing otherwise, but he wrote so as to
imply the rebels and, of course, Russia and its agent Trump are to blame. He likely assumed and
hoped the rebels and thus Russia and Trump 'were responsible', while failing to look deeper
into the OSCE report in the way Prof. Robinson studiously has. Nevertheless, Ignatius elsewhere
in the piece provides detailed OSCE statistics on ceasefire violations from such reports, but
somehow he missed the details on the locations of the casualties and under which side's control
they are under.
The most erroneous and deliberate omission in the piece is directly germane to the Trump's
delay of the arms supplies. That is, the Barack Obama administration had more than two years to
send such arms and did not do so. Moreover, this failure occurred at the height of the civil
war and relatively large-scale military operations, not during a shaky ceasefire. So again we
have partisan attacks masquerading as foreign policy analysis. This -- the American tendency to
distort the reality of foreign affairs and the nature of various foreign countries and regimes,
especially Russian and Ukraine today by both sides of the aisle in order to score points in the
domestic political competition -- is one of the most deleterious aspects of American politics,
and there are many such aspects.
Ignatius also implies that the Russian-backed Donbass separatists are the attackers, even
though it was Kyiv which declared and started the civil war, refusing to negotiate with the
separatists. The separatists have seceded and are preventing the Ukrainian government's forces
from seizing their breakaway regions and forcing them back into the Ukrainian fold without any
concessions. But Ignatius says: "Zelensky announced Oct. 1 that he had agreed to Russian calls
to implement a formula proposed in 2016 by then-German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
that, in Zelensky's version, would provide withdrawal of Russian proxy forces followed by
elections in the separatist areas of the east." There is no 'Zelensky version' of the
Steinmeier plan. There is only the Steinmeier plan, which seeks to get both sides to withdraw
forces from the front line, not just 'Russian proxy forces.'
Oddly, Ignatius uses terms such as "Russian-backed forces" and "Russian proxy forces." He
never mentions the once falsely claimed tens of thousands of Russian troops occupying Ukraine.
What happened, Mr Ignatius? Tens of thousands turned out to be a few thousand who temporarily
intervened twice to save the Donbass rebels from encirclement and destruction.
Ignatius is at wit's end over Trump's lack of diplomatic action in the peace negotiations
and Russian "diplomatic gains," noting: "How is the United States shaping events as Ukraine is
rebalanced? America isn't really a player. Trump said in September while meeting Zelensky in
New York: 'I really hope that you and President Putin get together and can solve your
problem.'" Also: "Trump's Ukraine machinations have yielded something like what we've seen in
these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power and a corresponding increase in Russia's
military and diplomatic leverage." However, it was the Barack Obama administration that: helped
spark the entire crisis with its revolution-promotion policies, stayed away from the talks
between eventually overthrown Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition
sponsored by the EU and Russia leading to the 20 February 2014 agreement that could have
averted all that followed (including the Donbass civil war), lied about who shot at protesters
on the Maidan on 20 February 2014 sparking the revolution and the agreement's burial, did
nothing to stop the new Maidan regime from starting the civil war, and did not participate in
the Minsk peace process. This is the reason America is not a player in the peace process, and
Russia and the EU, which have been participants from the beginning, are. Any US role under the
Trump administration in peace talks that involve Putin would be called by the likes of Ignatius
as appeasement of, and capitulation to the dictator Putin by his agent and colluder Trump.
Meaningful participation by Washington is now impossible given 'Russiagate' and 'Ukrainegate'.
While I am no admirer of President Trump or his foreign policy, as i have written several
times, There is little to no reason to place the onus for the American absence from diplomatic
action surrounding Ukraine on Trump's shoulders.
President Zelenskiy's 'critics' have descended on key front line sectors to prevent the
drawback of Ukrainian armed forces and ultranationalist-dominated 'volunteer battalions. These
radicals are so dangerous that Zelenskiy was forced a few weeks ago to visit them and appeal to
them to support his attempt to broker peace in Donbass. Afterwards, they issued a video
refusing to compromise and threatening Zelenskiy in an undefined way if he continued with his
peace efforts.
It is now important for every American to realize that he or she can get little to no
reliable news from the US mainstream media on Ukraine, Russia, or even the United States
itself. The inevitable confusion and apathy is particularly dangerous in a country with the
enormous responsibility of being the leader of the democratic community of states the U.S.
purports itself to be. It will allow political leaders with strong media support to manipulate
reality and lead the country down a dark alley from which there is no return.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is an Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
www.cetisresearch.org . Dr. Hahn's
most recent book is Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the "New Cold War" . He
has authored three previous, well-received books: The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014), Russia's
Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), and Russia's Revolution From Above:
Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000
(Transaction Publishers, 2002). He also has published numerous think tank reports, academic
articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian language media.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia and
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, the Kennan Institute in Washington DC, and the Hoover Institution.
"... Since 2014, it's been glaringly obvious to astute (and honest) observers that the Administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden supported the most vicious street mobs in Europe, people who considered themselves proud fascists . Western media routinely censored this part of the story. Obama's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, made deals with their leaders and was caught on an open phone line handpicking the next unelected leader of Ukraine, someone they could sell to the US public: "Yats is the guy." ..."
"... Representative Dennis Kucinich expressed outrage on Bill O'Reilly's TV show that the Obama Administration had aided this bloody, illegitimate coup. The head of the CIA-linked STRATFOR called Ukraine " the most blatant coup in history. " ..."
"... Aiding and abetting fascist militias to violently siege a foreign capital is not considered a crime in Washington DC, at all. Conversely, it is business as usual, as Bolivians and Venezuelans can attest to. ..."
"... Woody Allen directed a film entitled "Crimes and Misdemeanors." That pretty much sums up the DC circus unfolding in Congress. Everything above is completely true, and yet Barack Obama is heralded as someone in the neighborhood of saints and superheroes. To the belligerent American empire, Obama was a star quarterback. Let's not even delve into Barack's support for Al Qaeda in Syria , and another half-million dead there, or we'll be here all day. ..."
"... This farce is so laughable on its face and so irrelevant to the American people's interests, that it's difficult to overstate the insanity -- and outrageous hypocrisy -- of the Democrats' contrived "Ukrainegate" case. This impeachment charge has nothing whatsoever to do with right and wrong. ..."
"... In 2014 , Barack Obama's White House, "refused to include weapons in an aid package for embattled Ukraine despite an impassioned plea by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko for more military assistance." Obama didn't send any weapons at all, which would have provoked Russia to an even greater degree, after overthrowing their legitimately elected next-door ally and tearing Ukraine apart. It was obvious that Russia wasn't "invading" Ukraine, as propaganda memes claimed, but simply responding to these international crimes and to the dangerous destabilization on its border. The US had already done quite enough damage, and they didn't need to escalate a proxy war against Russia toward nuclear Armageddon . ..."
"... Hunter Biden knew absolutely nothing about Ukraine or the natural gas industry. The nepotism was glaring. This was clear graft, payback, kickback, corruption, parasites descending after the violent seizure of the state. Biden the elder was in charge of US Ukraine policy, and specifically the big money spigot, after the illegal, US-supported coup there. ..."
"... Biden's conflict of interest was so obvious that Trump certainly believed he was onto something. Joe Biden, and media sympathetic to his claims, has predictably tried to cloud the issue, but the corruption is too obvious not to notice. This should, and may, have ended Joe Biden's 2020 presidential bid. ..."
"... What happened in Ukraine was old-timey Smash & Grab , a reckless attack right on Russia's western border. Joe Biden arrived to grab as much loot from Ukraine's gas sector as he possibly could through a cut-out, his son. Biden used his leverage over Ukraine's international "loan guarantees" (which is money the coup leaders receive but don't have to pay back) to finance their new illegitimate junta. ..."
"... This current Ukrainegate impeachment charade appears to be motivated only by blind partisanship and the desire to insulate corrupt insiders like Joe Biden from any scrutiny of their actions. The farce has gone so over-the-top that even as Democratic partisan media heralded the testimony of Trump's Ukraine Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, Donald Trump's allies have already used portions of her testimony as a video advertisement for his reelection! ..."
Did you know that Donald Trump had the State Department, USAID,
NED , and the CIA fund and train
Neo-Nazi, fascist militias to overthrow the government of Ukraine? These riot mobs, primarily
Svoboda and
Right Sector , stormed the capital, firebombed and shot the police, and destroyed democracy inside Ukraine. When the legitimately
elected president was forced out by the rioters, the population which had supported him in the east seceded from the country, tearing
the entire nation into pieces and sparking a civil war. The Ukraine civil war has cost the lives of
over 13,000 Ukrainians . There is so much blood on Donald Trump's hands.
Oh, wait a minute! That was Barack Obama . Change that paragraph, please.
Since 2014, it's been glaringly obvious to astute (and honest) observers that the Administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden
supported the most vicious street mobs in Europe, people who considered themselves proud
fascists . Western media
routinely censored this part of the story. Obama's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, made deals with their leaders and
was caught on an open phone line
handpicking the next unelected leader of Ukraine, someone they could sell to the US public: "Yats is the guy."
America's proxy terrorists burned Kiev, seized power violently, and through the power of the purse strings, Obama's Administration
installed friendly-faced fascists, who immediately set about attacking their countrymen in the east, with a policy of mass murder
and indiscriminate bombings. Eastern provinces of
Crimea and
Donetsk , which notably had supported
the ousted president, held referenda. The people there voted overwhelmingly to secede from the illegitimate, unelected, foreign-sponsored
coup regime in Kiev.
The above is most certainly not the reason cited this week for Impeachment hearings.
Aiding and abetting fascist militias to violently siege a foreign capital is not considered a crime in Washington DC, at all.
Conversely, it is business as usual, as Bolivians and Venezuelans can attest to.
Woody Allen directed a film entitled "Crimes and Misdemeanors." That pretty much sums up the DC circus unfolding in
Congress. Everything above is completely true, and yet Barack Obama is heralded as someone in the neighborhood of saints and superheroes.
To the belligerent American empire, Obama was a star quarterback. Let's not even delve into Barack's
support for Al Qaeda in Syria , and another half-million dead there, or we'll be here all day.
Donald Trump made a phone call. In his phone call, he is said to have bullied the President of Ukraine a little. He may have even
delayed some weapons transfers to that country, which was engaged in a proxy war with nuclear-armed Russia and its separatist allies
in the east of Ukraine.
That's a crime? A real crime? In light of over thirteen thousand slaughtered and an illegal coup in broad daylight? Trump's telephone
call is the real crime?
Other Presidents haven't bullied other client-state puppet leaders, ever?
And why exactly is the President of the United States of America required to send lethal weapons to
foreign fascists at all? Has anyone located that section of the Constitution?
This farce is so laughable on its face and so irrelevant to the American people's interests, that it's difficult to overstate
the insanity -- and outrageous hypocrisy -- of the Democrats' contrived "Ukrainegate" case. This impeachment charge has nothing whatsoever
to do with right and wrong.
In 2014 , Barack Obama's White House, "refused to include weapons in an aid package for embattled Ukraine despite an impassioned
plea by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko for more military assistance." Obama didn't send any weapons at all, which would have
provoked Russia to an even greater degree, after overthrowing their legitimately elected next-door ally and tearing Ukraine apart.
It was obvious that Russia wasn't "invading" Ukraine, as propaganda memes claimed, but simply responding to these international crimes
and to the dangerous destabilization on its border. The US had already done quite enough damage, and they didn't need to escalate
a proxy war against Russia toward nuclear Armageddon .
Which brings us now to Donald Trump, who became interested in Joe Biden's obvious corruption inside Ukraine, installing his own
son on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma . Hunter Biden knew absolutely nothing about Ukraine or the natural gas
industry. The nepotism was glaring. This was clear graft, payback, kickback, corruption, parasites descending after the violent seizure
of the state. Biden the elder was in charge of US Ukraine policy, and specifically the big money spigot, after the illegal, US-supported
coup there.
Then -- as Joe will be Joe -- Biden bragged publicly about
getting Ukraine's top prosecutor fired to the strains of Washington insider laughter. The Ukrainian prosecutor had been investigating
that same company which Biden had arranged his son Hunter onto the board of. Biden's conflict of interest was so obvious that
Trump certainly believed he was onto something. Joe Biden, and media sympathetic to his claims, has predictably tried to cloud the
issue,
but the corruption is too obvious not to notice. This should, and may, have ended Joe Biden's 2020 presidential bid.
What happened in Ukraine was old-timey Smash & Grab , a reckless attack right on Russia's western border. Joe Biden
arrived to grab as much loot from Ukraine's gas sector as he possibly could through a cut-out, his son. Biden used his leverage over
Ukraine's international "loan guarantees" (which is money the coup leaders receive but don't have to pay back) to finance their new
illegitimate junta.
Biden's own quid pro quo , in his own words: "I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting
the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." This is exactly the type of crime they now accuse Trump of perpetrating with his
telephone. The hypocrisy is comical.
The Obama Administration's corruption, along with a bloody war and thirteen-thousand corpses, is what a real crime looks like.
Hold onto that picture.
Democrats were allegedly the good guys vis a vis Ukraine?
Weren't these international war crimes breaching the UN Charter, which demands exclusively peaceful actions between states,
Article II?
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security,
and justice, are not endangered.
-- United Nations Charter, a ratified Treaty, and the "Supreme Law of the Land"
Launching a proxy war on nuclear-armed Russia was a sane foreign policy? Sending even more arms to escalate that conflict was
allegedly such a glorious idea that any delay in weapons shipments becomes an impeachable offense?
This unserious charge leveled against Donald Trump distracts from all of his obvious corruption. Trump's
Emoluments violations have been impeachable for years, but
the Democrats weren't interested. Do Democrats long to cash in on the Office of the Presidency next time?
Multiple deaths of refugee children in US federal
custody at the southern border could be considered murders linked directly to official policies of harsh treatment and deliberate
neglect. Are Democrats afraid of exposing Obama's own
caging of immigrant children?
This current Ukrainegate impeachment charade appears to be motivated only by blind partisanship and the desire to insulate
corrupt insiders like Joe Biden from any scrutiny of their actions. The farce has gone so over-the-top that even as Democratic partisan
media heralded the testimony of Trump's Ukraine Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, Donald Trump's allies have already used portions of
her testimony as a video advertisement for his reelection!
Are Democrats trying to hurt or to help Trump's reelection?
Joe Giambrone has written for WhoWhatWhy, Foreign Policy Journal, International Policy Digest, Counterpunch, GlobalResearch,
OpEdNews, and his fabulous new novel is DEMIGODS. Read
other articles by Joe .
Thus, a seventh reason is that major European countries, such as
Italy , have long wearied of the Crimea sanctions. One can only wonder how much more
healthy European economies might be today, including that of economic juggernaut
Germany , if Europe chose to drop these policies of deleterious economic distortion.
As an eighth reason, one can reasonably say that these hostile sanction policies are badly
dividing NATO, but also preventing the Alliance from acting against palpable security
threats, including terrorism and immigration-related to failed states on its periphery.
Then, a ninth reason is that the continuing festering of tensions over Crimea could, by
way of misperception, lead to an actual U.S.-Russia military
confrontation , which might well reach the nuclear level of conflict in short order.
As a tenth and most important point, one could very reasonably hope that Moscow would be
willing to compensate Kyiv for letting the peninsula go finally. This could take many forms,
ranging from favorable gas deals to halting aid to rebels in East Ukraine to allowing Ukraine
to join NATO without applying counter-measures.
Thus, American diplomats should perhaps turn their attention away from reciting tiresome
talking points and stirring up old Cold War tensions to actually negotiating a "grand
bargain" to set European security on a much more positive course. Such a bargain
is not that far-fetched, actually.
For now, Ukrainians and others in southeast Europe may be less worried about Washington's
impeachment spectacle and more about whether the
heat will remain on through this winter. Too bad that American LNG cannot be offloaded at
Odessa since the Turks long ago ruled that such vessels could not safely pass through the
Bosporus. In any case with U.S.-Turkish relations at nearly an all-time low, that decision is
not likely to be reversed any time soon. Still, American oilmen could be
pleased to see U.S. oil flowing into Ukraine for the first time -- though it's far from
clear that's either economically efficient or environmentally sound. Perhaps if President
Trump ends the war in Afghanistan, as promised, some of the dozens of billions saved could be
set aside for Kyiv to build even more wind turbines.
There is that small problem that this aid
seems to increase the very corruption it has been allocated to reduce. To hear American
diplomats and "Ukraine experts" wax eloquent on the supposedly grave threat to American
national security interests in Ukraine these days, it seems they will not be satisfied until
they've seen a video of American-made anti-tank missiles and sniper rifles delivering up
large numbers of casualties against Russian regulars in eastern Ukraine.
Fortunately, most Ukrainians are wiser and more realistic. They know that such battlefield
"successes" would likely be followed by devastating Russian air and missile attacks against
Ukraine. They also know well by now that neither Americans nor other Europeans are about to
come and save them from that sad fate.
Lyle J. Goldstein is Research Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute
(CMSI) at the United States Naval War College in Newport, RI. In addition to Chinese, he also
speaks Russian and he is also an affiliate of the new Russia Maritime Studies Institute
(RMSI) at Naval War College. You can reach him at [email protected] . The opinions in his columns are entirely
his own and do not reflect the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of
the U.S. government.
With it becoming ever more clear that the US government and media have been covering up
especially the Democratic Party's collusion with Ukraine's government in order to facilitate
the self-enrichment of DP leaders' family members, undermine the presidential candidacy and
presidency of Donald Trump (however unpresidential he may be) and foment liberal-socialist
revolutions globally, the participants are moving into high gear propaganda mode. A recent
piece from David Ignatius is a good place to begin to highlight the intensification. In a
recent article (People died while Trump played games with Ukraine's military aid, Washington
Post, November 13, 2019,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/people-died-while-trump-played-games-with-ukraines-military-aid/2019/11/12/a4cc18a6-0598-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html
), Ignatius charges Trump with the responsibility for the continuation of the Donbass civil war
and its casualties for withholding military aid to Kyiv. This is apparently a move by the
Democratic establishment to escalate the confrontation with the White House by adding to the
charge that Trump held up financial assistance to Ukraine until Ukrainian President Volodomyr
Zelenskiy renewed Ukraine's investigation of the Bidens' corrupt activities the charge that
Trump also held military assistance hostage in return for an investigation of the Bidens.
Unfortunately, Ignatuis's 'narrative' falls flat on its face when it is understood, as former
US National Security Council Europe-Eurasia chief Fiona Hill testified to Congress in the
impeachment hearings that the hold up was part of a general delay caused by a broad policy
review conducted by the incoming Trump administration ( https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/FionaHill-compressed.pdf
, pp. 227-8).
Ignatius writes that while Trump fiddles, Ukraine burns, that Ukrainians died while, if not
because Trump withheld military aid to Kyiv:
"As Ukrainians were struggling with near-daily shellfire, Trump appeared to treat military
aid appropriated by Congress as a personal political tool." "Trump's Ukraine machinations have
yielded something like what we've seen in these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power
and a corresponding increase in Russia's military and diplomatic leverage." (Here he cites
Syria specifically.) "Russian diplomatic gains have also been evident in Ukraine. While Trump's
lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was flitting around the country disparaging U.S. diplomats, Moscow
was seeking a deal to stabilize Ukraine on favorable terms. The Russians are now discussing an
agreement with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – the man Trump importuned in his
infamous July 25 phone call for a 'favor' in investigating his political rivals in return for
military help." Ignatius hits this point again: "Zelensky has pressed ahead with his peace
efforts, and Ukrainian and Russian-backed forces have now disengaged at Zolote and two other
crossing points."
Ignatius blames several deaths on Trump's weapons' supply delay, as he tries to make the
debate over Ukraine policy, as he states explicitly, "more visceral" -- that is, emotional --
rather than rational. To achieve this effect, he closes his article with supposed dramatic
effect: "Here are some details from recent OSCE cease-fire monitoring reports: On Oct. 5, a man
and a woman died after a grenade exploded in their apartment in Kurakhove; on Oct. 24, a man
was injured by shrapnel near Luhansk; on Nov. 1, a man was injured by shelling in Spartak. As
you watch the impeachment hearings, remember this basic fact: While Trump was playing politics
on Ukraine, people who depended on U.S. military aid were getting killed and wounded." Like
Canadian Professor Paul Robinson, when I read this I immediately smelled a rat, but Prof.
Robinson beat me to the punch in exposing this falsehood. As it turns out, these casualties of
the civil war are all almost certainly to have been inflicted by the pro-Kyiv Madian forces and
not by the separatists. In the case of the grenade exploding in the apartment, neither of the
warring sides appears to be responsible, since a criminal was opened in the matter, suggesting,
no one fired or threw the grenade into the apartment, since a criminal case was opened. In all
cases, Ignatius's casualties occurred in areas controlled by the rebels, suggesting the
Ukrainian government forces fired on rebel territory, inflicting the casualties ( https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/trump-is-killing-ukrainians/
). Whatever the case, Ignatius would have no way of knowing otherwise, but he wrote so as to
imply the rebels and, of course, Russia and its agent Trump are to blame. He likely assumed and
hoped the rebels and thus Russia and Trump 'were responsible', while failing to look deeper
into the OSCE report in the way Prof. Robinson studiously has. Nevertheless, Ignatius elsewhere
in the piece provides detailed OSCE statistics on ceasefire violations from such reports, but
somehow he missed the details on the locations of the casualties and under which side's control
they are under.
The most erroneous and deliberate omission in the piece is directly germane to the Trump's
delay of the arms supplies. That is, the Barack Obama administration had more than two years to
send such arms and did not do so. Moreover, this failure occurred at the height of the civil
war and relatively large-scale military operations, not during a shaky ceasefire. So again we
have partisan attacks masquerading as foreign policy analysis. This -- the American tendency to
distort the reality of foreign affairs and the nature of various foreign countries and regimes,
especially Russian and Ukraine today by both sides of the aisle in order to score points in the
domestic political competition -- is one of the most deleterious aspects of American politics,
and there are many such aspects.
Ignatius also implies that the Russian-backed Donbass separatists are the attackers, even
though it was Kyiv which declared and started the civil war, refusing to negotiate with the
separatists. The separatists have seceded and are preventing the Ukrainian government's forces
from seizing their breakaway regions and forcing them back into the Ukrainian fold without any
concessions. But Ignatius says: "Zelensky announced Oct. 1 that he had agreed to Russian calls
to implement a formula proposed in 2016 by then-German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
that, in Zelensky's version, would provide withdrawal of Russian proxy forces followed by
elections in the separatist areas of the east." There is no 'Zelensky version' of the
Steinmeier plan. There is only the Steinmeier plan, which seeks to get both sides to withdraw
forces from the front line, not just 'Russian proxy forces.'
Oddly, Ignatius uses terms such as "Russian-backed forces" and "Russian proxy forces." He
never mentions the once falsely claimed tens of thousands of Russian troops occupying Ukraine.
What happened, Mr Ignatius? Tens of thousands turned out to be a few thousand who temporarily
intervened twice to save the Donbass rebels from encirclement and destruction.
Ignatius is at wit's end over Trump's lack of diplomatic action in the peace negotiations
and Russian "diplomatic gains," noting: "How is the United States shaping events as Ukraine is
rebalanced? America isn't really a player. Trump said in September while meeting Zelensky in
New York: 'I really hope that you and President Putin get together and can solve your
problem.'" Also: "Trump's Ukraine machinations have yielded something like what we've seen in
these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power and a corresponding increase in Russia's
military and diplomatic leverage." However, it was the Barack Obama administration that: helped
spark the entire crisis with its revolution-promotion policies, stayed away from the talks
between eventually overthrown Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition
sponsored by the EU and Russia leading to the 20 February 2014 agreement that could have
averted all that followed (including the Donbass civil war), lied about who shot at protesters
on the Maidan on 20 February 2014 sparking the revolution and the agreement's burial, did
nothing to stop the new Maidan regime from starting the civil war, and did not participate in
the Minsk peace process. This is the reason America is not a player in the peace process, and
Russia and the EU, which have been participants from the beginning, are. Any US role under the
Trump administration in peace talks that involve Putin would be called by the likes of Ignatius
as appeasement of, and capitulation to the dictator Putin by his agent and colluder Trump.
Meaningful participation by Washington is now impossible given 'Russiagate' and 'Ukrainegate'.
While I am no admirer of President Trump or his foreign policy, as i have written several
times, There is little to no reason to place the onus for the American absence from diplomatic
action surrounding Ukraine on Trump's shoulders.
President Zelenskiy's 'critics' have descended on key front line sectors to prevent the
drawback of Ukrainian armed forces and ultranationalist-dominated 'volunteer battalions. These
radicals are so dangerous that Zelenskiy was forced a few weeks ago to visit them and appeal to
them to support his attempt to broker peace in Donbass. Afterwards, they issued a video
refusing to compromise and threatening Zelenskiy in an undefined way if he continued with his
peace efforts.
It is now important for every American to realize that he or she can get little to no
reliable news from the US mainstream media on Ukraine, Russia, or even the United States
itself. The inevitable confusion and apathy is particularly dangerous in a country with the
enormous responsibility of being the leader of the democratic community of states the U.S.
purports itself to be. It will allow political leaders with strong media support to manipulate
reality and lead the country down a dark alley from which there is no return.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is an Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
www.cetisresearch.org . Dr. Hahn's
most recent book is Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the "New Cold War" . He
has authored three previous, well-received books: The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014), Russia's
Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), and Russia's Revolution From Above:
Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000
(Transaction Publishers, 2002). He also has published numerous think tank reports, academic
articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian language media.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia and
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, the Kennan Institute in Washington DC, and the Hoover Institution.
This doesn't even touch on the fact that Biden has been revealed as an incredibly corrupt sleazebag. That is, what Trump wanted
investigated, the Bidens scooping up cash (our cash ultimately, since we gave it to Ukraine) in the corrupt Ukraine. How they
think all the attention will be focused on Trump asking Zelensky to look into these shameful payoffs and not the payoffs themselves,
is beyond me.
Guccifer 2.0
certainly didn't make a genuine effort to "conceal a Russian identity," far from it.
The
persona made decisions that would leave behind a demonstrable trail of Russian-themed
breadcrumbs, examples include:
US politics (domestic)
Choosing the Russian VPN Service (using the publicly accessible default server in France) in combination with a mail service provider that would forward the sender's IP address.
Creating a blog and dropping a Russian emoticon in the second paragraph of the first post, something he only ever did one other time over months of activity (in which he used at a far higher frequency).
Tainting documents with Russian language metadata.
Going through considerable effort to ensure Russian language errors were in the first documents provided to the press.
Probable use of a VM set to Russian timezone while manipulating documents so that datastore objects with timestamps implying a Russian timezone setting are saved (in one of the documents, change tracking had been left on and recorded someone in a PST timezone saving one of Guccifer 2.0's documents after the documents had being manipulated in the Russian timezones!)
The deliberate and inconsistent mangling of English language (which was actually inconsistent with aspects of English language that Russians typically struggle with).
Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for a hack that was already being attributed to Russians without making any effort to counter that perception and only denied it when outright questioned on it.
Meddling in the 2016 US presidential election by Ukrainian politicians and government
agencies did indeed happen. No amount of denial is going to change that.
By Yasha Levine ####
Vis Fiona Hill (as ME & Mark referenced earlier), does she really think everyone else
is stupid?
Anyway, it's not what the partisan media reports that matters but what the American voter
thinks. If it's 'A pox on both your houses', then there will be plenty more shocks to the
body politik to come and hopefully, real change.
Thus the fierce struggle for regulation over the internet, and the flap about 'fake news' and
how critical it is that you cede control over what you can see so that you can be 'protected'
– it's all 'for your own safety'. A narrative can really only be driven home when the
audience is not exposed to conflicting stories or evidence which does not fit the
establishment tale.
"... Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races. ..."
"... 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'" ..."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has not been shy about
his disdain for the mainstream media. But the
Democratic presidential hopeful
has rarely, if ever, articulated it as bluntly as he did in an interview that aired on
MSNBC 's "
The Rachel Maddow Show " on Friday night. Sanders
called out the network for its corporate character in a novel exchange with host
Rachel Maddow .
"The American people are sick and tired of establishment politics and economics, and by the way, a little bit tired of corporate
media as well," Sanders told Maddow in an interview taped in Burlington, Vermont.
Maddow pressed Sanders for specifics on how he would change the media if he were president. "What's the solution to corporate
media?" she asked.
"We have got to think of ways the Democratic party, for a start, starts funding the equivalent of Fox television," Sanders
answered. Of course, MSNBC is a corporate media outlet that is widely seen as a Democratic version of Fox News because of the perceived
sympathies of many of its political talk shows.
Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty
more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races.
He then claimed that bringing that pressure to bear would be difficult, since corporate ownership makes it harder for news outlets
to cover issues in a way that conflicts with the interests of top executives. "MSNBC is owned by who?" Sanders asked. "Comcast, our
overlords," Maddow responded with a chuckle.
"All right, Comcast is not one of the most popular corporations in America, right?" Sanders said. "And I think the American people
are going to have to say to NBC and ABC and CBS and CNN, 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap
opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'"
The list contains some (but not all) of the key participants of the 2014 coup d'état
against President Yanukovich. There are 13 names in the list: MPs Serhiy Leshchenko, Mustafa
Nayem, Svitlana Zalishchuk, Serhiy Berezenko, Serhiy Pashynsky; ex-Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk; ex-Head of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriya Hontareva; ex-First Deputy of the
National Security and Defense Council Oleg Hladkovsky; judge of the Constitutional Court of
Ukraine Makar Pasenyuk; candidate for presidency Anatoly Hrytsenko; singer Svyatoslav Vakarchuk;
journalist Dmytro Hordon and ex-Head of the Presidential Administration Borys Lozhkin.
Pashynsky was involved in Snipergate. Yatsenyuk was the marionette chosen by Nuland to head
the Provisional government after Yanukovich will be overthrown.
Almost all of these people from the list were involved in various sort of scandals during
the last five years. Particularly, Oleg Hladkovsky was recently dismissed from his post due to
the corruption scandal in the defense sphere. Serhiy Leshchenko became known for the purchase
of the flat for $275,253 and the number of information attacks at well-known politicians and
businessmen. Serhy Pashynsky was tied to the hostile takeover of a confectionary factory in
Zhytomyr.
In its turn, the U.S. Department of State stated that the
words of Lutsenko are not true and aims to tarnish the reputation of Ambassador
Yovanovitch. Thus, there are certain concerns that the actual list might be fake.
Dr Kyle Kopko , an associate professor of political science and director of the honours and
pre-law programmes at Elizabethtown College, noted that neither Taylor nor Kent's testimonies
had significantly changed the views of Congress or the public on the impeachment proceedings,
but it could change as the hearings continue:
"I think, at the very least, this is laying the groundwork to show that the president acted
with a political motivation to harm one of his potential campaign rivals", he said.
Dr Kopko also pointed out that there's still not enough evidence to get the impeachment
through.
"...I'm not convinced, yet, that there is enough evidence to result in a conviction in the
Senate", he explained.
"It may be the case that Democrats are using this as a means of damaging President Trump's
credibility as a leader going into the 2020 election, and I see that as being the most likely
outcome where they are able to severely damage his candidacy and reduce his likelihood of
re-election", he concluded.
The central impeachment mantra seems to be "Russian aggression." Look
how many times the witnesses mention this as their central motivation to countermand the
directions of their boss, the commander in chief. But meanwhile, war plans for Iran continue
with the support of both parties. Watch today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The House is holding its second public hearing with former US envoy
to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch centring around her ouster which, according to her, is pertinent
to the impeachment probe against Trump. Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch
flatly denied allegations that she circulated a list of potential corruption targets in Ukraine
that the United States did not want prosecuted, according to testimony at the opening of
hearings in the House impeachment probe of President Donald Trump on Friday.
"I want to reiterate first that the allegation that I disseminated a do not prosecute list
was a fabrication", Yovanovitch said. "Mr Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian prosecutor general
who made that allegation, has acknowledged that the list never existed. I did not tell Mr
Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not prosecute. Instead I
advocated the US position that rule of law should prevail."
US President Donald Trump in a series of tweets on Friday
criticised former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch's performance while she was
testifying in the impeachment hearing against him. He defended his decision to replace
Yovanovitch - appointed by his predecessor Barak Obama - as the US ambassador to Ukraine, where
she served from August 2016 until May 2019.
....They call it "serving at the pleasure of the President." The U.S. now has a very
strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than proceeding administrations. It is
called, quite simply, America First! With all of that, however, I have done FAR more for
Ukraine than O.
During Friday's Democrat-led impeachment inquiry hearing, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Marie Yovanovitch testified under oath that she did not give former Ukrainian Prosecutor
General Yuriy Lutsenko a "do not prosecute list" in 2017. Yovanovitch also doubled-down on
left-wing disinformation saying that Lutsenko "acknowledged that the list never existed" in
April.
"I want to reiterate first that the allegation that I disseminated a "Do Not Prosecute" list
was a fabrication,"
Yovanovitch told the House Intelligence Committee . "Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian
prosecutor general who made that allegation, has acknowledged that the list never existed. I
did not tell Mr. Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not
prosecute."
"That is such a lie," Glenn Beck said on Friday's show. "She should be held for
perjury."
During a three-part BlazeTV exposé on the Democrats' corruption in Ukraine, Glenn
debunked what he called "the most misleading fabrication I've ever seen by the mainstream
media."
Earlier this year, award-winning investigative journalist John
Solomon reported Lutsenko's claim that then-Ambassador Yovanovitch gave him a list of
"people whom we should not prosecute" during a meeting in 2016. Shortly after Solomon's article
was released, several news sources, including the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal,
reported that Lutsenko retracted his statement.
When Lutsenko said Yovanovitch "gave" him a list, he did not mean she actually handed him
anything in writing, but verbally conveyed the names of people he shouldn't prosecute.
"They never mentioned the fact that it was verbally dictated and he wrote the list down
himself -- are you kidding me?" Glenn exclaimed. "This is how the media is fact-checking and
debunking. They are playing with our republic and Ukraine's republic. They are planting
dynamite all around everything that we hold dear. How do they sleep at night? Everyone that
reads their stories actually thinks that there was a retraction of one of the most damning
parts of this entire case."
If you like what you see, use promo code GB20OFF to get $20 off a full year of BlazeTV . With a BlazeTV subscription, you're not just paying to watch
great pro-free speech, pro-America TV. Your subscription funds the intensive investigations
that let BlazeTV tell the stories
the liberal media wants to keep in the dark, giving you the unvarnished truth, showing you what
the media doesn't want you to see.
Read More
Clandestine actions by former US presidents to further their agenda have taken place in the
past from time to time. Many never came to light while others were revealed or unearthed well
after the events. The most questionable and controversial one took place during the Ronald
Reagan presidency. It related to what became known as the Iran Contra Affair. It seems to have
been directly conducted from the White House under the aegis of the President. In the
Iran-Contra affair, the Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran to bring about the
release of American hostages held in Lebanon. Money from the Iran weapons-sale was then used to
fund the Contras, a group of guerrilla "freedom fighters" opposed to the Marxist government of
Nicaragua. Col. Oliver North who met President Reagan on several occasions was chosen to carry
out the negotiations. It was also known in Iran as the McFarlane Affair. Oliver North was
indicted on sixteen charges in the Iran–Contra affair and found guilty of three -- aiding
and abetting obstruction of Congress, shredding or altering official documents and accepting a
gratuity. His convictions were later overturned on the grounds that his immunized testimony had
tainted his trial.
The most glaring omission in the impeachment trial on the part of Nancy Pelosi and the House
democrats was not to have discussed the Vice President Biden and his son's dealings in Ukraine
thoroughly prior to commencement of the impeachment hearings, in closed-door discussions if
they felt that was necessary. Had they done so many questions that should have been thrashed
threadbare might either not have arisen or if they arose they would have done their home work
in advance and would have had answers ready. It was not the case. Vice President Biden was
heading to become the leading democrat contender to take on Trump in the forthcoming 2020
elections. His chances were considered bright. Due diligence required that the former Vice
President's and his son's involvement that many today would term questionable be thoroughly
gone into by face-to-face interactions. Should doubts have arisen they might have decided to
delay the impeachment hearings till all matters had been clarified to their satisfaction.
It is only a matter of time that Republican senators in the House bring it up as the
hearings proceed. Or they might decide to turn the tables decisively in the Senate when the
time came were the matter to reach the Senate. So far from what is known the Trump quid pro quo
was related to the Ukrainian government investigating the Biden father and son's dealings. In
recent weeks, Trump has relentlessly mocked Hunter Biden, to the point that his presidential
campaign began selling shirts that say, "Where's Hunter?" highlighting that the former vice
president's son had been out of the public spotlight for weeks. At a recent political rally,
Trump noted that Hunter Biden had been thrown out of the Navy. Hunter Biden was discharged from
the Navy Reserve in 2014 after failing a drug test and has struggled with alcohol and drug
abuse. He told ABC News that, "like every single person that I've ever known, I have fallen and
I've gotten up."
The House Democrats should realize that were the hearings to go deeper towards indicting
Trump the tables might be turned on them. Were Mr. Biden to become or have become the Democrat
presidential nominee sooner or later the people, the media and even representatives on the
Capitol Hill would have raised the question as to whether former Vice President's dealings in
Ukraine were questionable or not as these had started directly or by proxy while he was still
in government. Further, was the involvement so deep that were he to ascend to the White House
the Ukrainian government would be in a position to demand quid pro quo from time to
time.
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko told Hill.TV's John Solomon in an interview that
aired Wednesday that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch gave him a do not prosecute
list during their first meeting.
"Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave
me a list of people whom we should not prosecute," Lutsenko, who took his post in 2016, told
Hill.TV last week.
"My response of that is it is inadmissible. Nobody in this country, neither our president
nor our parliament nor our ambassador, will stop me from prosecuting whether there is a crime,"
he continued.
The State Department called Lutsenko's claim of receiving a do not prosecute list, "an
outright fabrication."
"We have seen reports of the allegations," a department spokesperson told Hill.TV. "The
United States is not currently providing any assistance to the Prosecutor General's Office
(PGO), but did previously attempt to support fundamental justice sector reform, including in
the PGO, in the aftermath of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. When the political will for
genuine reform by successive Prosecutors General proved lacking, we exercised our fiduciary
responsibility to the American taxpayer and redirected assistance to more productive
projects."
Hill.TV has reached out to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine for comment.
Lutsenko also said that he has not received funds amounting to nearly $4 million that the
U.S. Embassy in Ukraine was supposed to allocate to his office, saying that "the situation was
actually rather strange" and pointing to the fact that the funds were designated, but "never
received."
"At that time we had a case for the embezzlement of the U.S. government technical assistance
worth 4 million U.S. dollars, and in that regard, we had this dialogue," he said. " At that
time, [Yovanovitch] thought that our interviews of Ukrainian citizens, of Ukrainian civil
servants, who were frequent visitors of the U.S. Embassy put a shadow on that anti-corruption
policy."
"Actually, we got the letter from the U.S. Embassy, from the ambassador, that the money that
we are speaking about [was] under full control of the U.S. Embassy, and that the U.S. Embassy
did not require our legal assessment of these facts," he said. "The situation was actually
rather strange because the funds we are talking about were designated for the prosecutor
general's office also and we told [them] we have never seen those, and the U.S. Embassy replied
there was no problem."
"The portion of the funds namely 4.4 million U.S. dollars were designated and were foreseen
for the recipient Prosecutor General's office. But we have never received it," he said.
Yovanovitch previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Armenia under former presidents
Obama and George W. Bush, as well as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan under Bush. She also served as
ambassador to Ukraine under Obama.
... More freedom in Ukraine (Thanks Obama):
"UKRAINIAN courts were today condemned for upholding a ban on the only newspaper opposing the
country's "oligarch-nazi regime."
"Founded in 1897, Rabochaya Gazeta was banned earlier this year under Ukraine's
reactionary anti-communist laws after it published articles quoting Karl Marx.
"The newspaper actively opposed the glorification of nazi war-criminals by the Ukrainian
government. It demanded an end to the civil war launched by Kiev in the Donbass after the
2014 military coup and the seizure of power by the country's neo-nazis, oligarchs and
organised criminals.
"The Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU) warned that the political course of the new
government had not changed, with a continued hatred of the newspaper for "telling the truth
to its readers."
"It said the ban was the precursor for legislation that would "completely destroy freedom
of speech and introduce total censorship of the media."
"... A lawyer for Andrew Favorov confirmed Tuesday that he is scheduled to meet voluntarily with the U.S. Justice Department. Favorov is the director of the integrated gas division at Naftogaz, the state-owned gas provider in Ukraine. ..."
"... Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating the business dealings of Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, including whether he failed to register as a foreign agent, according to people familiar with the probe. The people were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. ..."
"... The Associated Press contributed to this report. ..."
Rudy Giuliani, the personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, eyed business deals in Ukraine as he sought
inquires into allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, according
to a report released Wednesday.
The
New York Times
said Giuliani begin negotiations with Yuri Lutsenko, Ukraine's leading prosecutor at the
time, to take him and the European country's Justice Ministry as clients earlier this year. According to the
Times
, Lutsenko was expected to compensate Giuliani and lawyers Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing $200,000
to "advise on Ukrainian claims for the recovery of sums of money in various financial institutions outside Ukraine."
Further, the newspaper reported that Ukraine's Justice Ministry and the Republic of Ukraine were supposed to pay
Giuliani's company $300,000. The deal was signed by the former New York City mayor, but not the Ukraine justice
minister.
In March, the Justice Ministry reportedly appeared to have negotiated an agreement to use the services of diGenova
and Toensing where the General Prosecutor's office, headed up by Lutsenko, but would pay $300,000 to Giuliani's firm.
Responding to allegations brought forth by the
Times
, Giuliani acknowledged that he weighed doing
business with Ukraine's government, but ultimately opted against the move. "I thought that would be too complicated,"
he told the
Times
, before adding: "I never received a penny." Ukraine's Justice Ministry confirmed to the
newspaper that it has never entered into any business agreements with the Trump lawyer.
The
Times'
report comes as federal prosecutors are
slated to meet with executives from Naftogaz -- the Ukraine energy giant at the center of a federal investigation
into Giuliani and two Soviet-born associates' dealings.
A lawyer for Andrew Favorov confirmed Tuesday that he is
scheduled to meet voluntarily with the U.S. Justice Department. Favorov is the director of the integrated gas
division at Naftogaz, the state-owned gas provider in Ukraine.
Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating the
business dealings of Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, including whether he failed to register as a
foreign agent, according to people familiar with the probe. The people were not authorized to discuss the
investigation publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Giuliani's close associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were arrested last month at an airport outside
Washington while trying to board a flight to Europe with one-way tickets. They were later indicted by federal
prosecutors on charges of conspiracy, making false statements, and falsification of records.
Following an inquiry from The Associated Press, Favorov lawyer Lanny Breuer confirmed his client is set to meet
with prosecutors.
"The Department of Justice has requested an interview,"
Breuer said. "He has agreed and will voluntarily sit down with the government attorneys. At this time, it would
not be appropriate to comment further."
Breuer declined to say when or where Favorov, who has dual
U.S.-Russian citizenship and lives in Ukraine, will be meeting with prosecutors.
Jim Margolin, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in
the Southern District of New York, declined to comment.
According to a federal indictment filed last month, Parnas
and Fruman are alleged to have been key players in Giuliani's efforts earlier this year to spur the Ukrainian
government to launch an investigation of Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
"... Chalupa, founder of the political consulting firm Chalupa & Associates, LLC, and a co-chair of the Democratic National Committee's Ethnic Council, has been at the heart of efforts by allies of President Donald Trump to draw an equivalence between Russia's large-scale hacking and propaganda operation to interfere in the 2016 election with the actions of a small cadre of Ukrainian bureaucrats who allegedly worked with Chalupa to research former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's Russia ties. ..."
"... Her LinkedIn profile includes a work history: "Online Constituency Outreach Director" for John Kerry's presidential campaign; executive director for Democrats Abroad and five years as the director of the Office of Party Leaders for the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort's role in Yanukovych's rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych's political party. ..."
"... "The day after Manafort's hiring was revealed, she briefed the DNC's communications staff on Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia, according to an operative familiar with the situation," Politico reported and that "officials [at the embassy] became 'helpful' in Chalupa's efforts explaining that she traded information and leads with them. ..."
"... Politico also reported the Ukraine Embassy worked "directly" with reporters researching Trump's alleged Russia ties -- a claim Shulyar denied. ..."
"... "But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she instructed him to help Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia," Politico reported. ..."
"... "Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people who did, then I should contact Chalupa," Telizhenko said. "They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa." ..."
"... "In fact, sources familiar with the effort say that Shulyar specifically called Telizhenko into a meeting with Chalupa to provide an update on an American media outlet's ongoing investigation into Manafort," Politico reported. ..."
"... "For the record: I have never worked for a foreign government," Chalupa tweeted during the hearings. "I have never been to Ukraine. I was not an opposition researcher. In 2008, I knew Manafort worked for Putin's interests in Ukraine. I reported my concerns about him to the NSC in 2014 & sounded the alarm bells in 2016." ..."
"... In a profile of Chalupa in October 2018 in the Kyiv Post , she said her interest in Ukraine grew after the unrest and violence on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, or Independence Square in November 2013. ..."
"... "I have a diverse network of Ukrainian-American and Ukrainian friends on social media who were reporting real-time developments taking place in Kyiv that the western media was not covering," Chalupa said in the profile. "I wanted to do my part to be helpful to draw attention to the events on the Maidan, so I pulled together the heads of Ukrainian-American organizations and connected them with the White House." ..."
During the recent public impeachment hearings aimed at President Donald Trump, Republicans repeatedly mentioned
one woman's name: Alexandra Chalupa.
Chalupa may not be a household name, but if the impeachment effort against the president advances to the Senate
she might take center stage as an anti-Trump activist who could be credited with launching Russian collusion and
Ukraine bribery conspiracies.
If Democrats had not rejected almost all of the witnesses Republicans wanted to testify before the House Intelligence
Committee, Chalupa's role in the 2016 election may have been highlighted, including actions that led to the demise of
Paul Manafort, the man who was briefly Trump's presidential campaign manager and who is now serving a prison sentence
for financial fraud and conspiracy.
And despite the Democrats reluctance to have her at the witness table, Chalupa told
Politico
she wanted
to testify.
Eager Impeachment Witness
The
Politico
report
cited
Chalupa's willingness to be in the spotlight:
A longtime Democratic consultant and Ukrainian-American activist says she's itching to testify in the House's
public impeachment hearings to beat back Republican assertions that Ukrainian officials used her as a conduit for
information in 2016 to damage Donald Trump.
"I'm on a mission to testify," said Alexandra Chalupa, who Republicans identified as one of nine witnesses they
would like to testify publicly when the House begins public impeachment proceedings this week.
Chalupa, founder of the political consulting firm Chalupa & Associates, LLC, and a co-chair of the Democratic
National Committee's Ethnic Council, has been at the heart of efforts by allies of President Donald Trump to draw
an equivalence between Russia's large-scale hacking and propaganda operation to interfere in the 2016 election
with the actions of a small cadre of Ukrainian bureaucrats who allegedly worked with Chalupa to research former
Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's Russia ties.
Chalupa'a Twitter account says she is a "human rights hobbyist, political strategist, connector, mom of 3 strong
girls. Lives in D.C., from California. On Putin & Trump's bad list," but her resume shows more about where her
loyalties lie.
Her LinkedIn profile
includes
a work history: "Online Constituency Outreach Director" for John Kerry's presidential campaign;
executive director for Democrats Abroad and five years as the director of the Office of Party Leaders for the
Democratic National Committee (DNC).
But it is in another
Politico
investigative piece in January 2017 that
reveals
-- despite media and Democrat denials -- Ukraine's efforts to influence the 2016 election and that Chalupa
lent them a hand.
In the report, entitled "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire, Kiev officials are scrambling to make
amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton" details of Chalupa's "mission" is outlined.
Longtime Activism Record
The story begins with Chalupa learning that lawyer and lobbyist Paul Manafort had been an adviser to Ukrainian
president Viktor Yanukovych before the latter fled the country under Putin's protection:
Manafort's work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa,
who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to
work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to
June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that
time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC's arm for engaging expatriate Democrats around the world.
A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S.
Embassy in Ukraine, Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested
in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching Manafort's role in Yanukovych's rise, as well as his ties to the
pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych's political party.
In an interview this month, Chalupa told
Politico
she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and
Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While
her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities -- including
Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she
began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well.
The
Politico
report also said Chalupa shared her research with the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign,
including the narrative about Russia/Trump collusion.
"I felt there was a Russia connection," Chalupa said. "And that, if there was, that we can expect Paul Manafort to
be involved in this election."
Chalupa described Manafort as "Putin's political brain for manipulating U.S. foreign policy and elections."
She also shared her research with then-Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, and his aide, Oksana
Shulyar, during a March 2016 meeting at the Ukrainian Embassy.
Those officials said that they knew about Manafort but were not worried because they believed Trump had little
chance of being the Republican nominee let alone winning the presidency.
And then Trump hired Manafort.
"The day after Manafort's hiring was revealed, she briefed the DNC's communications staff on Manafort, Trump and
their ties to Russia, according to an operative familiar with the situation,"
Politico
reported and that
"officials [at the embassy] became 'helpful' in Chalupa's efforts explaining that she traded information and leads
with them.
Politico
also reported the Ukraine Embassy worked "directly" with reporters researching Trump's alleged
Russia ties -- a claim Shulyar denied.
"But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she
instructed him to help Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia,"
Politico
reported.
"Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people who did, then I should contact Chalupa,"
Telizhenko said. "They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra
Chalupa."
"Oksana was keeping it all quiet," but "the embassy worked very closely with Chalupa," Telizhenko said.
"In fact, sources familiar with the effort say that Shulyar specifically called Telizhenko into a meeting with
Chalupa to provide an update on an American media outlet's ongoing investigation into Manafort,"
Politico
reported.
Telizhenko also said in the
Politico
report: "If we can get enough information on Paul [Manafort] or
Trump's involvement with Russia, she can get a hearing in Congress by September."
In a tweet she posted during the hearings, Chalupa defended notifying the Obama administration about Manafort.
She also defended her work with Ukrainian officials during the 2016 campaign by claiming she never visited the
country and was not employed by its government.
"For the record: I have never worked for a foreign government," Chalupa tweeted during the hearings. "I have never
been to Ukraine. I was not an opposition researcher. In 2008, I knew Manafort worked for Putin's interests in
Ukraine. I reported my concerns about him to the NSC in 2014 & sounded the alarm bells in 2016."
2016 Election Influencer
In a Yahoo News story investigative reporter Michael Isikoff named Chalupa as one of 16 "ordinary people" who
"shaped the 2016 election."
"Chalupa this month told
Politico
that, as her research and role in the election started becoming more
public, she began receiving death threats, along with continued alerts of state-sponsored hacking. But she said,
'None of this has scared me off.'"
In a profile of Chalupa in October 2018 in the
Kyiv Post
, she
said
her interest in Ukraine grew after the unrest and violence on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, or Independence Square
in November 2013.
"I have a diverse network of Ukrainian-American and Ukrainian friends on social media who were reporting real-time
developments taking place in Kyiv that the western media was not covering," Chalupa said in the profile. "I wanted to
do my part to be helpful to draw attention to the events on the Maidan, so I pulled together the heads of
Ukrainian-American organizations and connected them with the White House."
"This was the first of a handful of other meetings related to Ukraine she helped organize for Obama's National
Security Council," the
Post
reported.
The November 2019
Politico
piece explains why she is back in the spotlight:
Chalupa It's not only GOP House members who are interested in Chalupa, however. The right-wing activist group
Judicial Watch recently obtained visitor logs placing Chalupa at the White House several times in 2015, where she
attended meetings related to countering disinformation with other Ukrainian-Americans and sometimes worked with
the White House's Office of Public Liaison to organize ethnic engagement events, she said.
A photo of her at one of those meetings -- standing next to a man that conservative news outlets have identified
as the official who blew the whistle on Trump's interactions with Zelensky -- has again placed Chalupa at the center
of controversy.
She mused in an interview about how Republicans would be reacting now if she'd actually taken a job in Ukraine
that required her to shuttle back and forth from Kyiv to D.C. during the 2016 campaign. A position as an "embedded
consultant" in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was offered to her the day WikiLeaks began publishing stolen DNC
documents in July 2016, according to an email reviewed by Politico.
"I never responded to it," Chalupa said. "Felt it was a trap."
To date, it looks like Chalupa won't testify unless the impeachment effort advances to a Senate trial where
Republicans might have some tough questions for her.
Chalupa, for her part, thinks she can help the Democrats efforts to remove a duly elected president from office.
"As an expert on political hybrid warfare, including from first-hand experience being targeted by the Kremlin for
the past four years, I'm confident there's a lot I can contribute to the hearings," Chalupa said. "For now, it seems
the focus is exactly where it needs to be -- on Donald Trump and his accomplices trying to extort Ukraine, a U.S. ally
defending itself from Russia's ongoing military and hybrid warfare."
"... "There is also a lot of hypocrisy," stated DiStefano, "People who claim that they are for the people -- that they are for the middle class -- which has been Joe Biden's mantra, and yet there is deal after deal in which companies are attempting to enrich themselves and members of the Biden family, and it has often been a way to open the door with the senator, [and] later vice president by doing something to support his brothers." ..."
"... DiStefano determined, "Obviously the question should be asked, 'What were the Bidens' relations in the Ukraine? What were they doing? What were they up to? Who was benefiting from that? Did it affect U.S. policy?'" ..."
Investigating the nature of Joe Biden's and Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine -- particularly with respect to energy
company Burisma -- is a legitimate endeavor, determined Joseph N. DiStefano, Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer and Nation
columnist, offering his remarks in a Tuesday interview on SiriusXM's Breitbart News Tonight with hosts Rebecca Mansour
and Joel Pollak.
DiStefano described a series of courtships from businesses targeting Joe Biden's family members, drawing on his latest Nation
column entitled, " Joe Biden's Friends and Backers Come Out on Top -- at the Expense of the Middle Class."
Joe Biden has been a beneficiary of "legal graft" via the "Delaware Way," DiStefano said -- a term defined as "politicians doing
favors for well-connected business owners in exchange for contributions after the fact."
"We go where the facts lead, DiStefano said. "In the case of the Bidens, they've been leading for a very long time. If you go
back to the early 1970s, ever since Joe Biden's been elected to the Senate, there has been a pretty unremitting series of business
transactions involving members of his family and companies that were interested for a large variety of reasons in getting access."
DiStefano recalled, "[Joe Biden] himself complained -- you might call it gaslighting, but he complained -- that his brother at
the age of 23 and his business partners were granted business loans by banks in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware -- loans that
were not paid -- to open
a discotheque right up the road from Wilmington."
DiStefano continued, "When it came time to pay those loans, the banks liened on Joe Biden, he complained to the Wilmington
News Journal -- that paper where I worked years ago -- at that time, and ever since then it's been just a series of his brothers
and his sons doing business with folks who came to them because they were Bidens, because Joe Biden was initially on the Banking
Committee and then a representative of the very powerful credit card banks that developed in Delaware, and eventually on the Judiciary
Committee."
"Of course, this is a very old American tradition," said DiStefano. "You can go back to Ben Franklin, and how he was pleased
to become Secretary of the Province of Pennsylvania, because it enabled him to take over the provincial printing business. His
son was ultimately governor of New Jersey, and there's an awful lot of that in American history.
Reviewing Joe Biden's political history reveals a pattern of businesses attempting to procure political influence via financial
relationships with Biden's brothers and sons, explained DiStefano.
"There is also a lot of hypocrisy," stated DiStefano, "People who claim that they are for the people -- that they are for
the middle class -- which has been Joe Biden's mantra, and yet there is deal after deal in which companies are attempting to enrich
themselves and members of the Biden family, and it has often been a way to open the door with the senator, [and] later vice president
by doing something to support his brothers."
DiStefano remarked, "Politics is very, very local, and the Bidens live in a very nice section of Delaware. The richest section
of Delaware -- eventually -- in Greenville. They went to some of the best schools, first in the state, and then in the country."
DiStefano went on, "Politics is very local here [in Delaware]. You can keep getting elected while being a person of modest means
if you make the networks, if you make the connections, if you do the work, if you are respected."
"There are many people in Delaware who respect Joe Biden for all those things, but it wasn't enough, because from the very beginning,
[Joe Biden was] building networks outside the state," added DiStefano. "There are people who credit or blame [Joe Biden] with corrupting
the [political] process [in Delaware] to the extent that a lot of out-of-state money came in and made him senator, and others senator
and governor after him. It really helped cement to the dominance of the Delaware Democratic Party."
"Delaware is one of those states, like Vermont, that consistently elects Democrats in recent years. Joe Biden and the money machine
he put together is a large part of that," DiStefano said. "It is a fact that he had those networks and he raised that money, and
there were a lot of trade-offs that happened as a result."
DiStefano continued, "One of the most obvious [trade-offs] was support that [Joe Biden] at first uniquely, and then very importantly
gave to the credit card banks in Delaware, in the fights that happened in Congress all through the 1970s, 80s, and 90s over just
how much power should these institutions have when a person can't pay their bills [and] what is protected and what it exposed to
the mercies of the creditors."
"Joe Biden was very consistently on the side of the credit card banks in limiting the assets that one could protect from bankruptcy,"
noted DiStefano.
Joe Biden was dubbed, "the Senator from MBNA" in 1998 by the American Spectator , recalled DiStefano.
Mansour and Pollak invited DiStefano's explanation of how Delaware came to be the home state of many national credit card companies.
"This came about when the Democrats controlled Washington back in late 1970s, after they had gotten Nixon out of the way and believed
that they would be the majority party indefinitely -- before Reagan put an end to that -- there was a period in which there was very
high inflation in this country and Democrats did not know what to do," recalled DiStefano.
DiStefano went on, "The Supreme Court and the Congress and President [Jimmy Carter] basically agreed to allow banks to export
interest rates [across state lines]. For many years, states could limit interest rates [and] how much you could charge on a loan.
The credit card industry was one of the first really national lending business, and there was an agreement in Congress -- after a
particular Supreme Court decision involving a bank in Omaha -- that it would now be possible for bank in a state with really liberalized
lending laws to export those lending laws to another state."
"Delaware was one of the very first states to take advantage of that," added DiStefano. " Now, by that point, [Joe Biden] was
in the U.S. Senate. He was not part of the initial bipartisan group in Delaware who rushed to make this happen. He had been on the
Senate Banking Committee during the debates and was on the conference committee that basically passed the bill that made all this
possible. What he did after that was to be very accommodating from Washington of the banks that immediately flocked to Delaware."
DiStefano explained, "Delaware got this early. Delaware understood that if they got rid of their usury law, if they got rid of
their consumer protections, if they reduced bank taxes to the point where they were actually regressive -- the more money you make
as a Delaware bank, the lower your tax rate is -- then the result was that the largest credit card companies reincorporated their
businesses in Delaware and began to lend from there."
Joe Biden assisted Republicans in blocking left-wing Democrats' efforts to increase state controls over the credit card industry,
noted DiStefano.
"That is what a lot of the liberals hold against Joe Biden," DiStefano said of the former vice president's opposition to increasing
government regulations over credit card companies' operations.
"[Joe Biden] really defended the interest of a very powerful group in his state, but you ought to consider that that was a lot
of jobs," added DiStefano. "That was literally tens of thousands of jobs at a time when the Dupont company was cutting back, the
auto plants were closing down, the oil refinery along the river was closing, and here were the banks, that's what they had, and that's
who gave Joe Biden money, and that is who his constituents, you know, were calling in [about] and saying, 'We need these jobs,' and
he was defending those jobs in Congress."
Joe Biden moved politically leftward after joining Barack Obama's presidential campaign as a vice presidential nominee, said DiStefano,
"[Joe Biden] was now on a national platform and he needed to run to the left, and that's where he moved."
"Joe Biden backed Obama's [and the] Democrats' attempt to socialize the [private lending industry], and make it so that anybody
who wants a loan for college can get one. no matter that it's a bad college program that doesn't help people get jobs, no matter
that it's a bad borrower who's not going to pay their loan," DiStefano explained. "That's why student lending is so expensive in
this country."
Bohai Harvest RST (BHR), a private equity firm founded by Hunter Biden,
procured
$1.5 billion in financing from the state-run Bank of China days after then-Vice President Joe Biden traveled to China as part
of an official extended trip to Asia.
DiStefano recalled BHR's involved in
purchasing "politically sensitive" assets and companies, including dual-use technology with military applications developed by
automotive parts manufacturer Henniges Automotive.
"They ended up buying the biggest copper and cobalt mine in Africa," said DiStefano of BHR's global acquisition. "They bought
a company in Detroit that did a lot of controls for vehicles, including military vehicles. They bought into a company in China hat
ended up designing a lot of technology used in the imprisonment of the Uighur population."
DiStefano added, "There are examples of companies that were close to the Bidens that did not make company, and one of those is
Hill International, a company in Philadelphia run by -- long ago -- a former felon that hired one of the Biden brothers as a vice
president of a group that was supposed to build housing in Iraq."
DiStefano went on, "That housing never got built, because the Obama administration policies in Iraq turned to, really, abandoning
a part of the country for a period of time, allowing ISIS to move in, and the plan to build all this housing was canceled. That same
company had a deal to build community colleges across Libya, and that plan got blown up when the [Obama] administration, against
the advice of many of our allies, decided to go in and blow up the Qaddafi government, leading to another period of anarchy and more
influence by ISIS. That company lost money in both of those cases, and they had very actively courted the Biden family."
Mansour invited DiStefano's comments on Biden's conflicts of interest given his former role as vice president and his son's foreign
businesses dealings.
"What would you do?" asked DiStefano. "I have six children, and a bunch of them have worked and had internships and then jobs
in corporate America, and I always tell them the same thing. I say, 'Don't tell me anything that's going on at the company you're
working at. As much as I'd love to know, and as a business reporter, I'm probably very interested, but don't tell me anything that
hasn't been published by your investor relations department or hasn't been [publicly disclosed] by the company, because you're going
to be working a lot longer than I have, and I don't want to put you in that position where you have a conflict of interest,' and
they understand that."
DiStefano added, "When my wife was a bank officer and I was a labor organizer -- way, way, way back, over 30 years ago, before
I was a reporter -- she had some sensitive information on companies I was very interested in, and she would not tell me. That's what
honorable people do. They separate it. They don't put themselves and their family members in these positions where there [are] conflicts
of interest."
"What we don't hear is denouncement [from Joe Biden]," observed DiStefano. "We hear the general abstract statement, 'I will never
put anybody in that position,' but then you see the fact of a deal in Ukraine right as the U.S. is backing Ukraine, and no apparent
attempt by the then-vice president to say, 'Well, don't do that. You shouldn't do that. I wish he wouldn't do that.' It's just, 'It's
all okay. It's my son, and what he does, I'm sure, is right,' and I just think that's an extra step that many of us try very hard
to avoid in our personal and business lives, and why should he not be setting an example?"
Mansour asked DiStefano about the President Donald Trump's inquiries into corruption in Ukraine, including possible corruption
on the part of Joe and Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma.
DiStefano determined, "Obviously the question should be asked, 'What were the Bidens' relations in the Ukraine? What were
they doing? What were they up to? Who was benefiting from that? Did it affect U.S. policy?'"
"What is [Hunter Biden] doing going on the board of an oil company that can obviously benefit if the U.S. backs Ukraine," asked
DiStefano.
"... Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins. ..."
"... Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within the American administration. I couldn't remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the more hawkish elements in US politics ..."
"... "The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration. It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks. ..."
"... Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe" to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East -- and in D.C. -- certainly looked like a distant but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy agenda on questions that would require adult supervision." ..."
"... Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the crazy banner. ..."
"... To a great degree American foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions inherited from Old Europe. ..."
Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins.
Could it be my Russian paranoia. Nah, I am being unreasonable -- those people never had a bad feeling towards Trump's attempts to
boost Russian-American relations with Michael Flynn spearheading this effort.
Jokes aside, however, I can only imagine how SVR
and GRU are enjoying the spectacle. I can only imagine how many "free" promotions and awards can be attach to this thing as a
free ride.
Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within the American administration. I couldn't
remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the more hawkish elements in US politics. I thought it
had been an American Admiral. I had no luck finding a reference so I googled it. Still no joy with the American admiral, but the
list thrown up had near the top of it this informative quote from Patrick Bahzad.
"The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration.
It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose
to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe"
to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth
called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East -- and in D.C. -- certainly looked like a distant
but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy
agenda on questions that would require adult supervision."
Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the
respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the
crazy banner. Or, to put it more soberly, form part of the neocon wing of those administrations. Though I, as an outside
observer, might be prejudiced here because I happen not to get on very well with Brzezinski and his copious output.
Allowing for that prejudice, which I confess runs very deep, I still think that to an extent American foreign policy has been
hijacked by Eastern European emigres who themselves retain some of the prejudices and mindset of another age and place.
Looking at it from afar, the influence of some Eastern European emigres on American foreign policy has been uniformly deleterious.
And that from a long way back and no matter whether those emigres are in Washington or Tel Aviv.
It cannot but help be distorting, that influence. It's not merely that unexamined Russophobia is embedded in the DNA of many
Eastern Europeans. There's a narrow minded focus on aggressive Machtpolitik, bred from centuries of violent territorial disputes
with neighbors.
That, transferred to the world stage as it must be when it infects the foreign policy of the United States - because that is
a country that cannot but help be at the centre of the world stage - distorts US foreign policy. To a great degree American
foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions
inherited from Old Europe.
In the most famous of his speeches Churchill spoke of the time when, as he hoped, "the New World, with all its power and might,
steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
Let the historians dispute as they will, that is what happened. And continued to happen for half a century and more. But there
was a price few noticed. The New World might have stepped forward to rescue the old, but it carried back from that old world a
most destructive freight.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from "white board" theorists with zero understanding
of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's
loyalties were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false, anti-Russian grievances. He
dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do
many, as you correctly stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of which Founding
Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I
argue constantly, utter destruction of the remnants of the Republic.
I wrote what follows before reading Andrei's response to EO, but do not see much reason to change what I had written.
When in 1988 I ended up working at BBC Radio 'Analysis' programme because it was impossible to interest any of my old television
colleagues in the idea that one might go to Moscow and talk to some of the people involved in the Gorbachev 'new thinking', my
editor, Caroline Anstey, was an erstwhile aide to Jim Callaghan, the former Labour Prime Minister.
As a result of his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, she had a fascinating anecdote about what one of his fellow
members, the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, said about another, Zbigniew Brzezinski: that he could never work out which
of his country's two traditional enemies his Polish colleague hated most.
Almost a generation after hearing her say this, in December 2013, I read an article Brzezinski published in the 'Financial
Times, headlined 'Russia, like Ukraine, will become a real democracy.'
Unfortunately, it is behind a subscription wall, but it clearly expresses its author's fundamental belief that after all those
years of giving Russia the 'spinach' treatment -- to use Victoria Nuland's term -- it would finally 'knuckle under', and become
a quiescent satellite of the West.
An ironic sidelight on this is provided in a recent article by a lady called Anna Mahjar-Barducci on the 'MEMRI' site -- which
actually has some very useful material on matters to do with Russia for those of us with no knowledge of the language -- headlined
'Contemporary Russian Thinkers Series -- Part I -- Renowned Russian Academic Sergey Karaganov On Russia And Democracy.'
Its subject, who I remember well from the days when he was very much one of the 'new thinkers', linked to it on his own website,
clearly pleased at what he saw as an accurate and informed discussion of his ideas.
There is an obvious risk of succumbing to facetiousness, but sometimes what one thinks are essential features of an argument
can be best brought out at the risk of caricaturing it.
It seems to me that some of the central themes of Karaganov's writing over the past few years -- doubly interesting, because
his attacks on conventional Western orthodoxies are very far from silly, and because he is a kind of 'panjandrum' of a significant
section of the Russian foreign policy élite -- may be illuminated in this way.
So, attempting to link his Russian concerns to British and American ones, some central contentions of his writings might be
put as follows:
'"Government of the people, by the people, for the people' looked a lovely idea, back in 1989. But if in practice "by the people"
means a choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn, how can it be "for the people?"
'Moreover, it turned out that our "deplorables" were always right, against us 'intellectuals', in grasping that, with "Russophobes"
running Western policy, a "real democracy" would simply guarantee that we remained as impotent and humiliated as people like Brzezinski
clearly always wanted us to be.
'Our past, and our future, both in terms of alliances and appropriate social and political systems, are actually "Eurasian":
a 'hybrid' state, whose potential greatest advantage actually should be seen as successfully synthesising different inheritances.
'As the need for this kind of synthesis is a normal condition, with which most peoples have to reckon, this gives us a very
real potential advantage over people in the West, who, like the communists against whom I rebelled, believe that there is one
path along which all of humanity must -- and can -- go.'
At the risk of over-interpreting, I might add the following conclusion:
'Of course, precisely what this analysis does not mean is that we are anti-European -- simply that we cannot simply come to
Europe, Europe come some way to meet us.
'Given time, Helmut Schmidt's fellow countrymen, as also de Gaulle's, may very well realise that their future does not lie
in an alliance with a coalition of people like Brzezinski and traditional "Russophobes" from the "Anglosphere".
'And likewise, it does not lie with the kind of messianic universalist "liberalism" -- and, in relation to some of the SJC
and LGBT obsessions, one might say "liberalism gone bonkers" -- which Putin criticized in his interview with the "Financial Times"
back in June.
An obvious possibility implicit in the argument is that, if indeed the continental Europeans see sense, then the coalition
of traditional 'Anglophobes' and the 'insulted and injured' or the 'borderlands' may find itself marginalized, and indeed, on
the 'dustbin of history' to which Trotsky once referred.
Of course, I have no claims to be a Russianist, and my reading of Karaganov may be quite wrong.
But I do strongly believe that very superficial readings of what was happening when I was working in the 'Analysis' office,
back in 1988-9, have done an immense disservice alike to Britain and the United States.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from "white board" theorists with zero understanding
of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's
loyalties were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false, anti-Russian grievances. He
dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do
many, as you correctly stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of which Founding
Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I
argue constantly, utter destruction of the remnants of the Republic.
David, Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. But the events of two days ago with Putin and Lavrov being personally
present at the unveiling of the monument to Evgenii Primakov in a front of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs speaks, in fact
screams, volumes. You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as I type this and it means that the West "lost"
(quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose) Russia and it can be "thankful" for that to a so called Russia
Studies field in the West which was primarily shaped and then turned into the wasteland, in large part thanks to influx of East
European "scholars" and some "Russian" dissidents which achieved their objectives by drawing a caricature. They succeeded and
Russia had it with the West.
DH, appreciate your comment. Haven't read the MEMRI paper yet. Scanned the first page though.
Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. ... You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as
I type this and it means that the West "lost" (quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose)
Well, two things sticked out for me during Tumps reelection campain.
1) on the surface he stated, he wanted closer relations to Russia. Looked at more closely, as should be expected, maybe. They
were ambigous. If I may paraphrase it colloguially: I meet them and, believe me, if I don't get that beautiful deal, i'll be out
of the door the next second.
2) he promised to be enigmatic, compared to earlier American administrations. In other words, hard to read or to predict. Guess
one better is as dealmaker. But in the larger intelligence field? Enigmatic may well be a commonplace. No?
Otherwise, Andrei, I would appreciate your further elaboration on Karaganov as opportunist.
Andrei: Strzok and Pientka come from Galicia -- the westernmost portion of what is now Ukraine -- that was acquired by Empress
Maria Theresa in the mid - 18th century.
I have been curious about precisely where both Srzok and Pientka came from, but have not had time to do any serious searches.
What is the actual evidence that they have Galician origins?
And, if they do, what are these?
I would of course automatically tend to assume that Polish names mean that their origins are Polish.
But then, if this is so, why are they enthusiastically collaborating with 'Banderista' Ukrainians?
It has long been a belief of mine that one of Stalin's great mistakes was to attempt to incorporate Galicia into the empire
he was creating.
Had he returned it to Poland, the architects of the Volhynia massacres of Poles -- as also of the massacres of Jews in Lviv/Lvov/Lemberg
-- could have gone back to their old habits of assassinating Polish policemen.
I first picked up the Galician connection in an article by Scott Humor: " North America is a land run by Galician zombies "
-- published by The Saker on July 4, 2018. It seems that Galicians, especially those that arrived after WWII, migrate into security
positions such as ICE / FBI / NSA etc. It may have to do with a family history of work in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Regrettably, I am not from Eastern Europe and cannot help you further about the Bortnicks, the Gathkes, Buchtas, and so on.
"... These ethnic lobbies seek to influence U.S. policy in three ways. ..."
"... First, by framing the issues "they help set the terms of debate" or "put items on the country's agenda." ..."
"... Second, they are a source of information and analysis that provide a great deal of information to members of Congress and serve as a resource for other branches of government and non-governmental organizations, and shaping general perspectives. ..."
"... Finally, ethnic group lobbies provide policy oversight. "They examine the policies of the U.S. government, propose policies, write letters and [are] involved in electioneering activities." ..."
Thomas Ambrosio, Assistant Professor of Political Science, North Dakota State
University and Yossi Shain, Professor of Comparative Government and Diaspora Politics,
Georgetown University
In an age marked by the greater ease of communication and travel, recent research on
ethnic groups and conflict has begun to examine the influence of diaspora groups. Of
particular interest are their efforts to affect political environments in their "home" and
host countries through their remittance of funds, lobbying and the dissemination of
information. Dr. Thomas Ambrosio, Assistant Professor at North Dakota University presented
material from his recent edited volume Ethnic Identity Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy.
Commentary was provided by Yossi Shain, Professor at Georgetown and Tel Aviv Universities,
author of "Marketing the American Creed Abroad: Diasporas in the U.S. and their Homelands"
and a contributor to Ambrosio's book. The meeting marked what moderator Carla Koppell,
Interim Director of the Wilson Center's Conflict Prevention Project called, "a relatively new
area of analysis and dialogue for the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars."
Ambrosio, stated that as we seek to understand diaspora groups and their influence on U.S.
foreign policy, the question is not should ethnic groups influence foreign policy but how
they effect foreign policy, what are their goals and why do they mobilize. He began his
presentation by defining ethnic identity groups as "politically relevant social divisions
based on a shared sense of cultural distinctiveness." This would include racial, religious,
national and ethnic identities. Ethnic identity groups often form institutions that effect
U.S. foreign policy or ethnic communities abroad, most commonly in the form of ethnic
lobbies.
These ethnic lobbies seek to influence U.S. policy in three ways.
First, by framing the
issues "they help set the terms of debate" or "put items on the country's agenda."
Second,
they are a source of information and analysis that provide a great deal of information to
members of Congress and serve as a resource for other branches of government and
non-governmental organizations, and shaping general perspectives.
Finally, ethnic group
lobbies provide policy oversight. "They examine the policies of the U.S. government, propose
policies, write letters and [are] involved in electioneering activities."
Ambrosio cautioned, that we must not believe that the effort by "ethnic groups to
influence U.S. foreign policy is new." It has a long history but "has become increasingly
active in recent years." To illustrate, he presented five periods of ethnic lobbying in the
United States--Pre-WWI, WWI, Cold War, post-Cold war, and post-September 11.
Since before WWI, there has been a "steady rise in the number of ethnic groups in the U.S.
mobilizing to influence the foreign policy process." Both the WWI and Cold War periods saw an
explosion in the number of interest groups affecting domestic and foreign policy. According
to Ambrosio, however, it was the post-Cold War period that gave way to a real increase in
American multiculturalism. U.S. interests during this period were not clearly defined, and
the Congress had more influence than the Executive Branch over policy-making. That balance of
power according to Ambrosio allowed ethnic lobbying groups greater access to policy-makers
and potential influence in policy formation. Since September 11 quite the opposite is true;
there is a re-centralization of foreign policy in the White House. That re-centralization is
restricting influence over policy.
Ambrosio concluded by suggesting several areas for future research. First, the question of
the legitimacy of ethnic group influence on foreign policy deserves some attention. Second,
more case study analysis is need. In Ambrosio's view, we need to look at specific groups, and
why or how they influence policy. In particular, greater attention should be paid to the case
of Muslim Americans. Third, is the need to examine the relationship between ethnic and
non-ethnic interest groups. For instance, Ambrosio suggested that a comparison of the
influence of "the Oil lobby versus the Armenian lobbies over the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh
and Azerbaijan" could provide some interesting insights. Fourth, the reliance on natives for
intelligence information should be examined more closely. In the case of Iraq, there is the
question of "how Iraq exiles influence U.S. foreign policy." Finally, the export of American
values must be better understood. Further research could help the U.S. government mobilize
diaspora groups in the United States to deal with growing anti-Americanism throughout the
world.
Shain, began by commenting that while the topic of diaspora group influence on U.S.
foreign policy is important, "it is perhaps an overblown topic." He agreed with Ambrosio that
the idea of transnational influence on U.S. foreign policy is not new. However, Shain
contends that people have always been wary of such influences. The topic, according to Shain,
became more salient in the 1990's with the end of the Cold War when the "us versus them
posture was no longer in existence." It was also a time when more people began "shuttling
back and forth," retaining greater ties to their home country. According to Professor Shain,
the question is "who really speaks [in U.S. foreign policy]?" This was the period of
increasing American multiculturalism; the identity of the U.S. itself was changing. As a
result, attention to issues reflected the makeup of the U.S. For instance, before September
11, relations between the United States and Mexico in the age of NAFTA, had center stage.
Shain suggested that while ethnic Americans mobilize to influence U.S. foreign policy,
their ability to do so is quite limited. Ethnic lobbies have more often been used to market
American ideals in their home countries or to "democratize their countries of origin." When
they do have influence, it has generally been at the electoral level in connection with a
domestic issue, or when an issue is of little importance to the administration. Professor
Shain continued contending that the influence of ethnic lobbies relies on their ability to
advance a message that resonates with the American values and ideals. This is one reason he
believes Arab-Americans have had difficulty influencing U.S. foreign policy; there is a
perception that they are attempting to influence policy in ways that would be contrary to
American values. When issues promoted by an ethnic lobby are priorities, and are in line with
the administration, ethnic lobbies have the greatest influence in policy oversight.
According to Shain there are several issues that warrant future research and
understanding. The first is to understand the explosion of Islam in the United States; rather
than lobbying for national country interests, there is greater mobilization around religious
beliefs. According to Shain, this has little to do with ethnic lobbies; rather it is a
question of who is mobilizing communities. This is a difficult question to examine because,
depending on the time period, different people will speak for a community. Another issue for
further study involves tracking and better understanding economic influence. For example,
donations for Israel at the same time support local organizations and Jewish-American issues;
financial support drives diaspora politics. At the same time, many country economies depend
on money sent from abroad; this gives diasporas a greater say in their "home" countries.
"When you do any politics in Haiti, there is the 10th department... the 10th department is
here. This is the community that can mobilize and has money."
The final issue for further study according to Shain is the concept of identity in
America. While there is identity as an American, many still "retain some affinity and
memories" of their home country. This is particularly galvanizing where there is still
instability in the country of origin. Shain concluded that the subject of the influence of
diaspora communities in the U.S. was most important in regard to identity in America.
"Identity is critical for America because the American makeup has always been changing." "The
market, democracy and human rights are much more on the minds of ethnic groups as they relate
to their country of origin," concluded Shain.
"... For the Democrats to reform they need first to acknowledge that their alliance with Wall Street is a dead end and that they need to oppose the absolute rule of capital. At a minimum they should be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists between the interests of capital and the rest of the population (Warren); and of expressing a principled determination to take the side of the majority of the population in this conflict. ..."
James Carville observed that night in 2016, Democrats haven't been this weak for more than
half-a-century. Some Democrats learned the lesson and ran on 'just fix the damn roads' in
2018 and won. Impeachment is very, very likely to do what the ACA did to Dems in 2010.
Rather than build on the hard-won victories of 2018, Democrats have decided to pursue a
dead-end policy doomed to failure which will galvanize the GOP base and drive independents
months before the election. Even a week ago, I wasn't sure whether Trump will be elected. I'm
much, much more certain now. I warned in 2017 of the opportunity costs of looking for silver
stake solutions to what OW and Carville correctly understand as bad policy, poor candidates,
identity politics, and bad messaging.
So, Russia? My guess is that after the stomping that may very well fall upon the Dems, we
might very well see real reform in the Democratic party, just as we have in the GOP. Trump's
GOP protects businesses, individuals, Americans, opportunity, and social security. And all
the bad shit that both parties always support. Dems need to figure out that Trump has stolen
their message and is on the way to stealing their base. If minorities turn out for Trump (the
GOP wet-dream) Dems are going to face a nightmare scenario. And 34 percent of
African-Americans currently support Trump.
That's a very apt observation with one reservation: one major factor in 2018 success was
Mueller investigation. Now there will be backlash against it, which favors Trump.
Moon of Alabama has a very interesting discussion of the Catch 22 style situation "Full of
Schiff" Dems found themselves with "Pelosi impeachment gambit": in no way they can allow Senate
trial, and they can't allow just a censure, or they lose the face (Schiff career is probably
over at this point in any case)
-- If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp, which
seems likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she proceed?
-- If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
-- If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
-- If the House votes for censure Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue will
be over.
-- If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
-- It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
-- It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
A senate impeachment trial would be a disaster for the Dems as Joe & Hunter and Adam
Schiff get to testify under oath.
A censure means that Trump won on points and now can play victim in 2020 election. Situation
which he likes and exploiting which he is a great master (that's why he wants the Senate
trial). And which increases chances of his reelection. In the latter case that most probably
means the end of career (if not prosecution) for Vindman, Hill and other "accusers" (Pelosi
sacrificial pawns in this gambit)
My feeling is that Clinton democrats are doomed to be a failure in 2020. And that Democratic
Party needs to reform (which they failed to do after 2016 fiasco.)
For the Democrats to reform they need first to acknowledge that their alliance with Wall
Street is a dead end and that they need to oppose the absolute
rule of capital. At a minimum they should be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists
between the interests of capital and the rest of the population (Warren); and of expressing a
principled determination to take the side of the majority of the population in this
conflict.
"... With Republicans in control of the Senate, the California elder stateswoman always knew that articles of impeachment would have to be based on crimes so egregious and beyond doubt that even Republicans would have had no choice but to convict the president. ..."
"... The math may not be on the Democrats' side, as they have 31 House members representing districts won by Trump in 2016. ..."
"... Pelosi simply cannot discount the fact that at least half – and maybe more – of those Democrat representatives will consider their own chances of re-election as they cast their votes on articles of impeachment. ..."
"... Unlike impeachment, censure is not a constitutional measure. That is not to say that censure is unconstitutional, but that it is simply a course of action devised by Congress and not described in the nation's founding document. There is no mandatory consequence to censure, and nobody would suggest that censure could lead to removal from the office of president. It has been used most often to rebuke or reprimand members of Congress, though Trump, were he censured, would not be the first commander in chief to have faced it. ..."
"... In effect, censure is an act of disapproval. For a member of Congress, it may entail such undesirable consequences as loss of committee memberships or even suspension; it comes with no penalties when used against executive branch officials. And that is how it should be, or the concepts of separation of powers and co-equal branches of government would likely be swept away in an avalanche of partisan censure votes. ..."
"... The Founding Fathers proscribed impeachment for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. These are serious crimes – high crimes. Removing from office a duly elected president for anything less is congressional tyranny. Perhaps, before they step into the abyss, some Democrats are coming to that realization. Or perhaps they are simply guarding their posteriors. ..."
At this point, Democrats appear to have dug themselves a rather deep impeachment
hole, and at least a few of them are now looking for a ladder. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(D-CA) saw this coming but could not withstand the Trump-derangement tide. They do have a way
out, and at least a few of them – along with their surrogates in the media –
realize that censure, rather than impeachment, is their best option for dealing with President
Trump in a way that will not come back to bite their carefully guarded posteriors.
Nancy Pelosi
Regardless of what one may think of Pelosi's political bent, she has always been more
pragmatic than her more strident party colleagues. Sure, she will step in front of any camera
and talk about how Trump is spitting on the Constitution, crushing the souls of hard-working
Americans, and planning to detain all non-white people before our very eyes. But, for the most
part, she understands political realities.
With Republicans in control of the Senate, the California elder stateswoman always knew that
articles of impeachment would have to be based on crimes so egregious and beyond doubt that
even Republicans would have had no choice but to convict the president.
In their impeachment
inquiry , congressional Democrats have come nowhere near that standard. Worse still, they
may barely have the votes to advance articles of impeachment to the Senate. As the balance of
power in the House now stands, the majority Democrats can afford to lose no more than 16 votes
from their own caucus in order to impeach – assuming they get no Republican votes. The
math may not be on the Democrats' side, as they have 31 House members representing districts
won by Trump in 2016.
Pelosi simply cannot discount the fact that at least half – and maybe more – of
those Democrat representatives will consider their own chances of re-election as they cast
their votes on articles of impeachment.
Second Thoughts?
Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) is not one of those who represent a 2016 Trump-voting
district. In fact, her safe Democrat district encompasses part of eastern Detroit. Even so, Lawrence
has seen the writing on the wall: Among independent voters, enthusiasm for impeachment is
waning, and Lawrence – who previously supported the idea – is perhaps now thinking
beyond her own chances of re-election.
"I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is," Lawrence explained
Nov. 24 during a radio interview, "I don't see the value of taking [Trump] out of office, but
I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable."
An editorial, published Nov. 23 by The Detroit News, suggests censure of the president
rather than impeachment, and The Chicago Tribune followed suit on Nov. 25. It is neither unfair
nor inaccurate to point out that the left-wing media rarely take up a political narrative not
preapproved by someone within the Democratic Party. So the sudden appearance of editorials
arguing for censure strongly suggests that Democrat strategists are leaning in that direction
or at least testing the waters.
What Is Censure?
Unlike impeachment, censure is not a constitutional measure. That is not to say that censure
is unconstitutional, but that it is simply a course of action devised by Congress and not
described in the nation's founding document. There is no mandatory consequence to censure, and
nobody would suggest that censure could lead to removal from the office of president. It has
been used most often to rebuke or reprimand members of Congress, though Trump, were he
censured, would not be the first commander in chief to have faced it.
In effect, censure is an act of disapproval. For a member of Congress, it may entail such
undesirable consequences as loss of committee memberships or even suspension; it comes with no
penalties when used against executive branch officials. And that is how it should be, or the
concepts of separation of powers and co-equal branches of government would likely be swept away
in an avalanche of partisan censure votes.
Both the Senate and the House have the power to censure or reprimand, and each chamber may
do it without the approval or involvement of the other. Censure requires only a simple
majority. At least some Democrats, surely, are considering how much easier than impeachment
censure will be. They also may be considering how a censure resolution will provide the
opportunity to pontificate at length – on live TV – about Trump's moral turpitude
and failings, both as a human being and as a president.
In 1834, Democrat President Andrew Jackson was censured by a Whig Senate for firing the
Treasury secretary. President John Tyler, a Democrat-turned-Whig who may have been even more of
a boat-rocking maverick than Trump, was reprimanded (another form of censure) in 1842 by the
House of Representatives. President James Polk was reprimanded in 1848 by the House. President
Abraham Lincoln was reprimanded by the Senate in 1864.
Some members of Congress argued for censuring, rather than impeaching, President Bill
Clinton, and that brings up an important point about impeachment: Attempting to remove a
president from office by any means other than a general election is, without a doubt, the
gravest and most consequential action the Congress can take. If the constitutional republic
– with its democratic method of choosing a president – is to be preserved, a
president should not be removed from office by Congress for anything less than an act that
directly endangers the American people or the U.S. government.
Jackson, Tyler, and Lincoln did nothing that justified such a measure. Polk took the country
to war without congressional approval – very much an impeachable offense, many would
argue. How about Clinton? He was not impeached for having sexual relations with a White House
intern but for lying about it to Congress.
If every politician were removed from office for lying, we would have no political
leadership at all. Clinton's lie did not jeopardize the security or stability of the United
States, and one could certainly argue that his was not an impeachable offense. At the time, the
American people appeared to agree.
The Founding Fathers proscribed impeachment for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors. These are serious crimes – high crimes. Removing from office a duly elected
president for anything less is congressional tyranny. Perhaps, before they step into the abyss,
some Democrats are coming to that realization. Or perhaps they are simply guarding their
posteriors.
The live TV impeachment inquiry circus is for now over. The procedural parts are ready to
begin. Both sides, the Republicans and Democrats, will have to decide which tactical moves
they will now make.
Adam Schiff, who presided over the investigative part,
wrote to his colleagues that he wants to immediately move forward:
As required under House Resolution 660, the Committees are now preparing a report
summarizing the evidence we have found this far, which will be transmitted to the Judiciary
Committee soon after Congress returns from the Thanksgiving recess .
...
Chairman Nadler and the Members and staff of the Judiciary Committee will proceed in the
next phase of the impeachment inquiry.
Nadler will write up articles of impeachment which will be referred to the whole House to
vote on them. No Republican is likely to vote for impeaching Trump. It would be political
suicide to do so. The Democrats have 233 Representatives and need 218 votes for a majority
decision. They can afford a few abstentions but not too many.
At least one House Democrat, Brenda Lawrence from the swing state Michigan,
has said that she will no longer support impeachment but that she prefers to censure the
president instead of impeaching him. A censure is a formal
reprimand by a majority vote that has no further consequences.
More are likely to follow that path as several recent polls show that impeachment is
no longer en vogue :
The latest national poll from Emerson College finds 45 percent oppose impeaching President
Trump, against 43 percent who support it. That's a 6-point swing in support from October,
when 48 percent of voters supported impeachment and only 44 percent opposed.
More importantly, the poll shows more independents now oppose impeachment than support
it, a significant change from Emerson's polling in October. The new poll found 49 percent
oppose impeachment compared to 34 percent who support it. In October, 48 percent of
independents polled supported impeachment, against 39 percent who opposed.
Since October, Emerson has found Trump's job approval rating jump by 5 points, from 43
percent to 48 percent.
This is the second poll this week to show voters are increasingly likely to oppose
impeachment, ..
Even Democrats
are losing interest in the issue. There is also this curious issue:
CNN Poll: There is a *forty* point gender gap with regards to impeaching and removing
Trump.
Men oppose impeachment 40-53 while women favor it 61-34.
That's a pretty stunning contrast.
If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp, which
seems likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she proceed?
If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
If the House votes for censure Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue will
be over.
If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
Should the House vote for impeachment the Senate is likely to go the second path.
During
impeachment the whole Senate sits as the High Court. The House of Representatives sends
'managers' who act as prosecutors. The chief justice of the U.S. presides. A vote for
impeachment at the end of the trial requires a two-third majority.
The Republican majority in the Senate could use such a trial to bring disarray into the
Democrats' primary. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy
Klobuchar and Michael Bennet are all senators and Democratic primary candidates. They would
probably have to stop campaigning to attend the trials. Another leading Democratic candidate
would be a top witness.
The Republican senators would immediately call up a number of people for questioning.
These would include Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, his business partner Devon Archer, John Kerry
who was Secretary of State when Biden intervened for Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky and of
course the CIA spy and (not-)whistleblower Erik Ciaramella. It would also be of interest to
hear how deep the former CIA director John Brennan was involved in the issue.
The Senators could use the impeachment trial to dig into all the crimes the Democrats
under Obama committed in Ukraine. They would concentrate not on the Maidan coup but on the
aftermath when the deals were made. There surely is a lot of dirt out there and it is not
only Joe Biden's.
Then there is Russiagate. Did the Obama administration use illegal means to spy on the
Trump campaign? As the issue is related to whatever Trump did there is good reason to include
it into the trial.
The circus the Senate would open if the House votes for impeachment would play for many
many months. The media would be full of this or that crime some Democrat or deep state actor
supposedly committed. All this would play out during the election season.
An impeachment trial in the Senate would be a disaster for the Democrats.
I can not see why the Democrats would want to fall into such a trap. House leader Nancy
Pelosi is experienced enough to not let that happen. But she will have to do some serious
talking to convince the party that a vote on impeachment is not the best way to proceed.
The only sensible alternative is to censure Trump and that is why it is likely the way
Nancy Pelosi will want to go. A partisan vote to censure Trump will do no damage to him but
the Democrats would have at least done 'something' - even if it was only gesturing.
The whole impeachment show did little damage to Trump. His approval numbers are still
fine. The show has given Trump another chance to run as the underdog who will drain the swamp
in Washington DC. A major Democratic candidate is now damaged goods. Joe Biden no longer has
any chance to win the presidency and it would be astonishing if he survives the primaries.
The U.S. relations with the Ukraine have also been seriously damaged.
All this
was easily predictable two months ago when the Democrats launched their impeachment
show:
Instead of running on policy issues the Democrats will (again) try to find vague dirt with
which they can tarnish Trump. This is a huge political mistake. It will help Trump to win
his reelection.
After two years of falsely accusing Trump of having colluded with Russia they now allege
that he colludes with Ukraine. That will make it much more difficult for the Democrats to
hide the dirty hands they had in creating Russiagate. Their currently preferred candidate
Joe Biden will get damaged.
...
The Democrats are giving Trump the best campaign aid he could have wished for. Trump will
again present himself as the victim of a witch hunt. He will again argue that he is the
only one on the side of the people. That he alone stands with them against the bad
politicians in Washington DC. Millions will believe him and support him on this. It will
motivate them to vote for him.
The Democrats should ask themselves how they put themselves into the current situation.
Who was the genius who came up with the (not-)whistleblower idea and pushed for the move. The
shallow-brained Adam Schiff? The devious John Brennan?
Whoever it was the Democrats should shun that person before it creates more damage to
their party.
Posted by b at
19:41 UTC |
Comments (62) I agree with this article to the extent that having a Senate trial would,
indeed, seem to portend disaster for Democrats. They would lose the all-important narrative
during an election year. Yet Pelosi, by allowing the impeachment "inquiry" (or whatever it
is) to go forward, mounted the tiger of impeachment, and it is difficult to see how she could
dismount without being eaten.
I would also wonder whether Trump would agree to be censured. Yes, that would stop the
impeachment drive but censure would still put a black mark next to his name and I am not sure
he would allow that to happen. Honestly, based on what little I am able to gather from the
confusing mess of Ukrainegate, I think he would be right to feel that way.
The Democrats - at least the corrupt leadership of that party - probably coordinated this
fiasco with their corporate benefactors as a way of ensuring Trump would have a second term,
in much the same way John Kerry was brought in during the 2004 election to sandbag on behalf
of the Democrats to make sure Bush/Cheney had another four years to continue the looting and
destruction of Iraq.
American politics are largely nothing more than stage managed Kabuki theater, which is why
we see such concerted efforts by both sides of the aisle to marginalize and diminish any
candidates with the character and principles necessary to upset the apple cart, e.g. Tulsi
Gabbard or Ron Paul back when he ran.
The ruling cabal isn't about to allow something as trivial as a popularity contest decide
who runs the Empire; they've got the entire process on lock-down while keeping the little
people distracted with bread and circuses.
The Democratic Party plays an indispensable role in society's political machinery. This
doesn't mean it has any power, in terms of controlling the state or setting policy. It means
that without the existence of the Dem Party, the US could no longer maintain the pretense
that it's a "democracy." If the Dem Party disintegrated, the US would be revealed for what it
really is -- a one-party state ruled by a narrow alliance of business interests.
The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for
change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself
to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential service it
renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by
simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough
to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy."
As long as the Dem Party exists, most Americans will believe we have a "democracy" and a
"choice" in how we are ruled. They will not despair, and will not revolt, as long as they
have this hope for "change within the system." From the system's point of view, this
mechanism serves as the ultimate safety valve -- it insures against a despairing populace,
thus eliminates the threat of rebellion; yet guarantees that no serious change to the system
will be mounted, because the Dems weren't designed to play that role in the first place.
The Democrats are not the "lesser evil;" they are an auxiliary subdivision of the same
evil. To understand the political system, one must step back and regard its operation as an
integrated whole. The system can't be properly understood if one's study of it begins with an
uncritical acceptance of the 2-party system, and the conventional characterizations of the
two parties. (Indeed, the fact that society encourages one to view it in this latter way, is
perhaps a warning that this perspective should not be trusted.)
Any given piece of reactionary legislation is invariably supported by a higher percentage
of Republicans than Democrats. Does this show that the Democrats are "less evil?" If one
focuses on the efforts of the few outspoken dissenters, it's easy to feel that the Democrats
are somewhat less evil. But in the larger picture, Democrats invariably submit to what their
bosses promulgate and the entire range of official opinion thereby shifts to the right. Thus
the overall function of Democrats is not so much to fight, as to quasi-passively participate
in this ever-rightward-moving process. Just as the Harlem Globetrotters need their Washington
Generals to make their basketball games properly entertaining, Republicans need the Democrats
for effective staging of the political show.
The Democrats are permitted to exist because their vague hint of eventual progressive
change keeps large numbers of people from bolting the political system altogether. If the
Democrats potentially threatened any sort of serious change, they would be banned. The fact
that they are fully accepted by the corporations and political establishment tells us at once
that their ultimate function must be wholly in line with the interests of those ruling
groups.
For the Democratic Party to even begin to serve as a vehicle for opposing the absolute
rule of capital, it would at a minimum have to be capable of acknowledging the conflict that
exists between the interests of capital and the rest of the population; and of expressing a
principled determination to take the side of the population in this conflict.
A party whose controlling elements are millionaires, lobbyists, fund-raisers, careerist
apparatchiks, consultants, and corporate lawyers; that has stood by prostrate and helpless
(when not actively collaborating) in the face of stolen elections, illegal wars, torture, CIA
concentration camps, lies as state policy, and one assault on the Bill of Rights after the
next, is not likely to take that position.
I've been wondering how Pelosi is going to tip-toe back away from this turd she helped lay.
If they had a viable candidate, I guess censure is probably the best way to walk away from
it. But they don't have a viable candidate. Did they actually imagine Biden could win? That's
hard to believe.
A real-politik person might see this situation as a perfect setup for another Gladio
B-type "strategy of tension" shoot-the-proles op so that HRC and MO can come out and say the
white supremacists "forced" them to run but time is running out on even that pulp-fiction
option.
This is exactly what people mean when they say that the Democrats are paid to lose, the
Democrats fell all over themselves trying to protect lame horse Joe Biden from his corrupt
dealings when there was no political need to throw the party over the cliff to protect Joe
Biden, they could have just stood back and blamed Hunter Biden for everything. Now the Dems
looks like they have thrown away the 2020 elections, perhaps the Democrats did this in the
hopes they could blame the resultant clusterf**k on the "progressive" wing of the party that
pushed for impeachment so the Clintons can continue their stranglehold on the party, but this
entire farce has not endeared the Democrats to me at all.
As usual, Orange Watch presents a comment based on fact: namely that the damage done at the
local and state level to Democrats shrinks the pool of experienced top-tier candidates to
draw upon. The three front-runners are older than sixty by some distance, and they're running
against a guy who's over seventy. Which leads to the cost of impeachment and the upcoming
Senate trial. I just took a trip down memory lane to confirm the last time Democrats decided
to go overboard without the fig-leaf of a view Republican votes.
I liked Russ Feingold. He took stands the Democratic elite didn't like, but when push came
to shove on the ACA, Feingold sucked it up and voted for ACA, which passed the Senate
straight down partisan lines – without a single Republican vote. Sounding familiar? So
what happens in 2010. Feingold gets hammered from the left and the right for being a
'sell-out' and a 'big-pharma' stooge. Lost in all the hoopla over the 2010 Tea Party, was the
fact that Feingold and others lower-down the ticket paid the price for supporting a policy
they mostly opposed. From the NYT, Nov. 4, 2010.
" Mr. Feingold has served in the Senate for 18 years and was seeking his fourth term. Mr.
Johnson, a plastics manufacturer who had never run for office, won with 52 percent of the
vote, to Mr. Feingold's 47 percent.
Mr. Feingold was caught in an avalanche that crushed Democrats nationwide. Apart from
capturing Mr. Feingold's seat, Republicans here made a clean sweep of state government,
winning the governor's office and control of both houses of the State Legislature. One poll
found that Mr. Obama's approval rating here had declined at a faster rate than in any other
state."
Re-read the second paragraph and then go back and read OW's comment. Because, impeachment
is forming along the same lines. Not one Republican vote of support in the House and likely
zero in the Senate (unless of course one believes the fantasy that Republicans are going to
toss one of the most successful Republican presidents ever.)
Most here, I suspect, believe that others share their view of the Republican party. That
it's become a pliant tool of something called 'Trumpism.' The opposite is true – Trump
has made peace with the Republican establishment. Neither side surrendered and contra the
fantasy above – all sides including Trump realize they're better together. Why? Because
the economy is booming and Republicans get to take credit for that, no new wars, better trade
deals – we saw from the Emerson poll where the public is on the environment and
impeachment. So, no Santa Mitch isn't going to do for Dems what the 25th, the insurance
policy, pee-dossier, and son-of-pee dossier didn't do either – which is magically undo
2010.
Dems still haven't recovered from 2010 and OW seems to be the only one who grasps that
much. Permitting 44 to turn over the Democratic party to the Clinton machine in 2015 made a
bad situation much worse. The same night that GOP bubble-heads and never-Trumpers were
whining about Trump losing big, and dragging down-ballot GOP candidates with him, the
opposite was occurring. Trump killed at the electoral college and his momentum helped sweep
Republicans to one of their best nights ever.
James Carville observed that night in 2016, Democrats haven't been this weak for more than
half-a-century. Some Democrats learned the lesson and ran on 'just fix the damn roads' in
2018 and won. Impeachment is very, very likely to do what the ACA did to Dems in 2010. Rather
than build on the hard-won victories of 2018, Democrats have decided to pursue a dead-end
policy doomed to failure which will galvanize the GOP base and drive independents months
before the election. Even a week ago, I wasn't sure whether Trump will be elected. I'm much,
much more certain now. I warned in 2017 of the opportunity costs of looking for silver stake
solutions to what OW and Carville correctly understand as bad policy, poor candidates,
identity politics, and bad messaging.
So, Russia? My guess is that after the stomping that may very well fall upon the Dems, we
might very well see real reform in the Democratic party, just as we have in the GOP. Trump's
GOP protects businesses, individuals, Americans, opportunity, and social security. And all
the bad shit that both parties always support. Dems need to figure out that Trump has stolen
their message and is on the way to stealing their base. If minorities turn out for Trump (the
GOP wet-dream) Dems are going to face a nightmare scenario. And 34 percent of
African-Americans currently support Trump.
James Carville observed that night in 2016, Democrats haven't been this weak for more
than half-a-century. Some Democrats learned the lesson and ran on 'just fix the damn roads'
in 2018 and won. Impeachment is very, very likely to do what the ACA did to Dems in
2010.
Rather than build on the hard-won victories of 2018, Democrats have decided to pursue a
dead-end policy doomed to failure which will galvanize the GOP base and drive independents
months before the election. Even a week ago, I wasn't sure whether Trump will be elected.
I'm much, much more certain now. I warned in 2017 of the opportunity costs of looking for
silver stake solutions to what OW and Carville correctly understand as bad policy, poor
candidates, identity politics, and bad messaging.
So, Russia? My guess is that after the stomping that may very well fall upon the Dems,
we might very well see real reform in the Democratic party, just as we have in the GOP.
Trump's GOP protects businesses, individuals, Americans, opportunity, and social security.
And all the bad shit that both parties always support. Dems need to figure out that Trump
has stolen their message and is on the way to stealing their base. If minorities turn out
for Trump (the GOP wet-dream) Dems are going to face a nightmare scenario. And 34 percent
of African-Americans currently support Trump.
That's a very apt observation with one reservation: one major factor in 2018 success was
Mueller investigation. Now there will be backlash against it, which favors Trump.
Moon of Alabama has a very interesting discussion of the Catch 22 style situation "Full of
Schiff" Dems found themselves with "Pelosi impeachment gambit": in no way they can allow
Senate trial, and they can't allow just a censure, or they lose the face (Schiff career is
probably over at this point in any case)
-- If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp,
which seems likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she
proceed?
-- If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
-- If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
-- If the House votes for censure Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue
will be over.
-- If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
-- It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
-- It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
A senate impeachment trial would be a disaster for the Dems as Joe & Hunter and Adam
Schiff get to testify under oath.
A censure means that Trump won on points and now can play victim in 2020 election.
Situation which he likes and exploiting which he is a great master (that's why he wants the
Senate trial). And which increases chances of his reelection. In the latter case that most
probably means the end of career (if not prosecution) for Vindman, Hill and other "accusers"
(Pelosi sacrificial pawns in this gambit)
My feeling is that Clinton democrats are doomed to be a failure in 2020. And that
Democratic Party needs to reform (which they failed to do after 2016 fiasco.)
For the Democrats to reform that need first to acknowledge that their alliance with Wall
Street is a dead end and that they need to try to serve as a vehicle for opposing the
absolute rule of capital. At a minimum they should be capable of acknowledging the conflict
that exists between the interests of capital and the rest of the population (Warren); and of
expressing a principled determination to take the side of the majority of the population in
this conflict.
"... and now Obama weighs in to warn against the real danger to the democrats, Bernie Sanders. that's who they have to beat, and Gabbard. They don't give much of a damn about beating Trump. ..."
"... This pretty much confirms my and many others here hypothesis that the Dems are fighting a "war on two fronts": one against Trump nationalist capitalism and the other against the "democratic socialists" who have been flocking to their party machine since 2014. ..."
"... Clearly, the goal is to prevent the US Polity from clawing back power from the 10% and enacting policies to their benefit. Meanwhile, a new form of Transnational Nationalism continues to take shape that will soon present a serious threat to the Financialized Globalizers and their Cult of Debt. Too many seem to laugh off the entire situation by dismissing it as Kabuki Theatre, which I see as self-serving and shortsighted since there're several very real crises we're in up to our collective armpits. ..."
"... A full blown impeachment trial that exposes the entire Russia-gate/Ukraine-gate/Whatever-gate sham is what this country needs. ..."
"... Bet the MSM sells Ukrainegate this way: Trump is guilty in Ukrainegate and should be impeached, but Democrats are moving on to focus on the election. And besides, Dems will tell us, the dastardly Republicans in the Senate will corruptly block Trump's impeachment. ..."
"... That is what they call a "trial balloon." If there isn't too much of a freakout among the true-believer base, and I don't think there is, it'll be an option they will at least take seriously. Not that I'm encouraging anyone to bet on rational thinking at this point. Anyway I agree it's the best move for congressional Democrats. ..."
"... I am liking all the commenters here that understand that there is only one empire party with two mythical faces. I think this kabuki is necessary if you don't have a major WAR to keep the masses focused on or otherwise distracted from the underlying R2P which I translate to Rape2Protect. ..."
"... If this show should teach people in the US anything (again), it is how both US parties descend like vultures onto countries where they manage to take over the government. Five billion poured into Ukraine with the requisite murder and mayhem, and who knows how many billions come pouring back out. It's a real jackpot for those in the right positions to scoop it into their pockets. ..."
"... The average people in the US don't even have a genuine safety net. Important for all those productive resources to go to pedophile islands and sinecures for coke head sons of politicians, obviously. ..."
"... The GOP is the party of the rich. The Democrats are the party the rich pay to keep the left at bay when the Republicans lose. ..."
"... the deck is stacked even more against independents than it is against actual mildly leftist candidates who run as democrats. there are a substantial number of people who think the only way to change the country is to take over the democratic party. frankly, that isn't going to happen, and nobody is going to win as an independent candidate with all the procedural rules making it so hard to even get on the ballot, while the state government, which is invariably controlled by one of the two parties, throws every roadblock, legal and illegal, in the way. my gut feeling is things are going to have to get quite a bit worse before the citizenry starts to explode, and there's no telling how that process will work out, and no way to control it once it reaches critical mass. ..."
"... the Democrats won't want to censure Trump for matters in which they themselves are equally complicit, as has been discussed here. ..."
"... "The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy." ..."
"... Trump is up against an entrenched powerful bureaucracy and people who buy ink by the 55 gallon barrel. The democrats need to take a hard turn towards Mayor Pete and Tulsi. The rank and file Democrats are tired of the elite political class ..."
"... The real Trump move would be to hit the twitter right before the house impeachment vote and announce that he has instructed the House Republicans to vote for impeachment. ..."
"... He could lay out his story about how the American People never got to hear the full story because of house dems, and how the Senate would fully investigate the 2016 election, Russiagate, Ukraine, and whatever else they want. Maybe even make Hillary testify. Heads would explode and his base would love it. ..."
"... To the people here clamoring for Bernie Sanders to go independent: The American electoral system is very unique. The two parties -- GOP and Dems -- are much more than mere political parties: they are the American electoral machine itself. It is impossible to win the presidency without being the candidate of one of the two, that's why Trump also didn't go as an independent either. ..."
"An impeachment trial in the Senate would be a disaster for the Democrats.
I can not see why the Democrats would want to fall into such a trap. House leader Nancy
Pelosi is experienced enough to not let that happen."
The real reason in my opinion that Pelosi went along with impeachment was that she saw
Bernies message getting through, and even though the DNC pushed all the conserva-dem
candidates they could into the race, Bernie is still doing well and gaining. An impeachment
trial would require Bernie to attend the hearings rather that campaigning. Also Wall Streets
best friend Obama has just stated that Bernie is not a Democrat and that would require Obama
to get on the speaking circuit to campaign against him - you know for the sake of the
corporations - and those 500k speaking thank you gigs. They would rather elect Trump than
Bernie - that is why I think Pelosi would go along with an impeachment trial in the Senate -
Bernie is the greater threat.
The idea to censure Trump and move on has been aired since mid 2017. The latest was
Forbes.com billwhalen 26 September 2019
Link
I ordered a truckload of pop corn to snack on during the trial in the Senate. Just imagine
Joe Biden under cross examination as he flips 'n flops! "Was that me in the Video, I can't
recall."
With interest (even among Democrats) in the impeachment process sliding, the House
Judiciary Committee is set to take over the impeachment probe of President Trump next week,
scheduling a Dec. 4 hearing.
As The Hill reports, behind Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the committee
will hear from legal scholars as Democrats weigh whether the evidence turned up in their
weeks-long impeachment inquiry warrants the drafting of articles aimed at removing the
president from office.
The hearing, scheduled for next Wednesday, will focus on the definition of an
impeachable offense and the formal application of the impeachment process. The panel
will invite White House lawyers to attend and participate.
Ahead of the hearing, Nadler wrote to Trump requesting his participation - or
that of White House counsel - as part of ensuring "a fair and informative process."[.]
Trump will take a page from the other president who campaigned on the "do nothing
congress"
and now Obama weighs in to warn against the real danger to the democrats, Bernie Sanders.
that's who they have to beat, and Gabbard. They don't give much of a damn about beating
Trump.
b, there seems to be a critical flaw in your analysis--you seem to base it on a premise that
the goal of the Democratic establishment is to win elections/gain power/govern. It's not,
it's to ensure the continuing enrichment of themselves and their oligarch peers, financial
industry, military, pharma, etc.
The question people like Pelosi (worth $100 million or so btw along with her husband whose
business she enriches via her position) are pondering isn't "Will doing x, y, z help Trump
win?" It's "Will doing x, y, z ensure Bernie Sanders doesn't win?"
This pretty much confirms my and many others here hypothesis that the Dems are
fighting a "war on two fronts": one against Trump nationalist capitalism and the other
against the "democratic socialists" who have been flocking to their party machine since
2014.
Of all the things that the Democrats could impeach President Trump over, the one thing they
seized upon was the issue that had the most potential to blow back on them and destroy Joe
Biden's chances of reaching the White House. Whoever had that brilliant idea and put it as
the long straw in a cylindrical prawn-chip can along with all the other straws for pulling
out, sure didn't think of all the consequences that could have arisen. That speaks for the
depth (or lack thereof) of the thinking among senior Democrats and their worker bee analysts,
along with a narrow-minded outlook, sheer hatred of a political outsider and a fanatical zeal
to match that hatred and outlook.
The folks who hatched that particular impeachment plan and pitched it to Nancy Pelosi must
have been the same idiots in the DNC who dreamt up the Russiagate scandal and also pursued
Paul Manafort to get him off DJT's election campaign team. Dmitri Alperovich / Crowdstrike,
Alexandra Chalupa: we're looking at you.
Impeachment takes Sanders out of the campaign and that opens things up for the
CIA/establishment's "Identity Politics Candidate #3" , Mayor Butt-gig.
That said, since "Everyone who doesn't vote for our candidate is a deplorable
misogynist!" didn't work as expected, I wonder what makes them think "Everyone who
doesn't vote for our candidate is a deplorable homophobe!" will work any better?
Lots of agreement here with the overall situation becoming clearer with Bloomberg's entrance
and the outing of Obama's plans. I just finished writing my response to Putin's speech before the annual
United Russia Party Congress on the Open Thread and suggest barflies take 10 minutes to
read it and compare what he espouses a political party's deeds & goals ought to be versus
those of the West and its vassals.
Clearly, the goal is to prevent the US Polity from clawing back power from the 10% and
enacting policies to their benefit. Meanwhile, a new form of Transnational Nationalism
continues to take shape that will soon present a serious threat to the Financialized
Globalizers and their Cult of Debt. Too many seem to laugh off the entire situation by
dismissing it as Kabuki Theatre, which I see as self-serving and shortsighted since there're
several very real crises we're in up to our collective armpits.
A full blown impeachment trial that exposes the entire
Russia-gate/Ukraine-gate/Whatever-gate sham is what this country needs.
Obviously, a sufficient number of secure Republican representatives are needed to vote in
favor of impeachment to allow this circus to continue to its bizarrely entertaining,
Democratic Party destroying end.
The MSM will declare Trump guilty - that is, he has earned impeachment for Ukrainegate.
There are Democrats still under the illusion that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the
election. Dems tell us that Trump *obstructed* the Mueller investigation thus Trump could not
be nailed, nonetheless Trump is guilty of collusion until proven innocent.
Back to Ukrainegate. Bet the MSM sells Ukrainegate this way: Trump is guilty in
Ukrainegate and should be impeached, but Democrats are moving on to focus on the election.
And besides, Dems will tell us, the dastardly Republicans in the Senate will corruptly block
Trump's impeachment.
Tulsi
Gabbard Tweet not specifically about impeachment but begs numerous questions:
"My personal commitment is to always treat you and all Americans with respect. Working
side-by-side, we can defeat the divisiveness of Donald Trump, and usher in a 21st century of
peace, human dignity, & true equality. Working side by side, we can make Dr. King's dream
our reality ." [My Emphasis]
Questions: Is Trump divisive, or is it the D-Party and Current Oligarchy that make him so;
and which is more important to defeat? Which party "usher[ed] in the 21st century" with
several wars and abetted the next two? How did Obama, Slick Willie or his wife advance "human
dignity & true equality"? How does her last sentence differ from "Hope you can believe
in"? Hasn't her D-Party worked tirelessly for decades to circumvent the goals she espouses?
Wouldn't Gabbard have a better chance running as an Enlightened Republican than as a Renegade
Democrat if her goal's to defeat Trump?
American Democracy is political professional wrestling, Kabuki Theater, and mediocre Reality
TV all rolled into. by: AK74 @ 4 <= binary divide <=conducted by the USA, is not about
America, Americans or making America great again, its about the welfare of [the few<=
which most Americans would not call fellow Americans].
Sasha.@ 23 I don't understand where you are coming from.. thank Korlof1 @18 for posting
that Putin talk alert. excerpts from the talk.. => The priority [of United Russia has
been] the protection of the people's interests, the interests of [the] Motherland, and
..responsible [approach] to ..country, its security, stability and people's lives in the
long-term perspective.
The party.. offered a unifying agenda based on freedom and well being, patriotism,
..traditional values, a strong civil society and a strong state. The key issue in the party's
work .being together with the people, Karlof1@18 <=this talk suggest change in Russian
leadership that are not congruent with your [Sasha] comment @23. I hope you will make more
clear what you spent sometime writing ( and for that effort I thank you) but it is not yet
clear what you mean.. .
Re: Brenda Lawrence talking about censure rather than impeachment:
That is what they call a "trial balloon." If there isn't too much of a freakout among
the true-believer base, and I don't think there is, it'll be an option they will at least
take seriously. Not that I'm encouraging anyone to bet on rational thinking at this point.
Anyway I agree it's the best move for congressional Democrats.
Yet another other option is to continue the investigation indefinitely. I'm going to say
it is their default move actually. In that case, the House Judiciary Committee would spend a
few weeks putting on their own show, then say they would like more evidence to be really
sure, returning matters to the House Intelligence Committee, and we repeat the cycle.
I am liking all the commenters here that understand that there is only one empire party
with two mythical faces. I think this kabuki is necessary if you don't have a major WAR to
keep the masses focused on or otherwise distracted from the underlying R2P which I translate
to Rape2Protect.
It is sad to see us all talking about which of the lesser of horrible evils will continue
the leadership of American faced empire.....I hope it crashes soon and takes the global elite
down with it.....how many barflies are ready to stand up and say NO to the owners of the
Super-Priority derivatives that will say they own the world because of their casino (no skin
in the game) bets that are currently "legal" in America when the crash comes?
American "Democracy" is a mask for the American Empire and its capitalist
system--including especially the American Military and its Intelligence apparatus (aka The
Deep State). If the American people don't identify with these institutions, you would see
much greater hostility to -- if not outright rebellion against--the American military and
spooks.
Instead, you see the very opposite: the American people saluting, glorifying, "thanking
for their service," and politically fellating the US military and spy agencies every chance
they get. That should tell you all you need to know about Americans.
If this show should teach people in the US anything (again), it is how both US parties
descend like vultures onto countries where they manage to take over the government. Five
billion poured into Ukraine with the requisite murder and mayhem, and who knows how many
billions come pouring back out. It's a real jackpot for those in the right positions to scoop
it into their pockets.
The average people in the US don't even have a genuine safety net. Important for all
those productive resources to go to pedophile islands and sinecures for coke head sons of
politicians, obviously.
Re: #3 Allen – well said. The GOP is the party of the rich. The Democrats are the
party the rich pay to keep the left at bay when the Republicans lose.
The problem with this prediction is that the MSM has been breathlessly pronouncing that THIS
IS EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE!!!! pretty much every day and after every witness testimony.
So if you are a member of the public who gets their "information" from the MSM (and, be
honest, that is most of the people in the USA) then you have been force-fed is that Trumps
defense against these allegations has already been shredded, and that his guilt has already
been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
How can those opinion-makers then turn around and say "Nah, it'll be fine" and settle for
a mere censure?
Wouldn't the Sheeple respond with a fully-justified "Hey, hang on! What gives?"
The Democrats has leapt on a Tiger. Nobody made them do it, but now they are there I don't
think they are going to be able to leap off.
Some of the first-term nobodies, maybe, but not the Schiffs and the Pelopis and the
Nadlers.
Hang on for dear life and hope for a miracle is probably their only option now.
And, who knows, that trio may be so incompetent that they actually think they are going to
win.
james, the deck is stacked even more against independents than it is against actual
mildly leftist candidates who run as democrats. there are a substantial number of people who
think the only way to change the country is to take over the democratic party. frankly, that
isn't going to happen, and nobody is going to win as an independent candidate with all the
procedural rules making it so hard to even get on the ballot, while the state government,
which is invariably controlled by one of the two parties, throws every roadblock, legal and
illegal, in the way. my gut feeling is things are going to have to get quite a bit worse
before the citizenry starts to explode, and there's no telling how that process will work
out, and no way to control it once it reaches critical mass.
The US is a one party State-- Pepsi _Pepsi Lite. Both parties are capitalist. It is rather
humorous the attention paid to a Dim vs Repug argument. Small thinking for small minds---
As I posted at the beginning of the impeachment process, the Dems would be foolish to hang it
all on the arcane shenanigans in Ukraine but rather should impeach Trump on the numerous more
serious breaches and crimes that he has committed. I also worried that the Democratic Party
leaders would blow the opportunity to demonstrate that Trump and the Republican Party are
rotten to the core and harmful to the country. And so they have blown it. What an inept pack
of asses.
I would think that even censure is still going to be a hot potato for the Democrats. Looking
at the procedure as far as wikipedia describes it, it hasn't done anything of significance
when it comes to being used against a president, especially as the Democrats won't want
to censure Trump for matters in which they themselves are equally complicit, as has been
discussed here.
That means they would be censuring on the same shaky grounds that they would have
impeached him, which only prolongs attention upon the dubious claims of the indictment. It
seems to me Trump will, rather than be shamed by the process, only be saying 'Make my day',
and hopefully have his Attorney General come forward with exonerating revelations on that
issue in the judicial proceeding that it was my contention the impeachment effort had been a
last ditch one to forestall such.
Wishful thinking on that, I know - but at least that probe has merit.
Thanks for your reply! And thanks for linking the Keen video! Made a comment on that
thread.
As I wrote when the possibility of Trump's impeachment arose almost as soon as he was
inaugurated, the entire charade reminds me of Slick Willie's impeachment, trial and
exoneration--the Articles of Impeachment utilized were such that he'd avoid conviction just
as they will be for Trump.
Allen @ 3 said; "The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist
to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly
bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential
service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere
existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and
this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a
"democracy."
With very few exceptions, you nailed it..Your description of the Dem. party is sad, but
true.....
Not having much time to watch the show trial it appears to me the Democrats still have a set
of very weak candidates. Anyone who knows Biden knows he in not now and never will be able to
handle a campaign against Trump.
Trump is up against an entrenched powerful bureaucracy and people who buy ink by the
55 gallon barrel. The democrats need to take a hard turn towards Mayor Pete and Tulsi. The
rank and file Democrats are tired of the elite political class in the same fashion that
the rank and file Republicans were tired of the political establishment which caused then to
turn to Trump.
Is the Democrat political establishment smart enough to take a few steps back and push
forward some outsiders? I doubt that but they would not lose much if they did. Any new
leaders would have the same stable of bureaucrats to pick from which will still be there long
after they are gone.
The real Trump move would be to hit the twitter right before the house impeachment vote
and announce that he has instructed the House Republicans to vote for impeachment.
He could lay out his story about how the American People never got to hear the full
story because of house dems, and how the Senate would fully investigate the 2016 election,
Russiagate, Ukraine, and whatever else they want. Maybe even make Hillary testify. Heads
would explode and his base would love it.
The...***The***...core takeaway, the battle at the heart of Russiagate/Ukrainegate, is that
it does not matter who the People elect as President and what platform he was elected on the
Deep State will decide foreign policy.
democrats republicans makes no difference both teams are managed by self serving scum who
refuse to allow "what the people want" to distract them from the big one. "what can I
steal?".
People meed to appreciate two things about both the dems and the rethugs. The first is
they supply a much-needed insight into: "How low can I go as a worthless hang off the wagon
by me fingernails, careerist. The second? That every hack must understand that eventually
every talking head is seen for the ugly sellout which they are.
There is no 'honourable way through this mess', one either quietly resigns pulling the pin
on the worst of us all, or one accepts the previously unacceptable, that we are most likely
both musically n functionally illiterate but it never matters what-u-say, what really counts
is what you do.
Whoever it was the Democrats should shun that person before it creates more damage to
their party.
I would disagree here. If the Democrats continue they will destroy themselves hopefully
leading to Mutually Assured Destruction as they would need to do something very drastic to
destroy the Republicans in return e.g. expose 9/11, Iraq etc, let the swamp / Deep State go
M.A.D. and from the political ashes parties and politicians can rise who are actually working
for the betterment of the USA and its people.
To the people here clamoring for Bernie Sanders to go independent: The American
electoral system is very unique. The two parties -- GOP and Dems -- are much more than mere
political parties: they are the American electoral machine itself. It is impossible to win
the presidency without being the candidate of one of the two, that's why Trump also didn't go
as an independent either.
Bernie Sanders is different from all other independent presidential candidates in American
History because he was the first to really want to win. That's why he penetrated the
Democratic machine, even though he became senator many times as an independent. He read the
conjuncture correctly and, you have to agree, he's been more influential over American
political-ideological landscape than all the other independents put together (not considering
Eugene Debs as an independent).
American "Democracy" is a mask for the American Empire and its capitalist
system--including especially the American Military and its Intelligence apparatus (aka The
Deep State). If the American people don't identify with these institutions, you would see
much greater hostility to--if not outright rebellion against--the American military and
spooks.
Instead, you see the very opposite: the American people saluting, glorifying, "thanking
for their service," and politically fellating the US military and spy agencies every chance
they get.
That should tell you all you need to know about Americans. by: AK74 @ 34
<= No not yet do I agree with you.. The American young people are forced into the
military in order to afford to be educated, and in order to have access to health care and
good-level workforce entry jobs especially the military is default for children of struggling
parents that cannot fund a college education or for the kids who are not yet ready to become
serious students.
The USA has not always discounted America or denied Americans. When I grew up, a college
education was very affordable, health care was available to even the most needy at whatever
they could afford, most of us could work our way through the education and find decent entry
level jobs if we were willing to dedicate ourselves to make the opportunity of a job into a
success (education, degrees, licenses were not needed, just performance was enough).
Unfortunately third party private mind control propaganda was used to extend into fake space,
the belief that the USA provides a valuable service to American interest. As time went on,
the USA had to hid its activities in top secret closets, it then had to learn to spy on
everyone, and it had to prosecute those (whistle blowers) who raised a question. Hence the
predicament of the awaken American dealing with friends that still believe the USA is good
for America.. Others hope the good times will return but the USA tolerance for descent is
dissipating. After the 16th amendment and the federal reserve act in 1913 the USA began to
edge America out in favor of international globalization.
Most of the really important parts of what made the USA great for Americans has been sold
off [privatized] and the protections and umpiring and refereeing that the USA used to provide
to keep the American economic space highly competitive and freely accessible to all
competitors has not only ceased, but now operates as a monopoly factory, churning out laws,
rules and establishing agencies that make the wealthy and their corporate empires wealthier,
richer and more monopolistic at the expense of everyday Americans.
The USA began to drop America from its sights after WWII. The USA moved its efforts and
activities from American domestic concerns to global concerns in 1948, neglected its advance
and protect American ideology; it imposed the continental shelf act in 1954 and the EPA act
in 1972, in order to force American industry out of America (the oil business to Saudi Arabia
and OPEC); by 1985-95 most businesses operating in America were either forced to close or
forced to move to a cheap third world labor force places.. .<=the purpose is now clear, it
was to separate Americans from their industrial and manufacturing know-how and to block
American access to evolving technology . At first most Americans did not notice.
Many Americans are only now waking to the possibility that things topside have changed and
some are realizing just how vulnerable the US constitution has made the USA to outside
influence. .. thanks to the USA very little of good ole America remains. but the humanity
first instinct most Americans are born with remains mostly unchanged, even though the
globalist have decimated religious organizations, most Americans still believe their maker
will not look favorably on those who deny justice, democracy or who abuse mankind. The USA
has moved on, it has become a global empire, operating in a global space unknown to most
Americans. The USA has created a world of its own, it no longer needs domestic America, it
can use the people and resources of anyone anywhere in the world for its conquest.
The last two political campaigns for President were "Change=Obama" and "Make America Great
Again=Trump"; neither of these two would have succeeded if Americans did not feel the
problem.
The live TV impeachment inquiry circus is for now over. The procedural parts are ready to
begin. Both sides, the Republicans and Democrats, will have to decide which tactical moves they
will now make.
Adam Schiff, who presided over the investigative part,
wrote to his colleagues that he wants to immediately move forward:
As required under House Resolution 660, the Committees are now preparing a report summarizing
the evidence we have found this far, which will be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee
soon after Congress returns from the Thanksgiving recess .
...
Chairman Nadler and the Members and staff of the Judiciary Committee will proceed in the next
phase of the impeachment inquiry.
Nadler will write up articles of impeachment which will be referred to the whole House to
vote on them. No Republican is likely to vote for impeaching Trump. It would be political
suicide to do so. The Democrats have 233 Representatives and need 218 votes for a majority
decision. They can afford a few abstentions but not too many.
At least one House Democrat, Brenda Lawrence from the swing state Michigan,
has said that she will no longer support impeachment but that she prefers to censure the
president instead of impeaching him. A censure is a formal
reprimand by a majority vote that has no further consequences.
More are likely to follow that path as several recent polls show that impeachment is
no longer en vogue :
The latest national poll from Emerson College finds 45 percent oppose impeaching President
Trump, against 43 percent who support it. That's a 6-point swing in support from October,
when 48 percent of voters supported impeachment and only 44 percent opposed.
More importantly, the poll shows more independents now oppose impeachment than support it,
a significant change from Emerson's polling in October. The new poll found 49 percent oppose
impeachment compared to 34 percent who support it. In October, 48 percent of independents
polled supported impeachment, against 39 percent who opposed.
Since October, Emerson has found Trump's job approval rating jump by 5 points, from 43
percent to 48 percent.
This is the second poll this week to show voters are increasingly likely to oppose
impeachment, ..
Even Democrats
are losing interest in the issue. There is also this curious issue:
CNN Poll: There is a *forty* point gender gap with regards to impeaching and removing
Trump.
Men oppose impeachment 40-53 while women favor it 61-34.
That's a pretty stunning contrast.
If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp, which seems
likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she proceed?
If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
If the House votes for censure Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue will be
over.
If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
Should the House vote for impeachment the Senate is likely to go the second path.
During impeachment
the whole Senate sits as the High Court. The House of Representatives sends 'managers' who act
as prosecutors. The chief justice of the U.S. presides. A vote for impeachment at the end of
the trial requires a two-third majority.
The Republican majority in the Senate could use such a trial to bring disarray into the
Democrats' primary. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar
and Michael Bennet are all senators and Democratic primary candidates. They would probably have
to stop campaigning to attend the trials. Another leading Democratic candidate would be a top
witness.
The Republican senators would immediately call up a number of people for questioning. These
would include Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, his business partner Devon Archer, John Kerry who was
Secretary of State when Biden intervened for Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky and of course the
CIA spy and (not-)whistleblower Erik Ciaramella. It would also be of interest to hear how deep
the former CIA director John Brennan was involved in the issue.
The Senators could use the impeachment trial to dig into all the crimes the Democrats under
Obama committed in Ukraine. They would concentrate not on the Maidan coup but on the aftermath
when the deals were made. There surely is a lot of dirt out there and it is not only Joe
Biden's.
Then there is Russiagate. Did the Obama administration use illegal means to spy on the Trump
campaign? As the issue is related to whatever Trump did there is good reason to include it into
the trial.
The circus the Senate would open if the House votes for impeachment would play for many many
months. The media would be full of this or that crime some Democrat or deep state actor
supposedly committed. All this would play out during the election season.
An impeachment trial in the Senate would be a disaster for the Democrats.
I can not see why the Democrats would want to fall into such a trap. House leader Nancy
Pelosi is experienced enough to not let that happen. But she will have to do some serious
talking to convince the party that a vote on impeachment is not the best way to proceed.
The only sensible alternative is to censure Trump and that is why it is likely the way Nancy
Pelosi will want to go. A partisan vote to censure Trump will do no damage to him but the
Democrats would have at least done 'something' - even if it was only gesturing.
The whole impeachment show did little damage to Trump. His approval numbers are still fine.
The show has given Trump another chance to run as the underdog who will drain the swamp in
Washington DC. A major Democratic candidate is now damaged goods. Joe Biden no longer has any
chance to win the presidency and it would be astonishing if he survives the primaries. The U.S.
relations with the Ukraine have also been seriously damaged.
All this
was easily predictable two months ago when the Democrats launched their impeachment
show:
Instead of running on policy issues the Democrats will (again) try to find vague dirt with
which they can tarnish Trump. This is a huge political mistake. It will help Trump to win his
reelection.
After two years of falsely accusing Trump of having colluded with Russia they now allege
that he colludes with Ukraine. That will make it much more difficult for the Democrats to
hide the dirty hands they had in creating Russiagate. Their currently preferred candidate Joe
Biden will get damaged.
...
The Democrats are giving Trump the best campaign aid he could have wished for. Trump will
again present himself as the victim of a witch hunt. He will again argue that he is the only
one on the side of the people. That he alone stands with them against the bad politicians in
Washington DC. Millions will believe him and support him on this. It will motivate them to
vote for him.
The Democrats should ask themselves how they put themselves into the current situation. Who
was the genius who came up with the (not-)whistleblower idea and pushed for the move. The
shallow-brained Adam Schiff? The devious John Brennan?
Whoever it was the Democrats should shun that person before it creates more damage to their
party.
Clandestine actions by former US presidents to further their agenda have taken place in the
past from time to time. Many never came to light while others were revealed or unearthed well
after the events. The most questionable and controversial one took place during the Ronald
Reagan presidency. It related to what became known as the Iran Contra Affair. It seems to have
been directly conducted from the White House under the aegis of the President. In the
Iran-Contra affair, the Reagan administration secretly sold weapons to Iran to bring about the
release of American hostages held in Lebanon. Money from the Iran weapons-sale was then used to
fund the Contras, a group of guerrilla "freedom fighters" opposed to the Marxist government of
Nicaragua. Col. Oliver North who met President Reagan on several occasions was chosen to carry
out the negotiations. It was also known in Iran as the McFarlane Affair. Oliver North was
indicted on sixteen charges in the Iran–Contra affair and found guilty of three -- aiding
and abetting obstruction of Congress, shredding or altering official documents and accepting a
gratuity. His convictions were later overturned on the grounds that his immunized testimony had
tainted his trial.
The most glaring omission in the impeachment trial on the part of Nancy Pelosi and the House
democrats was not to have discussed the Vice President Biden and his son's dealings in Ukraine
thoroughly prior to commencement of the impeachment hearings, in closed-door discussions if
they felt that was necessary. Had they done so many questions that should have been thrashed
threadbare might either not have arisen or if they arose they would have done their home work
in advance and would have had answers ready. It was not the case. Vice President Biden was
heading to become the leading democrat contender to take on Trump in the forthcoming 2020
elections. His chances were considered bright. Due diligence required that the former Vice
President's and his son's involvement that many today would term questionable be thoroughly
gone into by face-to-face interactions. Should doubts have arisen they might have decided to
delay the impeachment hearings till all matters had been clarified to their satisfaction.
It is only a matter of time that Republican senators in the House bring it up as the
hearings proceed. Or they might decide to turn the tables decisively in the Senate when the
time came were the matter to reach the Senate. So far from what is known the Trump quid pro quo
was related to the Ukrainian government investigating the Biden father and son's dealings. In
recent weeks, Trump has relentlessly mocked Hunter Biden, to the point that his presidential
campaign began selling shirts that say, "Where's Hunter?" highlighting that the former vice
president's son had been out of the public spotlight for weeks. At a recent political rally,
Trump noted that Hunter Biden had been thrown out of the Navy. Hunter Biden was discharged from
the Navy Reserve in 2014 after failing a drug test and has struggled with alcohol and drug
abuse. He told ABC News that, "like every single person that I've ever known, I have fallen and
I've gotten up."
The House Democrats should realize that were the hearings to go deeper towards indicting
Trump the tables might be turned on them. Were Mr. Biden to become or have become the Democrat
presidential nominee sooner or later the people, the media and even representatives on the
Capitol Hill would have raised the question as to whether former Vice President's dealings in
Ukraine were questionable or not as these had started directly or by proxy while he was still
in government. Further, was the involvement so deep that were he to ascend to the White House
the Ukrainian government would be in a position to demand quid pro quo from time to
time.
According to the US Census there are 3031 counties in the US.
If we redirected the $3.8 billion plus the 500,000,000 for missile defense that we give
Israel to US counties budgets each county would receive about
$ 1.3 million.
If we included the $1.2 billion each we give to Egypt and Jordon for signing the Carter
peace treaty with Israel that figure increases to $2.3 million for each county.
While $2.3 million may be a small figure for counties with metro cities, it would be a
large amount for the majority of counties across the nation.
Since aid to Israel alone accounts for 50% of US foreign aid who would oppose this re
direct of taxpayers money...besides the politicians...and how would the politicians explain
their opposition to the districts they supposedly represent?
"... As Mark Hemingway wrote for The Federalist, these people were mortified by the fact that Trump administration policy was made by Trump. In the words of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, Trump's Ukraine policy was "inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency" -- that is, the interagency process of which Vindman was a part. Yet as Hemingway added tartly, "Nobody elects an 'interagency consensus.'" ..."
"... The Washington Examiner ..."
"... Vindman's perspective "is a classic bureaucrat's view of government and the world." York then added, speaking of the fabled interagency process: ..."
"... okay, having heard these second- and third-hand allegations, I now agree we should impeach Trump. ..."
Still, it is possible to look back at the hearings and assess what went wrong for Team
Impeach. In a nutshell, House Democrats gambled that a procession of witnesses, most of them
careerists -- or, if one prefers, foreign service and military officers, yet still careerists
-- would deliver a knockout blow to Trump. Yet what emerged from their testimony was that,
well, they were bureaucrats .
As Mark
Hemingway wrote for The Federalist, these people were mortified by the fact that Trump
administration policy was made by Trump. In the words of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman,
Trump's Ukraine policy was "inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency" -- that
is, the interagency process of which Vindman was a part. Yet as Hemingway added tartly, "Nobody
elects an 'interagency consensus.'"
Indeed, as Byron
York of The Washington Examiner pointed out, Vindman's perspective "is a classic
bureaucrat's view of government and the world." York then added, speaking of the fabled
interagency process:
Needless to say, Trump does not do that sort of thing. The president is remarkably
freewheeling, unbureaucratic, and certainly not always consistent when it comes to making
policy. But he generally has a big goal in mind, and in any event, he is the president of the
United States. He, not the interagency, sets U.S. foreign policy.
In the words of Harry Truman, "The buck stops here ." Here, that is, at the desk of
the commander-in-chief, not in the cubicles of bureaucratic functionaries.
So now we begin to see how the Democrats made their mistake. Having gotten their inspiration
in the first place from that Deep State whistleblower, they then assumed they could carry on
their "investigation," relying on still more Deep Statists. But these individuals don't
typically make for good witnesses -- at least up to the level of convincing people to think,
okay, having heard these second- and third-hand allegations, I now agree we should impeach
Trump.
On November 25, Congressman Matt Gaetz poured
acid on the political effectiveness of the Democrats' chosen witnesses:
In the State Department people think there's only one way to do things. That they have to
do it through their precise diplomatic channels & only in the way they all learned going
to the same schools & working at the same think tanks.
Thus we can see a wide cleft here, between the delicate and precise culture of the
bureaucracy and the churning and heaving culture of the anti-bureaucracy, led by you-know-who.
For their part, the Democrats made the mistake of siding with the bureaucrats -- and when was
the last time a bureaucrat won an election, to say nothing of a national election?
In fact, if we peer down into that wide cleft, between bureaucratic super-ego and
presidential id, we see something even deeper than the Deep State -- we see the fundamental
workings of the human brain.
... ... ...
So lotsa luck, Democrats, if you pass impeachment in the House. That Senate trial, dominated
by Trumpy right-brained Republicans, won't be in the least bit woke, but it sure will be
lit.
James P. Pinkerton is a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a regular panelist on the
Fox "News Watch" show, the highest-rated media-critique show on television. He is a former
columnist for Newsday, and is the editor of SeriousMedicineStrategy.org. He has written for
publications ranging from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post,
The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, The New Republic, Foreign Affairs, Fortune,
The Huffington Post , and The Jerusalem Post . He is the author of What Comes
Next: The End of Big Government--and the New Paradigm Ahead (Hyperion: 1995). He worked in
the White House domestic policy offices of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and in
the 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992 presidential campaigns. In 2008 he served as a senior adviser to
the Mike Huckabee for President Campaign. Married to the former Elizabeth Dial, he is a
graduate of Stanford University.
"... Authored by John Solomon via JohnSolomonReports.com, ..."
"... Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine's new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship
with oligarchs and other key figures. ..."
"... State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. ..."
"... The transcripts of Joe Biden's phone calls and meetings with Ukraine's president and prime minister from April 2014 to January
2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine. ..."
"... All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department's foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue a joint
project with Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All cables, memos and documents showing State Department's dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016.
..."
"... All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden's office
concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. ..."
"... All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy's request in spring 2019 to monitor the social media
activities and analytics of certain U.S. media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. ..."
"... All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence on
the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine's ambassador to Washington or efforts to publicize
allegations against Paul Manafort. ..."
"... All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa
and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures. ..."
There are still wide swaths of documentation kept under wraps inside government agencies like the State Department that could
substantially alter the public's understanding of what has happened in the U.S.-Ukraine relationships now at the heart of the impeachment
probe.
As House Democrats mull whether to pursue impeachment articles and the GOP-led Senate braces for a possible trial, here are 12
tranches of government documents that could benefit the public if President Trump ordered them released, and the questions these
memos might answer.
Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine's new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship
with oligarchs and other key figures. What was the CIA, FBI and U.S. Treasury Department telling Trump and other agencies
about Zelensky's ties to oligarchs like Igor Kolomoisky, the former head of Privatbank, and any concerns the International Monetary
Fund might have? Did any of these concerns reach the president's daily brief (PDB) or come up in the debate around resolving Ukraine
corruption and U.S. foreign aid?
CNBC ,
Reuters and
The Wall Street
Journal all have done recent reporting suggesting there might have been intelligence and IMF concerns that have not been fully
considered during the impeachment proceedings.
State Department memos detailing conversations between former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and former Ukrainian Prosecutor
General Yuriy Lutsenko . He says Yovanovitch raised the names of Ukrainians she did not want to see prosecuted during their first
meeting in 2016. She calls Lutsenko's account fiction. But State Department officials admit the U.S. embassy in Kiev did pressure
Ukrainian prosecutors not to target certain activists. Are there contemporaneous State Department memos detailing these conversations
and might they illuminate the dispute between Lutsenko and Yovanovitch that has become key to the impeachment hearings?
State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre.
There is documentary evidence that State provided funding to this group, that Ukrainian prosecutor sought to investigate whether
that aid was spent properly and that the U.S. embassy pressured Ukraine to stand down on that investigation. How much total did
State give to this group? Why was a federal agency giving money to a Soros-backed group? What did taxpayers get for their money
and were they any audits to ensure the money was spent properly? Were any of Ukrainian prosecutors' concerns legitimate?
The transcripts of Joe Biden's phone calls and meetings with Ukraine's president and prime minister from April 2014 to
January 2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. Did Burisma or Hunter Biden
ever come up in the calls? What did Biden say when he urged Ukraine to fire the prosecutor overseeing an investigation of Burisma?
Did any Ukrainian officials ever comment on Hunter Biden's role at the company? Was any official assessment done by U.S. agencies
to justify Biden's threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid if Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin wasn't fired?
All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine.
The U.S. government's main whistleblower office
is investigating allegations from a U.S Energy Department worker of possible wrongdoing in U.S.-supported Ukrainian energy
business. Who benefited in the United States and Ukraine from this alleged activity? Did Burisma gain any benefits from the conduct
described by the whistleblower?
OSC has concluded there is a "substantial likelihood of wrongdoing" involved in these activities.
All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings.
What did the U.S. know about allegations of corruption at the Ukrainian gas company and the efforts by the Ukrainian prosecutors
to investigate? Did U.S., Latvian, Cypriot or European financial authorities flag any suspicious transactions involving Burisma
or Americans during the time that Hunter Biden served on its board? Were any U.S. agencies monitoring, assisting or blocking the
various investigations? When Ukraine reopened the Burisma investigations in March 2019, what did U.S. officials do?
All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department's foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue
a joint project with Burisma Holdings. State official
George Kent has testified he stopped this joint project because of concerns about Burisma's corruption reputation. Did Hunter
Biden or his American business partner Devon Archer have anything to do with seeking the project? What caused its abrupt end?
What issues did Kent identify as concerns and who did he alert in the White House, State or other agencies?
All cables, memos and documents showing State Department's dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016.
We now know that Ukrainian authorities escalated their investigation of Burisma Holdings in February 2016 by raiding the home
of the company's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Soon after, Burisma's American representatives
were pressing the State Department to help end the corruption allegations against the gas firm, specifically invoking Hunter
Biden's name. What did State officials do after being pressured by Burisma? Did the U.S. embassy in Kiev assist Burisma's efforts
to settle the corruption case against it? Who else in the U.S. government was being kept apprised?
All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden's office
concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. We now know that multiple State Department
officials believed Hunter Biden's association with Burisma created the appearance of a conflict of interest for the vice president,
and at least one official tried to contact Joe Biden's office to raise those concerns. What, if anything, did these Cabinet agencies
tell Joe Biden's office about the appearance concerns or the state of the various Ukrainian investigations into Burisma?
All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy's request in spring 2019 to monitor the social
media activities and analytics of certain U.S. media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. Did any such
monitoring occur? Was it requested by the American embassy in Kiev? Who ordered it? Why did it stop? Were any legal concerns raised?
All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence
on the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine's ambassador to Washington or efforts
to publicize allegations against Paul Manafort. What did U.S. officials know about these efforts in 2016, and how did they
react? What were these federal agencies' reactions to a Ukrainian court decision in December 2018 suggesting some Ukrainian officials
had improperly meddled in the 2016 election?
All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra
Chalupa and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures. Did anyone in these U.S. government
agencies interview or have contact with Chalupa during the time the Ukraine embassy in Washington says she was seeking dirt in
2016 on Trump and Manafort?
"... 38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another 31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night. Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to scale back U.S. involvement overall. ..."
"... The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more support for negotiations and non-intervention: ..."
"... With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons ..."
"... There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they want. It is long past time that Washington started listening. ..."
he Eurasia Group Foundation's new survey of public
opinion on U.S. foreign policy finds that support for greater restraint continues to rise:
Americans favor a less aggressive foreign policy. The findings are consistent across a
number of foreign policy issues, and across generations and party lines.
The 2019 survey results show that most Americans support a more restrained foreign policy,
and it also shows an increase in that support since last year. There is very little support for
continuing the war in Afghanistan indefinitely, there is virtually no appetite for war with
Iran, and there is a decline in support for a hawkish sort of American exceptionalism. There is
still very little support for unilateral U.S. intervention for ostensibly humanitarian reasons,
and support for non-intervention has increased slightly:
In 2018, 45 percent of Americans chose restraint as their first choice. In 2019, that has
increased to 47 percent. Only 19 percent opt for a U.S.-led military response and 34 percent
favor a multilateral, UN-led approach to stop humanitarian abuses overseas.
38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another
31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of
Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that
there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night.
Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to
scale back U.S. involvement overall.
The report's working definition of American exceptionalism is a useful one: "American
exceptionalism is the belief that the foreign policy of the United States should be
unconstrained by the parochial interests or international rules which govern other countries."
This is not the only definition one might use, but it gets at the heart of what a lot of hawks
really mean when they use this phrase. While most Americans still say they subscribe to
American exceptionalism either because of what the U.S. represents or what it has done, there
is less support for these views than before. Among the youngest respondents (age 18-29), there
is now a clear majority that rejects this idea.
The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with
its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran
has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been
nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to
elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this
year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more
support for negotiations and non-intervention:
A strong majority of both Republicans and Democrats continue to seek a diplomatic
resolution involving either sanctions or the resumption of nuclear negotiations. This year,
there was an increase in the number of respondents across party lines who would want
negotiations to resume even if Iran is a nuclear power in the short term, and a bipartisan
increase in those who believe outright that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons to
defend itself. So while Republicans might be more likely than Democrats to believe Iran
threatens peace in the Middle East, voters in neither party are eager to take a belligerent
stand against it.
With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against
Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons, and it
isn't doing that. It may be that the failure of the "maximum pressure" campaign has also
weakened support for sanctions. Support for the sanctions option dropped by almost 10 points
overall and plunged by more than 20 points among Republicans. In 2018, respondents were evenly
split between war and sanctions on one side or negotiations and non-intervention on the other.
This year, support for diplomacy and non-intervention in response to this imaginary nuclear
weapons program has grown to make up almost 60% of the total. If most Americans favor diplomacy
and non-intervention in this improbable scenario, it is safe to assume that there is even more
support for those options with the real Iranian government that isn't pursuing nuclear
weapons.
There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and
avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant
constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right
now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they
want. It is long past time that Washington started listening.
"... Despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, such people now enthusiastically whitewash the decades preceding Trump to turn it into a paragon of human liberty, justice and economic wonder. You don't have to look deep to understand that resistance liberals are now actually conservatives, brimming with nostalgia for the days before significant numbers of people became wise to what's been happening all along. ..."
"... Lying to yourself about history is one of the most dangerous things you can do. If you can't accept where we've been, and that Trump's election is a symptom of decades of rot as opposed to year zero of a dangerous new world, you'll never come to any useful conclusions ..."
"... Irrespective of what you think of Bernie Sanders and his policies, you can at least appreciate the fact his supporters focus on policy and real issues ..."
"... An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty democracy, hybrid regime or guided democracy, is a governing system in which although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an "open society". There are many countries "that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as 'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes". This may be because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not exist. ..."
From a big picture perspective, the largest rift in American politics is between those
willing to admit reality and those clinging to a dishonest perception of a past that never
actually existed. Ironically, those who most frequently use "post-truth" to describe our
current era tend to be those with the most distorted view of what was really happening during
the Clinton/Bush/Obama reign.
Despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, such people now enthusiastically
whitewash the decades preceding Trump to turn it into a paragon of human liberty, justice and
economic wonder. You don't have to look deep to understand that resistance liberals are now
actually conservatives, brimming with nostalgia for the days before significant numbers of
people became wise to what's been happening all along.
They want to forget about the bipartisan coverup of Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, all
the wars based on lies, and the indisputable imperial crimes disclosed by Wikileaks, Snowden
and others. They want to pretend Wall Street crooks weren't bailed out and made even more
powerful by the Bush/Obama tag team, despite ostensible ideological differences between the
two. They want to forget Epstein Didn't Kill Himself.
Lying to yourself about history is one of the most dangerous things you can do. If you can't
accept where we've been, and that Trump's election is a symptom of decades of rot as opposed to
year zero of a dangerous new world, you'll never come to any useful conclusions. As such, the
most meaningful fracture in American society today is between those who've accepted that we've
been lied to for a very long time, and those who think everything was perfectly fine before
Trump. There's no real room for a productive discussion between such groups because one of them
just wants to get rid of orange man, while the other is focused on what's to come. One side
actually believes a liberal world order existed in the recent past, while the other
fundamentally recognizes this was mostly propaganda based on myth.
Irrespective of what you think of Bernie Sanders and his policies, you can at least
appreciate the fact his supporters focus on policy and real issues. In contrast, resistance
liberals just desperately scramble to put up whoever they think can take us back to a
make-believe world of the recent past. This distinction is actually everything. It's the
difference between people who've at least rejected the status quo and those who want to rewind
history and perform a do-over of the past forty years.
A meaningful understanding that unites populists across the ideological spectrum is the
basic acceptance that the status quo is pernicious and unsalvageable, while the status
quo-promoting opposition focuses on Trump the man while conveniently ignoring the worst of his
policies because they're essentially just a continuation of Bush/Clinton/Obama. It's the most
shortsighted and destructive response to Trump imaginable. It's also why the Trump-era alliance
of corporate, imperialist Democrats and rightwing Bush-era neoconservatives makes perfect
sense, as twisted and deranged as it might seem at first. With some minor distinctions, these
people share nostalgia for the same thing.
This sort of political environment is extremely unhealthy because it places an intentional
and enormous pressure on everyone to choose between dedicating every fiber of your being to
removing Trump at all costs or supporting him. This anti-intellectualism promotes an ends
justifies the means attitude on all sides. In other words, it turns more and more people into
rhinoceroses.
Eugène Ionesco's masterpiece, Rhinoceros, is about a central European town where
the citizens turn, one by one, into rhinoceroses. Once changed, they do what rhinoceroses do,
which is rampage through the town, destroying everything in their path. People are a little
puzzled at first, what with their fellow citizens just turning into rampaging rhinos out of
the blue, but even that slight puzzlement fades quickly enough. Soon it's just the New
Normal. Soon it's just the way things are a good thing, even. Only one man resists the siren
call of rhinocerosness, and that choice brings nothing but pain and existential doubt, as he
is utterly profoundly alone.
A political environment where you're pressured to choose between some ridiculous binary of
"we must remove Trump at all costs" or go gung-ho MAGA, is a rhinoceros generating machine. The
only thing that happens when you channel your inner rhinoceros to defeat rhinoceroses, is you
get more rhinoceroses. And that's exactly what's happening.
The truth of the matter is the U.S. is an illiberal democracy in practice,
despite various myths to the contrary.
An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty
democracy, hybrid regime or guided democracy, is a governing system in which although
elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who
exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an "open society".
There are many countries "that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as
'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes". This may be
because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its
liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not
exist.
It's not a new thing by any means, but it's getting worse by the day. Though many of us
remain in denial, the American response to various crises throughout the 21st century was
completely illiberal. As devastating as they were, the attacks of September 11, 2001 did
limited damage compared to the destruction caused by our insane response to them. Similarly,
any direct damage caused by the election and policies of Donald Trump pales in comparison to
the damage being done by the intelligence agency-led "resistance" to him.
So are we all rhinoceroses now?
We don't have to be. Turning into a rhinoceros happens easily if you're unaware of what's
happening and not grounded in principles, but ultimately it is a choice. The decision to
discard ethics and embrace dishonesty in order to achieve political ends is always a choice. As
such, the most daunting challenge we face now and in the chaotic years ahead is to become
better as others become worse. A new world is undoubtably on the horizon, but we don't yet know
what sort of world it'll be. It's either going to be a major improvement, or it'll go the other
way, but one thing's for certain -- it can't stay the way it is much longer.
If we embrace an ends justifies the means philosophy, it's going to be game over for a
generation. The moment you accept this tactic is the moment you stoop down to the level of your
adversaries and become just like them. It then becomes a free-for-all for tyrants where
everything is suddenly on the table and no deed is beyond the pale. It's happened many times
before and it can happen again. It's what happens when everyone turns into rhinoceroses.
* * *
If you enjoyed this, I suggest you check out the following 2017 posts. It's never been more
important to stay conscious and maintain a strong ethical framework.
Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade, and Tuesday's testimony before Adam's Schiff
Show by former NSC official Tim Morrison is just such an occasion. In spades!
In his opening statement, this paranoid moron uttered the following lunacy, and it's all
you need to know about what is really going on down in the Imperial City.
"I continue to believe Ukraine is on the front lines of a strategic competition
between the West and Vladimir Putin's revanchist Russia. Russia is a failing power, but it
is still a dangerous one. The United States aids Ukraine and her people so they can fight
Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here.
Folks, that just plain whacko. The Trump-hating Dems are so feverishly set on a POTUS
kill that they have enlisted a veritable posse of Russophobic, right-wing neocon cretins
– Morrison, Taylor, Kent, Vindman, among others – to finish off the
Donald.
But in so doing they have made official Washington's real beef against Trump crystal
clear; and it's not about the rule of law or abuse of presidential power or an impeachable
dereliction of duty.
To be sure, foolish politicians like Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the Clintonista
apparatus at the center of the Dem party are so overcome with inconsolable grief and anger
about losing the 2016 election to Trump that their sole purpose in life is to drive the
Donald from office. But that just makes them "useful idiots" or compliant handmaids of the
Deep State, which has a far more encompassing and consequential motivation.
To wit, whether out of naiveté, contrariness or just plain common sense, the Donald
has declined to embrace the War Party's Russian bogeyman and demonization of Putin. He
thereby threatens the Empire's raison d'être to the very core.
Indeed, that's the real reason for the whole concerted attack on Trump from the Russian
Collusion hoax, through the Mueller Investigation farce to the present UkraineGate and
impeachment inquisition. The Deep State deeply and profoundly fears that if Trump remains in
office – and especially if he is elected with a new mandate in 2020 – he might
actually make peace with Russia and Putin.
So in Part 1 we advert to the basics. Without the demonization of Russia, Ukraine would
be the no count failed state and cesspool of corruption it actually is, and not a purported
"front line" buffer against Russian aggression.
Likewise, it would not have been a recipient of vast US and western military and economic
aid – a condition that turned it into a honeypot for the kind of Washington influence
peddling which ensnared the Bidens, induced its officials to meddle in the 2016 US election,
and, in return, incited Trump's justifiable quest to get to the bottom of the malignancy that
has ensued.
So the starting point is to identify Russia for what it actually is: Namely, a
kleptocratic state sitting atop an aging, Vodka-chugging population and third-rate economy
with virtually zero capacity to project 21st century offensive military power beyond its own
borders.
That truth, of course, shatters the whole foundation of the Warfare State. It renders NATO
an obsolete relic and eviscerates the case for America's absurd $900 billion defense and
national security budget. And with the latter's demise, the fairest part of Washington's
imperial self-importance and unseemly national security spending-based prosperity would also
crumble.
But in their frenzied pursuit of the Donald's political scalp, the Dems may be
inadvertently sabotaging their Deep State masters. That's because the neocon knuckleheads
they are dragging out of the NSC and State Department woodwork are such bellicose simpletons
– just maybe their utterly preposterous testimony about the Russkie threat and
Ukrainian "front line" will wake up the somnolent American public to the absurdity of the
entire Cold War 2.0 campaign.
Indeed, you almost have to ask whether the bit about fighting the Russkies in the
Donbas rather than on the shores of New Jersey from Morrison's opening statement quoted above
was reprinted in the New York Times or The Onion ?
The fact is, the fearsome Russian bogeyman cited by Morrison yesterday – and
Ambassador Taylor, George Kent and Lt. Colonel Vindman previously – is a complete
chimera; and the notion that the cesspool of corruption in Ukraine is a strategic buffer
against Russian aggression is just plain idiocy.
Russia is actually an economic and industrial midget transformed beyond recognition by
relentless Warfare State propaganda. It is actually no more threatening to America's homeland
security than the Siberian land mass that Sarah Palin once espied from her front porch in
Alaska a decade ago.
After all, how could it be? The GDP of the New York City metro area alone is about $1.8
trillion, which is well more than Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion. And that, in turn, is
just 8% of America's total GDP of $21.5 trillion.
Moreover, Russia' dwarf economy is composed largely of a vast oil and gas patch; a
multitude of nickel, copper, bauxite and vanadium mines; and some very large swatches of
wheat fields. That's not exactly the kind of high tech industrial platform on which a war
machine capable of threatening the good folks in Lincoln NE or Worchester MA is likely to be
erected.
And especially not when the Russian economy has been heading sharply south in dollar
purchasing terms for several years running.
GDP of Russia In Millions of USD
Indeed, in terms of manufacturing output, the comparison is just as stark. Russia's annual
manufacturing value added is currently about $200 billion compared to
$2.2 trillion for the US economy.
And that's not the half of it. Not only are Russia's vast hydrocarbon deposits and mines
likely to give out in the years ahead, but so are the livers of its Vodka-chugging work
force. That's a problem because according to a recent Brookings study, Russia's working age
population – even supplemented by substantial in-migration and guest worker programs
– is heading south as far into the future as the eye can see.
Even in the Brookings medium case projection shown below, Russia's working age population
will be nearly 20% smaller than today by 2050. Yet today's figure of about 85 million is
already just a fraction of the US working age population of 255 million.
Russia's Shrinking Work Force
Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military establishment
anywhere near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its $61 billion of
military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32 days of Washington's current
$750 billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland security in
America short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a continuation
of mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got through 45-years of
cold war when the Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy committed to a hostile
ideology; and during which time it had been armed to the teeth via a forced-draft allocation
of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to the military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the
country's anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and
populations of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian "stans"
among others. Yet given those realities we are supposed to believe that the self-evidently
calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs the Kremlin is going to go mad, defy MAD and
trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is laughable.
Not only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is the extent of what
he's got. That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force to the North American
continent is nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere between nichts and nothing.
For example, in today's world you do not invade any foreign continent without massive sea
power projection capacity in the form of aircraft carrier strike groups. These units consist
of an armada of lethal escort ships, a fleet of aircraft, massive suites of electronics
warfare capability and the ability to launch hundreds of cruise missiles and other smart
weapons.
Each US aircraft carrier based strike group, in fact, is composed of roughly 7,500
personnel, at least one cruiser, a squadron of destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air
wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also sometimes includes submarines and
attached logistics ships.
The US has eleven such carrier strike groups. Russia has zero
modern carrier strike groups and one beat-up, smoky old (diesel) aircraft carrier that the
Israeli paper, Haaretz, described as follows when it recently entered the
Mediterranean:
Russia's only aircraft carrier, a leftover from the days of Soviet power, carries a
long history of mishaps, at sea and in port, and diesel engines which were built for Russia's
cold waters – as shown by the column of black smoke raising above it. It needs frequent
refueling and resupplies and has never been operationally tested.
Indeed, from our 19th floor apartment on the East River in NYC, even we could see this
smoke belcher coming up Long Island Sound with an unaided eye – with no help needed at
all from the high tech spyware of the nation's $80 billion intelligence apparatus.
Yet Morrison had the audacity to say before a committee of the U.S. House that we are
aiding Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russians on the banks of the East River or the
Potomac!
For want of doubt, just compare the above image of the Admiral Kuznetsov belching smoke in
the Mediterranean with that of the Gerald R. Ford CVN 48 next below.
The latter is the US Navy's new $13 billion aircraft carrier and is the most
technologically advanced warship ever built.
The contrast shown below serves as a proxy for the vastly inferior capability of the
limited number of ships and planes in Russia's conventional force. What it does have
numerical superiority in is tanks – but alas they are not amphibious nor
ocean-capable!
Likewise, nobody invades anybody without massive airpower and the ability to project it
across thousands of miles of oceans via vast logistics and air-refueling capabilities.
On that score, the US has 6,100 helicopters to Russia's 1,200 and 6,000 fixed wing
fighter and attack aircraft versus Russia's 2,100. More importantly, the US has 5,700
transport and airlift aircraft compared to just 1,100 for Russia.
In short, the idea that Russia is a military threat to the US homeland is ludicrous.
Russia is essentially a landlocked military shadow of the former Soviet war machine. Indeed,
for the world's only globe-spanning imperial power to remonstrate about an aggressive threat
from Moscow is a prime facie case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Moreover, the canard that Washington's massive conventional armada is needed to defend
Europe is risible nonsense. Europe can and should take care of its own security and
relationship with its neighbor on the Eurasian continent.
After all, the GDP of NATO Europe is $18 trillion or 12X greater than that of Russia, and
the current military budgets of European NATO members total about $280 billion or 4X more
than that of Russia.
More importantly, the European nations and people really do not have any quarrel with
Putin's Russia, nor is their security and safety threatened by the latter. All of the
tensions that do exist and have come to a head since the illegal coup in Kiev in February
2014 were fomented by Imperial Washington and its European subalterns in the NATO
machinery.
Then again, the latter is absolutely the most useless, obsolete, wasteful and dangerous
multilateral institution in the present world. But like the proverbial clothes-less emperor,
NATO doesn't dare risk having the purportedly "uninformed" amateur in the Oval Office
pointing out its buck naked behind.
So the NATO subservient think tanks and establishment policy apparatchiks are harrumphing
up a storm, but for crying out loud most of Europe's elected politicians are in on the joke.
They are fiscally swamped paying for their Welfare States and are not about to squeeze their
budgets or taxpayers to fund military muscle against a nonexistent threat.
Finally an American president has woken up to the fact that World War II, not to mention
the cold war, is over: there's no need for US troops to occupy Germany. Vladimir Putin
isn't going to march into Berlin in a reenactment of the Red Army taking the Fuehrer-bunker
– but even if he were so inclined, why won't Germany defend itself?
Exactly. If their history proves anything, Germans are not a nation of pacifists, meekly
willing to bend-over in the face of real aggressors. Yet they spent the paltry sum of
$43 billion on defense during 2018, or barely 1.1% of Germany's $4.0 trillion
GDP, which happens to be roughly three times bigger than Russia's.
In short, the policy action of the German government tells you they don't think Putin is
about to invade the Rhineland or retake the Brandenburg Gate.
And this live action testimonial also trumps, as it were, all of the risible alarms that
have emanated from the beltway think tanks and the 4,000 NATO bureaucrats talking their own
book in behalf of their plush Brussels sinecures.
And as we will outline in Part 2, that's what Washington's Ukraine intervention is all
about, and why the Donald's efforts to get to the bottom of that cesspool has brought on the
final Deep State assault against his presidency.
Part 2
In Part 1 we dispatched UkraineGater Tim Morrison's preposterous suggestion that
Washington is helping Kiev subdue the Donbas so we won't have Russkies coming up the East
River.
Yet his related claim that Ukraine is a victim of Russian aggression is even more
ludicrous. The actual aggression in that godforsaken corner of the planet came from
Washington when it instigated, funded, engineered and recognized the putsch on the streets of
Kiev during February 2014, which illegally overthrew the duly elected President of Ukraine on
the grounds that he was too friendly with Moscow.
Thus, Morrison risibly asserted that,
Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan
objective since Russia's military invasion in 2014. It must continue to be.
The fact is, when the Maidan uprising occurred in February that year there were no
uninvited Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine. Putin was actually sitting in his box on the
viewing stand, presiding over the Winter Olympics in Sochi and basking in the limelight of
global attention that they commanded .
It was only weeks later – when the Washington-installed ultra-nationalist
government with its neo-Nazi vanguard threatened the Russian-speaking populations of Crimea
and the Donbas – that Putin moved to defend Russian interests on his own doorstep. And
those interests included Russia's primary national security asset – the naval base at
Sevastopol in Crimea which had been the homeport of the Russian Black Sea Fleet for centuries
under czars and commissars alike, and on which Russia had a long-term lease.
We untangle the truth of the crucial events which surrounded the Kiev putsch in greater
detail below, but suffice it here to note the whole gang of neocon apparatchiks which have
been paraded before the Schiff Show have proffered the same Big Lie as did Morrison in the
"invasion" quote cited above.
As the ever perspicacious Robert Merry observed regarding the previous testimony of
Ambassador Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, the Washington
rendition of the Maidan coup and its aftermath amounts to a blatant falsehood:
The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that
dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's rendition of recent events in Ukraine was
so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood.
As he had it, Ukraine's turn to the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his
first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an extent that he
tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence,
whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country
in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point of Russian army
rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed
formations and puppet governments." And so the West extended military assistance to
Ukraine.
"It is this security assistance," he said, "that is at the heart of the [impeachment]
controversy that we are discussing today."
Taylor's right that this narrative is at the center of UkraineGate, but there is not a
shred of truth to it. Nevertheless, defense of this false narrative, and the inappropriate
military and economic aid to Ukraine which flowed from it, is the real reason this posse of
neocon stooges took exception to the Donald's legitimate interest in investigating the Bidens
and the events of 2016.
As Morrison put it Tuesday and Vindman said last week, their interest was in protecting
not the constitution and the rule of law, but the bipartisan political consensus on Capitol
Hill in favor of their proxy war on Putin and the Ukraine aid package through which it was
being prosecuted.
As I stated during my deposition, I feared at the time of the call on July 25 how its
disclosure would play in Washington's political climate. My fears have been realized.
Not surprisingly, the entire Washington establishment has been sucked into this scam. For
instance, the insufferably sanctimonious Peggy Noonan used her Wall Street Journal
platform to idolize these liars.
As she portrayed it, bow-tie bedecked George P. Kent appeared to be the very picture of
the old-school American foreign service official. And West Pointer Bill Taylor – with a
military career going back to (dubious) Vietnam heroism – was redolent of the
blunt-spoken American military men who won WW II and the cold war which followed.
As Robert Merry further noted,
She saw them as "the old America reasserting itself." They demonstrated "stature and
command of their subject matter." They evinced "capability and integrity."
Oh, puleeze!
What they evinced was nothing more than the self-serving groupthink that has turned
Ukraine into a beltway goldmine. That is, a cornucopia of funding for all the think tanks,
NGOs, foreign policy experts, national security contractors and Warfare State agencies
– from DOD through the State Department, AID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the
Board for International Broadcasting and countless more – which ply their trade in the
Imperial City.
But Robert Merry got it right. These cats are not noble public servants and heroes;
they're apparatchiks and payrollers aggrandizing their own power and pelf – even as
they lead the nation to the brink of disaster:
But these men embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous. Perhaps no serious blame should accrue to them, since it is the same
geopolitical outlook embraced and enforced by pretty much the entire foreign policy
establishment, of which these men are mere loyal apparatchiks. And yet they are playing
their part in pushing a foreign policy that is directing America towards a very possible
disaster.
Neither man manifested even an inkling of an understanding of what kind of game the
United States in playing with Ukraine. Neither gave even a nod to the long, complex
relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Neither seemed to understand either the substance
or the intensity of Russia's geopolitical interests along its own borders or the likely
consequences of increasing U.S. meddling in what for centuries has been part of Russia's
sphere of influence.
They obviously didn't get it, but we must. So let us summarize the true Ukraine story,
starting with the utterly stupid and historically ignorant reason for Washington's February
2014 coup.
Namely, it objected to the decision of Ukraine's prior government in late 2013 to align
itself economically and politically with its historic hegemon in Moscow rather than the
European Union and NATO. Yet the fairly elected and constitutionally legitimate government of
Ukraine then led by Viktor Yanukovych had gone that route mainly because it got a better deal
from Moscow than was being demanded by the fiscal torture artists of the IMF.
Needless to say, the ensuing US sponsored putsch arising from the mobs on the street of
Kiev reopened deep national wounds. Ukraine's bitter divide between Russian-speakers in the
east and Ukrainian nationalists elsewhere dates back to Stalin's brutal rein in Ukraine
during the 1930s and Ukrainian collusion with Hitler's Wehrmacht on its way to Stalingrad and
back during the 1940s.
It was the memory of the latter nightmare, in fact, which triggered the fear-driven
outbreak of Russian separatism in the Donbas and the 96% referendum vote in Crimea in March
2014 to formally re-affiliate with Mother Russia.
In this context, even a passing familiarity with Russian history and geography would
remind that Ukraine and Crimea are Moscow's business, not Washington's.
In the first place, there is nothing at stake in the Ukraine that matters. During the last
800 years it has been a meandering set of borders in search of a country.
In fact, the intervals in which the Ukraine existed as an independent nation have been few
and far between. Invariably, its rulers, petty potentates and corrupt politicians made deals
with or surrendered to every outside power that came along.
These included the Lithuanians, Poles, Ruthenians (eastern Slavs), Tartars, Turks,
Muscovites, Austrians and Czars, among manifold others.
At the beginning of the 16th century, for instance, the territory of today's Ukraine was
scattered largely among the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia (light brown area), the
Kingdom of Poland (dark brown area), Muscovy (bright yellow area) the Crimean Khanate (light
yellow area).
The latter was the entity which emerged when some clans of the Golden Horde (Tartars)
ceased their nomadic life on the Asian steppes and occupied the light yellow stripped areas
of the map north of the Black Sea as their Yurt (homeland).
From that cold start, the tiny Cossack principality of Ukraine (blue area below), which
had emerged by 1654, grew significantly over the subsequent three centuries. But as the map
also makes clear, this did not reflect the organic congealment of a nation of kindred volk
sharing common linguistic and ethnic roots, but the machinations of Czars and Commissars for
the administrative convenience of efficiently ruling their conquests and vassals.
Thus, much of modern Ukraine was incorporated by the Russian Czars between 1654 and 1917
per the yellow area of the map and functioned as vassal states. These territories were
amalgamated by absolute monarchs who ruled by the mandate of God and the often brutal sword
of their own armies.
In particular, much of the purple area was known as "Novo Russia" (Novorossiya) during the
18th and 19th century owing to the Czarist policy of relocating Russian populations to
the north of the Black Sea as a bulwark against the Ottomans. But after Lenin seized power in
St. Petersburg in November 1917 amidst the wreckage of Czarist Russia, an ensuing civil war
between the so-called White Russians and the Red Bolsheviks raged for several years in these
territories and elsewhere in the chaotic regions of the former western Russian Empire.
At length, Lenin won the civil war as the French, British, Polish and American contingents
vacated the postwar struggle for power in Russia. Accordingly, in 1922 the new Communist
rulers proclaimed the Union of Soviet Social Republics (USSR) and incorporated Novo Russia
into one of its four constituent units as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR)
– along with the Russian, Belarus and Transcaucasian SSRs.
Thereafter the border and political status of Ukraine remained unchanged until the
infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Pursuant thereto
the Red Army and Nazi Germany invaded and dismembered Poland, with Stalin getting the blue
areas (Volhynia and parts of Galicia) as consolation prizes, which where then incorporated
into the Ukrainian SSR.
Finally, when Uncle Joe Stalin died and Nikita Khrushchev won the bloody succession
struggle in 1954, he transferred Crimea (red area) to the Ukraine SSR as a reward to his
supporters in Kiev. That, of course, was the arbitrary writ of the Soviet Presidium, given
that precious few Ukrainians actually lived in what had been a integral part of Czarist
Russia after it was purchased by Catherine the Great from the Turks in 1783.
In a word, the borders of modern Ukraine are the handiwork of Czarist emperors and
Communist butchers. The so-called international rule of law had absolutely nothing to
do with its gestation and upbringing.
It's a pity, therefore, that none of the so-called conservative Republicans attending
Adam's Schiff Show saw fit to ask young Tim Morrison the obvious question.
To wit, exactly why is he (and most of the Washington foreign policy establishment) so
keen on expending American treasure, weapons and even blood in behalf of the "territorial
integrity and sovereignty" of this happenstance amalgamation of people subdued by some of
history's most despicable tyrants?
Needless to say, owing to this very history, the linguistic/ethnic composition of today's
Ukraine does not reflect the congealment of a "nation" in the historic sense.
To the contrary, central and western Ukraine is populated by ethnic Ukrainians who speak
Ukrainian (dark red area), whereas the two parts of the country allegedly the victim of
Russian aggression and occupation – Crimea (brown area) and the eastern Donbas region
(yellow area with brown strips) – are comprised of ethnic Russians who speak Russian
and ethnic Ukrainians who predominately speak-Russian, respectively.
And much of the rest of the territory consists of admixtures and various Romanian,
Moldovan, Hungarian and Bulgarian minorities.
Did the Washington neocons – led by Senator McCain and Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland – who triggered the Ukrainian civil war with their coup on the streets of Kiev
in February 2014 consider the implications of the map below and its embedded, and often
bloody, history?
Quite surely, they did not.
Nor did they consider the rest of the map. That is, the enveloping Russian state all
around to which the parts and pieces of Ukraine – especially the Donbas and Crimea
– have been intimately connected for centuries. Robert Merry thus further noted,
As Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the US Naval War College has written, Russia and Ukraine
share a 1,500-mile border where Ukraine "nestles up against the soft underbelly of the
Russian Federation." Gvosdev elaborates: "The worst nightmare of the Russian General Staff
would be NATO forces deployed all along this frontier, which would put the core of Russia's
population and industrial capacity at risk of being quickly and suddenly overrun in the
event of any conflict." Beyond that crucial strategic concern, the two countries share
strong economic, trade, cultural, ethnic, and language ties going back centuries. No
Russian leader of any stripe would survive as leader if he or she were to allow Ukraine to
be wrested fully from Russia's sphere of influence.
And yet America, in furtherance of the ultimate aim of pulling Ukraine away from
Russia, spent some $5 billion in a campaign to gin up pro-Western sentiment there,
according to former assistant secretary of state for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who
spearheaded much of this effort during the Obama administration. It was clearly a blatant
effort to interfere in the domestic politics of a foreign nation – and a nation
residing in a delicate and easily inflamed part of the world.
Indeed, Ukraine is a tragically divided country and fissured simulacrum of a nation.
Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard called Ukraine "a cleft country, with two distinct
cultures" causing Robert Merry to rightly observe that,
Contrary to Taylor's false portrayal of an aggressive Russia trampling on eastern
Ukrainians by setting up puppet governments and manufacturing a bogus referendum in Crimea,
the reality is that large numbers of Ukrainians there favor Russia and feel loyalty to what
they consider their Russian heritage. The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its
Parliament in 1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear that the
national leadership would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded
to avoid a violent national confrontation.) In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had
campaigned on a platform of "unity with Russia."
In short, in modern times Ukraine largely functioned as an integral part of Mother Russia,
serving as its breadbasket and iron and steel crucible under czars and commissars alike.
Given this history, the idea that Ukraine should be actively and aggressively induced to join
NATO was just plain nuts, as we will amplify further in Part 3 (to come).
"... "US Officials" say the Bidens are pure in heart and deed? Hah! Is it not clear that The Borg (foreign policy establishment) hate Donald Trump and will say anything possible to injure him? ..."
"... "Debunked," "Discredited," "Conspiracy theories?" Trickery in the press is the real truth , trickery intended to protect the only viable candidate in the Democratic Party field. ..."
"... Lutsenko has had a pretty sketchy career, including charges of abuse of power, forgery and embezzlement among other things. https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/yuriy-lutsenko/ It's telling that Democrats and the mainstream media choose to cite such a character as their primary source for evidence that the Bidens did nothing wrong. Reminds me of Mark Twains old adage: "An honest politician is one who, once he's been bought, stays bought." More recently it seems that his loyalties have shifted, accusing Yovanovitch of giving him a list of people who should be protected. ..."
"... It's not really that complicated an inquiry to decide whether there is a need to go further; two questions: what did Hunter Biden do for the money; and Joe, did you get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired as you bragged you did, and why? Maybe throw in a third if the answer is "I did", what or who made you think that you could do that? ..."
"Graham's conspiracy theory-based investigation is rooted in the
baseless allegation that Biden pressured Ukraine to remove a corrupt prosecutor in 2016
as a way to protect Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, against a corruption probe. Biden's
son Hunter was previously a board member with Burisma until April this year.
There is no evidence to support allegations that Biden acted improperly in calling for the
prosecutor general in charge of the Burisma probe to be ousted, and both Ukrainian and U.S.
officials have said there is no merit to the claim. As many have since noted, the Burisma
investigation was in fact dormant when the prosecutor general was forced out on accusations
he was slow-walking corruption probes, among other things.
Trump brought up that debunked conspiracy during a July 25 call with Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskiy, asking the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden as well as a
baseless conspiracy involving the Democratic National Committee servers."
"Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality
of belief. Much debate in epistemology centers on four areas:
(3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and
(4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.
Epistemology addresses such questions as: "What makes justified beliefs justified?" " What
does it mean to say that we know something? ", and fundamentally "How do we know that we
know?"
~ wiki on epistemology
-------------
As in the example above from the "American Independent," the MSM and online projects like
the American Independent incessantly insist that the simple fact that Hunter Biden and his dear
old dad, a "Union Man," solicited money in Ukraine and in China for services not rendered
proves nothing, that nothing has been proven against them and that any mention of these
occurrences is evidence of harsh partisan rhetoric based on fantasy and equivalent to belief in
the Loch Ness Monster.
Well, pilgrims I want to know who and what investigation or investigations cleared the
Bidens of anything.
It is obvious that Hunter is qualified for employment as a bag man and not much else. He has
a law degree? So what? As in the matter of the qualifications of doctors, not all learn much in
medical or law school.
"US Officials" say the Bidens are pure in heart and deed? Hah! Is it not clear that The Borg
(foreign policy establishment) hate Donald Trump and will say anything possible to injure
him?
"Debunked," "Discredited," "Conspiracy theories?" Trickery in the press is the real truth , trickery intended to protect the only viable
candidate in the Democratic Party field.
The article highlighted here, typically, is a lie. As documented in Moon of Alabama's
timeline (
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/11/a-timeline-of-joe-bidens-intervention-against-the-prosecutor-general-of-ukraine.html),
Shokin was actively investigating Zlochevsky in February 2016, when Shokin seized his luxury
car. Barely two weeks later, Biden was on the phone to Poroshenko demanding Shokin's firing.
While this doesn't prove that Biden was motivated primarily by a desire to protect his son's
employer, it is certainly consistent with that possibility.
John Solomon has been very much in the lead on reporting from Ukraine which furthers what the
MSM calls "conspiracy theories".
While he earlier reported, or opined, from The Hill,
now he evidently has been bumped (my opinion) from that perch,
and now has own blog John Solomon Report : https://johnsolomonreports.com/
It is tragic, IMO, how the MSM ignores the facts that Solomon documents in his
columns.
It is possible that JS is a mouthpiece for corrupt elements in Ukraine,
but I think his points deserve more attention than they have been getting.
There are two sides to this story, not only one as Col. Lang pointed out in his root
piece.
I recall that the Russiagate conspiracy theory was "proven" factual as well, and by many of
the same people who claim that Biden's corruption has been "debunked". Even though it was
absurd on its face and had been debunked numerous times, many people in fact continue to
insist otherwise.
Seriously....who would think Biden's son taking a highly paid position with a company in a
foreign country that Biden was representing the US in wasn't a conflict of interest? Even the
'appearance' of a conflict of interest should be avoided in such situations.
I find Biden and his political 'career', greased by his 'good old Joe act' disgusting in so
many ways it would take too long to describe them here.
The media really seems to be testing the limits of disinformation. More and more, the media
wants to convince people that black is white and up is down. Fortunately, I don't think their
plan is working all that well.
In the case of Hunter Biden, we are told that "There is no evidence to support allegations
that Biden acted improperly".
Okay, that's one way to look at things, but I have found that even among my liberal
friends, the fetid smell of corruption emitting from this case, is overpowering. And while
most people might have a hard time sinking their teeth into a "quid pro quo", they do have a
pretty good grasp of old fashioned influence peddling, which is what we are talking
about.
So why has the media chosen to defend the crooked goings-on of public officials who were
obviously up to no good? Don't they care about their credibility at all?
Was the American Independent quote lifted from The NY Times? It sure sounds like it!
For some time I've been wondering how exactly Biden got cleared. Was there any formal
investigation? Who conducted it? And how reliable are the facts when they come from a place
like Ukraine, where anything, including the 'truth,' can be laundered?
What's become painfully obvious is how eagerly America's major news outlets, including the
journals of record, participate in the laundering of truth.
Of course, that should have been obvious from the yellow journalism preceding the war in
Iraq.
What's really scary are reports that "intelligence" services get most of their 'facts'
from the very same truth laundering sources.
I always got the impression the "wild, debunked conspiracy theory pushed by right wing nuts"
was always referring to the Crowdstrike DNC computer investigation hoax that Trump tried to
re-open.
They would never specifically refer to the Crowdstrike favor Trump specifically asked for
in the phone call, instead they would substitute Trump asked about some "debunked, wild right
wing conspiracy".
So they never explained how the Crowdstrike investigation hoax was debunked either.
To me this is far more interesting missing debunked conspiracy link - since it shows
incredible coordination between the DNC, the "leak" of their DNC computer data, Ukrainian
Crowdstrike, and finally the Mueller Report who used the DNC Crowdstrike investigation
conclusoin hook line and sinker to reach their own official conclusions which is now "proven"
operating dogma. Without ever doing an independent investigation themselves. How often does
that happen?
To me the Crowdstrike connection begs further investigation - why would a Russian hating
Ukrainian who was running Crowdstrike point the finger at the Russians and claim they
"hacked" the DNC computers, but not let anyone else touch those same computers to corroborate
that conclusion?
And then parlay this into Trump supporting Russian interference in the 2016 election. All
too tidy for me. Feels like dark forces are still at work, and subverting language to achieve
their ends.
Whatever happened to Joe Biden's taped boast, at the Council on Foreign Relations, that he
gave President Poroshenko 6 hours to fire Prosecutor Shokin -- or else lose $1 Billion of US
aid ?
How was this taped confession of QUID-PRO-QUO debunked ?
The media (approx. 99% of them) have been in the tank for Democrats since at least the
Vietnam war.
Roger Ailes said why he didn't read the NY Times:
"You cover the bad news about America. You do. But you don't get up in the morning hating
your country."
Eight days later Joe Biden launched an intense pressure campaign to get rid of Shokin. He
personally calls Poroshenko on Feb 12, 18 and 19 to press for firing Shokin.
To think that this is unrelated is not reasonable.
The rest of the
timeline shows further Biden influence in the case.
(I should update that timeline as a lot of additional evidence of Burisma lobbying State
at that time has since come in.)
There are tons of additional dirt. The U.S. has control over the National Anti-Corruption
Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and uses it to push all such investigations to its favor. NABU has
itself been involved in serious corruption.
There is also a USAID/Soros paid NGO that has a similar function and is equally corrupt.
These organizations are used as weapons to put all Ukrainian assets into the hands of
those that the U.S. embassy likes.
Lutsenko was the guy who was appointed as Prosecutor General after Biden got the previous
one fired. IOW Lutsenko owed his job to Biden.
Lutsenko has had a pretty sketchy career, including charges of abuse of power, forgery and
embezzlement among other things. https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/yuriy-lutsenko/ It's telling that Democrats and the mainstream media choose to cite such a character as
their primary source for evidence that the Bidens did nothing wrong. Reminds me of Mark Twains old adage: "An honest politician is one who, once he's been
bought, stays bought." More recently it seems that his loyalties have shifted, accusing
Yovanovitch of giving him a list of people who should be protected.
The only thing I can conclude is that Lutsenko is probably just trying to survive the
shifting tides in the Ukrainian swamp and will say or do whatever it takes.
"American Independent" is David Brock's Clinton / Soros linked Shareblue disinfo and troll
brigade rebranded. It will obviously tell every lie going to protect the corrupt Corporate Dem Establishment,
the Globalists and the Deep State. https://twitter.com/Ian56789/status/1198338991814250497
It's not really that complicated an inquiry to decide whether there is a need to go further;
two questions: what did Hunter Biden do for the money; and Joe, did you get the Ukrainian
prosecutor fired as you bragged you did, and why? Maybe throw in a third if the answer is "I
did", what or who made you think that you could do that?
"... David Stockman discusses everything that's going on with Ukraine and President Trump right now, which he says is nothing more than a shallow ploy to oust the president and to gin up fear around the general threat of Ukrainian and Russian power. Stockman reminds us that compared to America Russia has a tiny GDP and a weak military, posing no credible threat to the U.S. They would be perfectly happy to get along with us, he says, if it weren't for a deliberate effort to expand NATO right up to their borders. America should show the same willingness to cooperate with them. ..."
David Stockman
discusses everything that's going on with Ukraine and President Trump right now, which he says
is nothing more than a shallow ploy to oust the president and to gin up fear around the general
threat of Ukrainian and Russian power. Stockman reminds us that compared to America Russia has
a tiny GDP and a weak military, posing no credible threat to the U.S. They would be perfectly
happy to get along with us, he says, if it weren't for a deliberate effort to expand NATO right
up to their borders. America should show the same willingness to cooperate with them.
"The Ukrainian Influence Peddling Rings – A Microcosm of How Imperial Washington
Rolls" (
Antiwar.com Original )
David Stockman is the ultimate Washington insider turned iconoclast. He began his career in
Washington as a young man and quickly rose through the ranks of the Republican Party to become
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After
leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He is the author of
Trumped! ,The Triumph of
Politics , and his history of the financial crisis, The
Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America .
"... She warned Republicans that legitimizing an unsubstantiated theory that Kyiv undertook a concerted campaign to interfere in the election – a claim the president pushed repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate – played into Russia's hands. ..."
"... "In the course of this investigation," Dr. Hill testified before the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearings, "I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests." ..."
"... government investigators examining secret records have found Manafort's name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort's main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych. ..."
"... Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau . Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials. ..."
"... In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies .. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin. ..."
"... Mr. Manafort's involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential campaign – from Mr. Trump's favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats' emails – an examination of Mr. Manafort's activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in Kiev. ..."
"... Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country. ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race .. ..."
"... But Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another's elections. ..."
"... While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump campaign – and certainly for Manafort – can be traced more directly to the Ukrainian government. ..."
"... Needless to say, Fiona Hill is among the worst of the neocon warmongers, and has made a specialty of demonizing Russia and propagating over and over flat out lies about what happened in Kiev during 2014 and after. Thus, in one recent attack she claimed, ..."
"... "In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian empire." ..."
"... On April 26, 1954. The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR ..Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR . ..."
"... NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the expansion countries lying east of Germany. As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in NATO either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security. ..."
"... True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to respond favorably to Western financial blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine, renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official status to the Russian language. These actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations aimed at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater economic ties to Russia, pro-Western Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria Nuland gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia. ..."
"... Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian coup, she shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position, demonstrating the influence that enables US meddling in foreign countries. ..."
"... That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine (the so-called Donbass in the country's east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated a plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly the "sham referendum" described by Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward. ..."
"... The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in the center of Eurasia – the global "heartland," in the view of the famous British geographic scholar Halford Mackinder – renders it always a potential threat. Its vulnerability to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands. Its national temperament seems to include a natural tendency towards authoritarianism. Any sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind. ..."
"... But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia, the Alliance has been the more aggressive player – aggressive when it pushed for NATO's eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the US government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the encirclement of Russia; aggressive when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian orbit with economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected Ukrainian government; and aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood. ..."
"... George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues and leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well. ..."
"... David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He's the author of three books, ..."
"... . He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra Corner and David Stockman's Bubble Finance Trader . ..."
It's beginning to seem like an assault by the Zulu army of American politics – they
just never stop coming.
We are referring to the Russophobic neocon Deep Staters who have trooped before Adam's
Schiff Show to pillory POTUS for daring to look into the Ukrainian stench that engulfs the
Imperial City – a rank odor that is owing to their own arrogant meddling in the the
internal affairs of that woebegone country.
This time it was Dr. Fiona Hill who sanctimoniously advised the House committee that there
is nothing to see on the Ukraine front that involved any legitimate matter of state; it was
just the Donald and his tinfoil hat chums jeopardizing the serious business of protecting the
national security by injecting electioneering into relations with Ukraine.
She warned Republicans that legitimizing an unsubstantiated theory that Kyiv undertook
a concerted campaign to interfere in the election – a claim the president pushed
repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate – played into Russia's hands.
"In the course of this investigation," Dr. Hill testified before the House Intelligence
Committee's impeachment hearings, "I would ask that you please not promote politically
driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests."
Folks, we are getting just plain sick and tired of this drumbeat of lies, misdirection and
smug condescension by Washington payrollers like Fiona Hill. No Ukrainian interference in the
2016 US election?
Exactly what hay wagon does she think we fell off from?
Or better still, ask Paul Manafort who will spend his golden years in the Big House owing
to an August 2016 leak to the New York Times about an alleged "black book"
which recorded payments he had received from his work as an advisor to the Ukrainian
political party of former president Yanakovych. As we have seen, the latter had been removed
from office by a Washington instigated coup in February 2014.
By its own admission, this story came from the Ukrainian government and the purpose was
clear as a bell: Namely, to undermine the Trump presidential campaign and force Manafort out
of his months-old role as campaign chairman – a role that had finally brought some
professional management to the Donald's helter-skelter campaign for the nation's highest
office.
In the event, this well-timed bombshell worked, and in short order Manafort resigned,
leaving the disheveled Trump campaign in the lurch:
government investigators examining secret records have found Manafort's name, as well
as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was
used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr.
Manafort's main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012,
according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau . Investigators
assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients
also included election officials.
In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies
.. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million
deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort
and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Manafort's involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously
come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential
campaign – from Mr. Trump's favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation
of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats' emails – an examination of
Mr. Manafort's activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of
public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in
Kiev.
The bolded lines in the NYT story above tell you exactly where this was coming
from. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau had been set up by an outfit called "AntAC", which
was jointly funded by George Soros and the Obama State Department. And there can be little
doubt that the Donald's accurate view at the time – that Crimea's reunification with
Mother Russia after a 60 year hiatus which had been ordered by the former Soviet Union's
Presidium – was unwelcome in Kiev and among the Washington puppeteers who had put it in
power.
For want of doubt that the Poroshenko government was in the tank for Hillary Clinton, the
liberal rag called Politico spilled the beans a few months later. In a January
11, 2017 story it revealed that the Ukrainian government had pulled out all the stops
attempting to help Clinton, whose protégés at the State Department had been the
masterminds of the coup which put them in office. Thus, Politico concluded,
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to
back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information
on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race ..
But Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the
race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from
engaging in one another's elections.
While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between
governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump
campaign – and certainly for Manafort – can be traced more directly to the
Ukrainian government.
Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency – and publicized
by a parliamentarian – appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments that were
earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president,
Yanukovych.
The New York Times , in the August story revealing the ledgers'
existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were "a focus" of an
investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the
FBI was pursuing an overlapping inquiry.
Yet Fiona Hill sat before a House committee and under oath insisted that all of the above
was a Trumpian conspiracy theory, thereby reminding us that the neocon Russophobes are so
unhinged that they are prepared to lie at the drop of a hat to keep their false narrative
about the Russian Threat and Putin's "invasion" of Ukraine alive.
Needless to say, Fiona Hill is among the worst of the neocon warmongers, and has made a
specialty of demonizing Russia and propagating over and over flat out lies about what
happened in Kiev during 2014 and after. Thus, in one recent attack she claimed,
Russia today poses a greater foreign policy and security challenge to the United States
and its Western allies than at any time since the height of the Cold War. Its annexation of
Crimea, war in Ukraine's Donbas region, and military intervention in Syria have upended
Western calculations from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. Russia's intervention in Syria,
in particular, is a stark reminder that Russia is a multi-regional power ..
There is not a single true assertion in that quotation, of course, but we cite it for a
very particular reason. Shifty Schiff & his impeachment tribunal have brought in Hill
– and Lt. Colonel Vindman, Ambassador Taylor, George Kent and Tim Morrison previously
– in order to created an echo chamber.
That's right. The Dems are parroting the neocon lies – whether they believe them or
not – in order to propagate the impression that the Donald is undermining national
security in his effort to take a different posture on Russia and Ukraine, and is actually
bordering on treason.
Thus, Adam Schiff repeated the false neocon narrative virtually word for word at the opening
of the public hearings:
"In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's
embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian
empire."
That's pure rubbish. It's based on the Big Lie that the overwhelming vote of the Russian
population of Crimea in March 2014 was done at the gun point of the Russian Army. And that
event, in turn, is the lynch-pin of the hoary canard that Putin is seeking to rebuild the
Soviet Empire.
So it is necessary to review the truth once again about how Russian Crimea had been
temporarily appended to the Ukrainian SSR during Soviet times.
The allegedly "occupied" territory of Crimea, in fact, was actually purchased from the
Ottomans by Catherine the Great in 1783, thereby satisfying the longstanding quest of the
Russian Czars for a warm-water port. Over the ages Sevastopol then emerged as a great naval
base at the strategic tip of the Crimean peninsula, where it became home to the mighty Black
Sea Fleet of the Czars and then the Soviet Union, too.
For the next 171 years Crimea was an integral part of Russia (until 1954). That span
exceeds the 170 years that have elapsed since California was annexed by a similar thrust of
"Manifest Destiny" on this continent, thereby providing, incidentally, the United States Navy
with its own warm-water port in San Diego.
While no foreign forces subsequently invaded the California coasts, it was most definitely
not Ukrainian and Polish rifles, artillery and blood which famously annihilated The Charge Of
The Light Brigade at the Crimean city of Balaclava in 1854; they were Russians defending the
homeland from Turks, French and Brits.
And the portrait of the Russian "hero" hanging in Putin's office is that of Czar Nicholas
I – whose brutal 30-year reign brought the Russian Empire to its historical zenith. Yet
despite his cruelty, Nicholas I is revered in Russian hagiography as the defender of Crimea,
even as he lost the 1850s war to the Ottomans and Europeans.
At the end of the day, security of its historic port in Crimea is Russia's Red Line, not
Washington's. Unlike today's feather-headed Washington pols, even the enfeebled Franklin
Roosevelt at least knew that he was in Soviet Russia when he made port in the Crimean
city of Yalta in February 1945.
Maneuvering to cement his control of the Kremlin in the intrigue-ridden struggle for
succession after Stalin's death a few years later, Nikita Khrushchev allegedly spent 15
minutes reviewing his "gift" of Crimea to his subalterns in Kiev.
As it happened, therefore, Crimea became part of the Ukraine only by writ of one of the
most vicious and reprehensible states in human history – the former Soviet Union:
On April 26, 1954. The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet
transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian
SSR ..Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial
proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the
Ukrainian SSR .
That's right. Washington's hypocritical and tendentious accusations against Russia's
re-absorption of Crimea imply that the dead-hand of the Soviet presidium must be defended at
all costs – as if the security of North Dakota depended upon it!
In fact, the brouhaha about "returning" Crimea is a naked case of the hegemonic arrogance
that has overtaken Imperial Washington since the 1991 Soviet demise.
After all, during the long decades of the Cold War, the West did nothing to liberate the
"captive nation" of Ukraine – with or without the Crimean appendage bestowed upon it in
1954. Nor did it draw any red lines in the mid-1990's when a financially desperate Ukraine
rented back Sevastopol and the strategic redoubts of the Crimea to an equally pauperized
Russia.
In short, in the era before we got our Pacific port in 1848, and even during the 170-year
interval since then, America's national security has depended not one whit on the status of
Russian-speaking Crimea. That the local population has now chosen fealty to the Grand Thief
in Moscow over the ruffians and rabble who have seized Kiev amounts to a giant: So what!
The truth is, when it comes to Ukraine there really isn't that much there, there. Its
boundaries have been morphing for centuries among the quarreling tribes, peoples, potentates,
Patriarchs and pretenders of a small region that is none of Washington's damn business..
Still, it was this final aggressive drive of Washington and NATO into the internal affairs
of Russia's historic neighbor and vassal, Ukraine, that largely accounts for the demonization
of Putin. Likewise, it is virtually the entire source of the false claim that Russia has
aggressive, expansionist designs on the former Warsaw Pact states in the Baltics, Poland and
beyond.
The latter is a nonsensical fabrication. In fact, it was the neocon meddlers from
Washington who crushed Ukraine's last semblance of civil governance when they enabled
ultra-nationalists and crypto-Nazis to gain government positions after the February 2014
putsch.
As we indicated above, in one fell swoop that inexcusable stupidity reopened Ukraine's
blood-soaked modern history. The latter incepted with Stalin's re-population of the eastern
Donbas region with "reliable" Russian workers after his genocidal liquidation of the kulaks
in the early 1930s.
It was subsequently exacerbated by the large-scale collaboration by Ukrainian nationalists
in the west with the Nazi Wehrmacht as it laid waste to Poles, Jews, gypsies and other
"undesirables" on its way to Stalingrad in 1942-43. Thereafter followed an equal and opposite
spree of barbaric revenge as the victorious Red Army marched back through Ukraine on its way
to Berlin.
So it may be fairly asked. What beltway lame brains did not chance to understand that
Washington's triggering of "regime change" in Kiev would reopen this entire bloody history of
sectarian and political strife?
Moreover, once they had opened Pandora's box, why was it so hard to see that an outright
partition of Ukraine with autonomy for the Donbas and Crimea, or even accession to the
Russian state from which these communities had originated, would have been a perfectly
reasonable resolution?
Certainly that would have been far preferable to dragging all of Europe into the lunacy of
the current anti-Putin sanctions and embroiling the Ukrainian factions in a suicidal civil
war. The alleged Russian threat to Europe, therefore, was manufactured in Imperial
Washington, not the Kremlin.
In fact, in 1989 and 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration assured Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev that if he accepted German unification, the West would not seek to exploit
the situation through any eastward expansion – not even by "one inch," as
then-secretary of state James Baker assured Gorbachev. But Bill Clinton reneged on that
commitment, moving to expand NATO on an eastward path that eventually led right up to the
Russian border.
So Robert Merry said it well in his excellent piece on the entire neocon Ukraine Scam that
is being paraded before the Schiff Show.
That is, what is being desperately defended on Capitol Hill is not the rule of law,
national security or fidelity to the Constitution of the United States., but a giant Neocon
Lie that is needed to keep the Empire in business, and the world moving ever closer to an
utterly unnecessary Cold War 2.0 between nation's each pointing enough nuclear warheads at
the other to destroy the planet.
NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the
expansion countries lying east of Germany. As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued
stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in NATO
either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security.
True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their
elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to respond favorably to Western financial
blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine,
renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official
status to the Russian language. These actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but
they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations aimed
at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater
economic ties to Russia, pro-Western Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged
street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria Nuland
gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia.
Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely
Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey
Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian coup, she
shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position,
demonstrating the influence that enables US meddling in foreign countries.
That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to
protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine (the so-called Donbass in the country's
east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated a
plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly
the "sham referendum" described by Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass
Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward.
The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in
the center of Eurasia – the global "heartland," in the view of the famous British
geographic scholar Halford Mackinder – renders it always a potential threat. Its
vulnerability to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands.
Its national temperament seems to include a natural tendency towards authoritarianism. Any
sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind.
But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia,
the Alliance has been the more aggressive player – aggressive when it pushed for NATO's
eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the US
government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the
encirclement of Russia; aggressive when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for
Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian orbit with
economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected
Ukrainian government; and aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge
Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood.
George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this
aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon
its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues and
leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well.
"... America was feared by many intellectuals, both in the United States and Britain of the 1940s and 1950s, and their fears were not unwarranted. ..."
"... Big, brawny America – its power establishment – very much was inclined towards dominating the world after WWII. The whole tone of the American press and speeches of major political figures in the period was actually quite frightening. Any highly intelligent, sensitive type would be concerned by it. ..."
"... America wanted a monopoly on nuclear weapons, so that it would be in an unassailable position as it built its imperial apparatus after WWII, the time effectively it "took over" as world imperial power with so many potential competitors flattened. ..."
"... Later, the Pentagon actually planned things like an all-out first strike on the Soviets – it did that more once as well as doing so later for China – so there were indeed plenty of dark intentions in Washington. ..."
"... Spies and ex-spies often put disinformation into their books. Sometimes officials even insist they do so. ..."
The motives for so many Western spies serving the Soviet Union – and in the 1940s and
1950s the Soviets had the best "humint" on earth – were rather idealistic. This was
largely true for the Cambridge Circle in Britain. They were concerned that America was going
to "lord it over" the Russians and everyone else.
America was feared by many intellectuals, both in the United States and Britain of the
1940s and 1950s, and their fears were not unwarranted.
Big, brawny America – its power establishment – very much was inclined
towards dominating the world after WWII. The whole tone of the American press and speeches of
major political figures in the period was actually quite frightening. Any highly intelligent,
sensitive type would be concerned by it.
You certainly did not have to be a communist to feel that way, but being one assisted with
access to important Soviet contacts. They sought you out.
America wanted a monopoly on nuclear weapons, so that it would be in an unassailable
position as it built its imperial apparatus after WWII, the time effectively it "took over"
as world imperial power with so many potential competitors flattened.
It made little secret of its desire to keep such a monopoly, so brilliant people like
Oppenheimer would be well aware of something they might well regard as ominous.
Later, the Pentagon actually planned things like an all-out first strike on the
Soviets – it did that more once as well as doing so later for China – so there
were indeed plenty of dark intentions in Washington.
A hugely important general like MacArthur was unblinkingly ready in 1950 to use atomic
weapons in the Korean War to destroy North Korea's connections with China.
I read several major biographies of Oppenheimer, and there is little to nothing concerning
Soviet intelligence work. When I came across the Sudoplatov book with its straightforward
declaration of Oppenheimer's assistance, it was difficult to know how to weigh the claim.
Spies and ex-spies often put disinformation into their books. Sometimes officials even
insist they do so.
Judging by what is suggested here, if Oppenheimer did help, it was in subtle ways like
letting Klaus Fuchs, a fellow scientist and a rather distinguished one (but a Soviet spy),
look at certain papers. But the scientific community always has some considerable tendency to
share information, a tendency having nothing to do with spying.
In general, it should be understood, that Oppenheimer, despite all his brilliance, was a
rather disturbed man all his life. Quite early on, as just one example, he attempted to
poison someone he did not like. Only pure luck prevented the man's eating a lethally-laced
apple. There were other disturbing behaviors too.
Later they believed that equality of superpower status for the Soviet Union would
contribute to world peace.
How dumb were these "scientists". Everyone knows that once Soviet Union fell, peace and
freedom and democracy are flowering all over the world and United States are not waging any
wars anymore.
"... It could be argued, perhaps, that an expansion of Russian influence in Ukraine could affect the vital interests of the rest of Europe, though that would hardly be inevitable. But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that the EU has a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18 trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6 trillion? ..."
"... The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's rendition of recent events in Ukraine was so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood. As he had it, Ukraine's turn to the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an extent that he tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence, whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point of Russian army rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed formations and puppet governments." And so the West extended military assistance to Ukraine. ..."
"... Thumbs up on the article - the valiant Ukraine facing perfidious Russia is a gross oversimplification. And as noted, the US is involved in this mess up to its eyeballs. ..."
"... Russia is associated with the image of the USSR which developed an alternative model to financial capitalism. Financial capitalism is collapsing for objective and totally unavoidable reasons. The search for an alternative will continue drawing more attention to Russia as a country that is, in principle, capable of offering an alternative development model. ..."
"... The disagreement IS over Ukraine policy, not this argument about what Trump may or may not have done. DC is full of corruption of all kinds, including in foreign policy, but no one is ever punished. So we know that is not the issue. ..."
"... I believe Stratfor, no friend of Russia and close to the neocon faction in American politics, described the 2014 coup as "the most blatant coup in history". ..."
"... This article is very good in detail, but they could also add that the first Minister of Finance in Ukraine's post-Maidan government was a literal US State Department official who was only then granted Ukrainian citizenship. Not surprisingly she also made Ukraine accept IMF loans, getting Ukraine into the IMF predatory lending/austerity scam. ..."
"... This is the legacy of careerism within the Foreign Service. People get positions in which they live comfortably, attending all the right parties and getting a sophisticated world view and seldom have any loyalty or accountability to the Commander in Chief. ..."
"... When Vindman claimed he was disturbed by what he heard, instead of following the chain of command, which he invokes almost as often as his rank, he lawyers up. ..."
he Wall Street Journal 's Peggy Noonan liked what she saw when U.S. diplomats George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr. went
before the House Intelligence Committee to give testimony as part of the ongoing impeachment drama. She saw them as "the old America
reasserting itself." They demonstrated "stature and command of their subject matter." They evinced "capability and integrity."
All true. Kent, with his bow tie and his family tradition of public service, appeared to be the very picture of the old-school
American foreign service official. And Taylor, with his exemplary West Point career, his Vietnam heroism, and his longtime national
service, seemed a throwback to the blunt-spoken American military men who gave us our World War II triumph and our rise to global
dominance.
But these men embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and dangerous. Perhaps no serious blame should accrue
to them, since it is the same geopolitical outlook embraced and enforced by pretty much the entire foreign policy establishment,
of which these men are mere loyal apparatchiks. And yet they are playing their part in pushing a foreign policy that is directing
America towards a very possible disaster.
Neither man manifested even an inkling of an understanding of what kind of game the United States in playing with Ukraine. Neither
gave even a nod to the long, complex relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Neither seemed to understand either the substance or
the intensity of Russia's geopolitical interests along its own borders or the likely consequences of increasing U.S. meddling in
what for centuries has been part of Russia's sphere of influence.
Both Taylor and Kent declared that America's vital national interest is wrapped up in Ukraine, though neither sought to explain
why in any substantive way. Spin out all the potential scenarios of Ukraine's fate and then ask whether any of them would materially
affect America's vital interests. Any affirmative answer would require elaborate contortions.
It could be argued, perhaps, that an expansion of Russian influence in Ukraine could affect the vital interests of the rest of
Europe, though that would hardly be inevitable. But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that the EU has
a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18 trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6 trillion?
The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's
rendition of recent events in Ukraine was so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood. As he had it, Ukraine's turn to
the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an
extent that he tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence, whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv
that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point
of Russian army rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed formations and puppet governments."
And so the West extended military assistance to Ukraine.
"It is this security assistance," he said, "that is at the heart of the [impeachment] controversy that we are discussing today."
In contrast to this misleading rendition, here are the facts, with appropriate context.
In 1989 and 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that if he accepted German unification,
the West would not seek to exploit the situation through any eastward expansion -- not even by "one inch," as then-secretary of state
James Baker assured Gorbachev. But Bill Clinton reneged on that commitment, moving to expand NATO on an eastward path that eventually
led right up to the Russian border.
NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the expansion countries lying east of Germany.
As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in
NATO either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security.
As Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the U.S. Naval War College has written, Russia and Ukraine share a 1,500-mile border where Ukraine "nestles
up against the soft underbelly of the Russian Federation." Gvosdev elaborates: "The worst nightmare of the Russian General Staff
would be NATO forces deployed all along this frontier, which would put the core of Russia's population and industrial capacity at
risk of being quickly and suddenly overrun in the event of any conflict." Beyond that crucial strategic concern, the two countries
share strong economic, trade, cultural, ethnic, and language ties going back centuries. No Russian leader of any stripe would survive
as leader if he or she were to allow Ukraine to be wrested fully from Russia's sphere of influence.
And yet America, in furtherance of the ultimate aim of pulling Ukraine away from Russia, spent some $5 billion in a campaign to
gin up pro-Western sentiment there, according to former assistant secretary of state for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who spearheaded
much of this effort during the Obama administration. It was clearly a blatant effort to interfere in the domestic politics of a foreign
nation -- and a nation residing in a delicate and easily inflamed part of the world.
But Ukraine is a tragically divided nation, with many of its people drawn to the West while others feel greater ties to Russia.
The late Samuel Huntington of Harvard called Ukraine "a cleft country, with two distinct cultures." Contrary to Taylor's false portrayal
of an aggressive Russia trampling on eastern Ukrainians by setting up puppet governments and manufacturing a bogus referendum in
Crimea, the reality is that large numbers of Ukrainians there favor Russia and feel loyalty to what they consider their Russian heritage.
The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its Parliament in 1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear
that the national leadership would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded to avoid a violent national confrontation.)
In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had campaigned on a platform of "unity with Russia."
True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their elected president, Viktor Yanukovych,
to respond favorably to Western financial blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine,
renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official status to the Russian language. These
actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations
aimed at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater economic ties to Russia, pro-Western
Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria
Nuland gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia.
Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she
declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian
coup, she shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position, demonstrating the influence that
enables U.S. meddling in foreign countries.
That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine
(the so-called Donbass in the country's east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated
a plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly the "sham referendum" described by
Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward.
The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in the center of Eurasia -- the global "heartland,"
in the view of the famous British geographic scholar Halford Mackinder -- renders it always a potential threat. Its vulnerability
to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands. Its national temperament seems to include a natural
tendency towards authoritarianism. Any sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind.
But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia, the Alliance has been the more aggressive
player -- aggressive when it pushed for NATO's eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the
U.S. government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the encirclement of Russia; aggressive
when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian
orbit with economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected Ukrainian government; and
aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood.
George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze
Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues
and leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well.
American diplomacy is rather reminiscent of German diplomacy in 1917, in that expanding NATO into Ukraine and the Baltics is as
stupidly provocative to Moscow as the Zimmerman Telegram was to the US. Zimmerman's offer was incredibly stupid since it provoked
a US declaration of war but Germany had absolutely no way to provide Mexico any material assistance. Neither will NATO be providing
any real assistance to Ukraine or the Baltic states if the balloon goes up -- today's Bundeswehr is not your grandfathers Wehrmacht.
True. The stupidity of US policy toward Russia can only be defeated by stupidity of the limitrophus of Eastern Europe, like Poland
or the Baltic states. If "balloon goes up" they will be first to evaporate.
Thumbs up on the article - the valiant Ukraine facing perfidious Russia is a gross oversimplification. And as noted, the US is
involved in this mess up to its eyeballs. The first person to speak out publicly was the former diplomat (and godfather of "Containment")
George Kennan. In his last public comment, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times warning against pushing NATO to the East as
a policy guaranteed to cause Russian fear and resentment. In the early years of the century, Mikhail Gorbachev - no friend of
Putin's - accused the West of trying to treat Russia like a third rate nation. It is sad that the "deep state" maneuvers against
Trump (up and running early enough to destroy Paul Manafort) derailed Trump's plans to talk openly with Putin and thus earn him
the blind hatred of John Brennan. The rest is history.
You need a foreign policy update. Ukraine and Europe are not longer our problems. They have grown ideologically distant and opposed
to US interests, which is self interest and transactional foreign policy now. The days of "altruistic" foreign policy are over
with. Marshall died long ago.
This is totally inaccurate. The current Russian system is not socialist, and it certainly has problems with corruption, but it
is opposed to the Western establishment and it is promoting a traditional Christian and nationalist outlook as opposed to the
liberal globalism of the Western elites. It is better than the alternative at the moment, and in a sense Putin, especially
his foreign policy , is executing the will of the people in Russia. Conservatives opposed Russia up until Trump because both
sides are controlled by the same Western establishment, which has been pursuing an anti-Russian agenda for a long time. They do
not want any resistance to their liberal world order.
"Democracy" is a lie and a fraud, Plato knew this 4,000 years ago, and "class consciousness" is only real in the sense that
the current situation in the West has an elite that is going against the interests of the people. I don't see how defending Russia
is "undermining class conscientious," actually arguing against the anti-Russian warmongering is a good thing. What "Russian state
attacks" are you talking about?
"To see US conservatives defending an autocracy reflects they have embraced those fascistic principles."
Do you even know how conservatism and the terms right and left wing originated? Conservatism and the right wing are terms that
are from the French Revolution, used to describe supporters of the Catholic French Monarchy of the Bourbons while the liberals
or the left were the revolutionaries. Historically Conservatives defended European Christian monarchies while the liberals always
wanted to overthrow throne and altar to replace them with secular democratic republics. In fact there is nothing more conservative
than autocracy, namely a Church-anointed monarchy. Americanism, or the ideology of the American founding fathers, was inherently
liberal. They were in revolt against the monarchy of their time. There is nothing conservative about democracy, it's quite to
the contrary. Autocracy is not "fascistic," that term is completely irrelevant in this historical context.
"Seeing similar headlines from opposite political poles exposes a 'horseshoe' phenomenon of left/right ideologies in which
the two poles are close together in significant contexts."
Are you really going to be so grug brained as to unironically bring up the horseshoe theory? Looks like we have a big brained
intellectual centrist over here. Not even worth giving an in depth analysis on this one.
Good comment. The Monarchists sat on the right side of the French assembly and the revolutionaries sat on the left. That is how
the modern spectrum morphed into Fascism (corporate state) on the right and Communism (revolutionary) on the left.
I've actually been to Russia, twice in the last year and a half, and I had a chance to meet and to converse with, and to hear
from, Russians of all sorts: academics, students, politicians, government employees, businessmen, environmentalists, scientists,
and journalists.
Based on what I saw and heard, I categorically reject your statement that Russians "are not all that free to express their
opinion."
I heard from people who are well known in Russia who disagree with Putin. I heard criticisms of the government from people
who are not well known, or who are just average people. People note that corruption is still a problem, at many levels of society
and government, but they did not seem at all reticent to make that point.
No one displayed any fear or reluctance to express his views. At the same time, Russians acknowledge a great deal of improvement
since the tragedy of the Yeltsin years.
And while there are people who criticize the government's domestic policies, they tend to be much more in support of what the
government under Putin has accomplished in terms of foreign policy. And that seems to me to be a very rational reaction.
First off I am Russian myself. Most people are in favour of an authoritarian government, nobody cares about or wants democracy.
Monarchist restoration would be ideal but Putin is good enough for now. Free press and elections are a fraud and a lie, as I said.
First of all, show me one single state on the planet today which is pro working class. Secondly, juxtaposing the concepts of working
class and fascism is just a demonstration of how badly you know the history. Suffice it to say that the set of political views
deriving from the ideas of Mussolini are called right-wing socialism. Hence, your ignorance of history logically begets that of
today's politics. No, Trump and Putin cannot be called truly pro working class. But they're at least are not so blatantly anti
working class as neolibs who oppose them.
Russia is associated with the image of the USSR which developed an alternative model to financial capitalism. Financial capitalism
is collapsing for objective and totally unavoidable reasons. The search for an alternative will continue drawing more attention
to Russia as a country that is, in principle, capable of offering an alternative development model.
Except that isn't what this is about. The disagreement IS over Ukraine policy, not this argument about what Trump may or may not
have done. DC is full of corruption of all kinds, including in foreign policy, but no one is ever punished. So we know that is
not the issue.
But we do know from the testimonies that they oppose Trump BECAUSE he changed Ukraine policy away from the policy of confrontation
with Russia, or tried to. They are all against that and against Trump doing that, as they said. The entire establishment has opposed
Trump on this since he got elected. So let's not be disingenuous. This charade has gone on long enough. The elites want their
proxy war with Russia.
1. From my perspective, the article is saying that our Ukraine policy is immoral, not that the impeachment is not founded.
2. Further to 1. above, your pizza analogy doesn't hold up. If pizza is bad for you, eating pizza harm nobody but the eater
and the eater's insurers.
By contrast, our Ukraine policy is the support of actual live Nazis and has resulted in the deaths of numerous innocents, not
to mention the economic destruction of Ukraine.
This is more like providing one pizza company weapons and support, knowing full well that they will use those weapons and cash
to murder rivals and customers who order from those rivals.
The good news is that the influence of apparatchiks like Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor will be at an end within a few years. America
thought the blood of hundreds of thousands of foreign children was a "fair price" to pay for the dollar's continued role as a
reserve currency (Madeleine Albright's words) and cheaper gas at the pump. The effort was a bust. Endless trillion-dollar-a-year
deficits will come to an end quickly. There isn't that much liquidity in the private sphere to sop up at the price the U.S. Gov
can afford.
Americans have forgotten how much money a billion dollars is, much less a trillion: to wit, the Democrats future plans are
priced in dozens of trillions of dollars. Is it even possible to count that high (given that no one has any real idea how the
economy will react)?
Boomers destroyed the country. It only took one "me" generation to introduce such deep structural instability that there is
no recovery. Really, does anyone think a trillion dollars a year of demand can ever be pulled out of the economy? No. Does anyone
really think a trillion dollars a year will magically appear for free, from nowhere, for a decade or more? The intelligentsia
will reap the fruit of its effort within a few years. And it will be dried cat food for dinner. Bless them!
What "actual bloody invasion" of Ukraine and Georgia. Georgia attacked South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008, and got a bloody nose
for their trouble. They didn't lose any territory however, which is odd, if Russia were the attacker.
If Russia had actually invaded Ukraine, the Ukrainian clown army would be obliterated in days or hours. Note how there are
some 500 miles of open border between Donbass and Sumskaya Oblast - but no fighting? Do you think that the Russian military doesn't
know the geography of their own border?
Ukraine was already devided before it separated from USSR. People from western Ukraine called Russians and eastern Ukrainians
moskali. Eastern Ukraine spoke mostly Russian, western Ukraine spoke mostly Ukrainian. I believe tension escalated after Russia
was about to loose access to the Black Sea and its navy there. Sorry. That was a big mistake to even think that it would happen
easy. Russia annexed Crimea from Ottoman Empire in 18th century. Since then it was part of Russia. Khrushchev transferred it to
Ukrainian republic in 1954. You seriously believe that Russia would easy let it go after almost 2 centuries of its presence there?
Big chunk of Russian history associated with Black Sea Fleet.
The invasions were in response to them trying to acquire NATO memberships and NATO egging then on to do this and provoke Russia.
If they remain in the Russian sphere than that would not be a problem.
NATO goes where it was warned not to go, provokes the response it knew it would get, and claims that this is "aggression."
What a joke.
There was no "Russian meddling", that was debunked. There is no evidence that the DNC was hacked and the so called troll farm
had no connection to the Russian government and was merely a business marketing firm selling advertising space on their social
media pages.
Russia doesn't poison dissidents in foreign countries, if you are referring to the Skripal case, that narrative has fallen
apart, multiple journalists have written lengthy pieces about all of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the UK government's
narrative. Not to mention Yulia Skripal said she's still wants to go back to Russia, so clearly she doesn't think Russia poisoned
her.
We do have evidence to the show the opposite. The only ones who examined the DNC servers are a firm that was caught lying about
Russian hacking before and is owned by a Ukrainian millionaire that donated to the Clinton Foundation. Can't get more damning
than that.
What are you even talking about? The DNC refused to allow the server to be examined because they know there was no Russian hacking,
and why would Trump privately ask Zelensky to investigate Ukraine's role in all of this if he knew he were guilty? The point is
there is no evidence to prove Russian hacking, and the only claims come from a firm that is owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who
has been caught lying about Russian hacking before and donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.
How much mental gymnastics are you going to use to try to pretend like you don't understand?
Which is more aggressive, do you think -- invading one's neighbors, or "dangling the prospect of NATO membership" for them?
The US engineered and supported a coup in Ukraine to overthrow the constitutional government. Is this aggression? It seems
so to me. It certainly preceded any Russian response. As far as NATO membership for Ukraine, polls of Ukrainian opinion long before
the Maidan showed very strong feeling against Ukraine joining NATO.
I believe, when all facts fail, that the way through to some would be pointing out the absurdities of what they hear therefore
think. It might make them think twice before publicly embarassing themselves.
The Western actions are more aggressive, because they actually happened...
Russia's annexation of the Crimea was bloodless, and doubtless spared it the carnage that the regime in Kiev wrought in Donbass.
America's movements since the end of the Cold War have been consistently offensive in nature, and Russia's consistently defensive
in nature.
That defense has included counterattacks, feints, and opportunistic thrusts. In every 'attack' it made, Russia was reacting,
not taking the initiative.For their part the liberal hegemonists know what they're doing. Good PR is priceless, and they know it's essential for offensive
movements to not appear that way.
Problem is, you liberals are still unable to prove a single allegation of those you uttered in your comment.
How come the previous Ukrainian government didn't manage to beg one single satellite pic of, say, Russian tanks crossing their
border from the CIA or the DIA, given the purported "bloody invasion"? Russian armored vehicles have some cloaking devices or
what?
How come the Mueller's so-called "investigation" turned out to be such a pathetic juridical failure, given the purported "direct
meddling"?
What a naive poor dear one has to be to believe in poisonings with radioactive substances (as dangerous to the poisoner as
to his victim) in a world where poisons causing deaths looking like those from natural causes exist and are available to all secret
services (and even to private citizens having talents in chemistry)?
Plus, careful with (ab)using upper case. "Democratical countries" with a capital "D" reads like "countries, whose governments
are proxies of the Democratic Party". Blame Freud and his slips.
I love people like you. I mean since we were invaded by Germany, Napoleon, Charles the Tenth of Sweden, the Teutonic Knights,
the Golden Horde (Ghengis Khan started this), at the cost of countless millions of lives lost, I sense that we- as Americans-
have every need to push our frontiers to Russia's doorstep.
You demonstrate a phenomenal ignorance of Historical perspective: exactly the cannon fodder the establishment's looking for.
Nice and sober account. One detail that might be significant. Until 1954, Crimea was part of the Russian Federation (the Russian
State has wrestled that territory from the Tatars/Mongols and Ottomans more than 200 years before and fought for it against the
united Europe in 1850s). And Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, had bestowed Crimea in an unsanctioned administrative decision to
the then Ukrainian Socialist Republic in 1954.
Ukraine as a state is pretty much a creation of Russia and instead of being grateful for their extensive statehood, elements
in Ukraine would rather bite the hand that made them.
Lots of people all over the world get up and go to work. They do it in democracies, autocracies, and countries that are somewhere
in between. In fact, the United States is losing its position as global economic hegemon in large part because the Chinese (no
democracy there) are harder working than Americans.
The United States currency has value for two reasons - inside the United States, it's the only way you can pay taxes. Outside
the United States, the gulfie tyrannies only accept dollars for international sales of oil.
$5 billion thrown down the Ukraine rat hole. It is too bad that the money wasn't spent providing better care for our wounded veterans.
Watch the video "Delay, Deny, Hope They Die". As one of the very few, perhaps only, commentater who has criticized Victoria Nuland's
role in the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, I have made many of the same points in recent days.
You know that is dishonest. This has nothing to do with what Trump tried to tell Zelensky, and anyway the US and Ukraine do in
fact have a treaty from 1998 that mandates them to cooperate on law enforcement matters. DC is full of corruption but none of
it is ever punished, so we know that is not the issue.
This is all about Trump's desire to end the proxy war with Russia. That is all this is about ultimately. Looking at the big
picture, that is a large part of the reason why the establishment wants to delegitimization him or remove Trump from office. This
phone call scandal is nothing more than the latest tactical move to get there. If you don't see that, and you genuinely think
that this is merely about Trump asking Zelensky to investigate something and get caught up in the minutiae of that, you are simply
naive and don't understand the true nature of politics. Think about the big picture.
A proxy war is nice cover for weapons smuggling. I've postulated for awhile now that Benghazi is the key to Deep State. Ask yourself
why the Obama administration allowed Stevens and his cohorts to die when there was ample air and naval power nearby. What did
he stumble upon? I think it was a vast smuggling operation designed to support Muslim Bros. and Al Shabbab-both of whom later
attacked US assets and who continue to worry the region with their raids of kidnappings, rapes and mass murders that go largely
unreported in the US press. There's a reason why so many liberals her and abroad claim to support open borders and it has nothing
to do with humanitarian goals and everything to do with an organized global crime group who is using sievelike borders to allow
drugs, fake licensed products, fake pharmaceuticals, weapons and even humans to become trade goods. People should really ask why
Democrats refuse to stop this. Europeans should ask who is getting rich off of unchecked migration of indigent people.
1. The military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify their exorbitant budgets.
2. The spooks need a Big Enemy to justify Big Brother and also their increasingly open interference in domestic politics.
3. The people who run things need a distraction, lest the masses start to demand the sorts of reforms that would take money
out of rich people's pockets. A Big Enemy does this just fine.
Russia makes a better Big Enemy than does China, for US business is already too intertwined with China and its supply chains
reach deeply into that country. Any disruption to those links would cost a lot of money.
TAC has been doing great work covering the Ukraine.
Even so-called conservatives play along with the mainstream media's and establishment's narrative, with the likes of NRO's
warmongering neocons, such as the Jay Nordlinger, constantly banging-on about poor little Ukraine being a "struggling democracy"
in need, rather than a deeply divided and failed state that perhaps should never have existed in its present borders as a "sovereign
nation." The best solution for the Ukraine would probably be to split it into two, with Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula
perhaps just becoming part of Greater Russia.
I believe Stratfor, no friend of Russia and close to the neocon faction in American politics, described the 2014 coup as "the
most blatant coup in history".
Exactly. This article is very good in detail, but they could also add that the first Minister of Finance in Ukraine's post-Maidan
government was a literal US State Department official who was only then granted Ukrainian citizenship. Not surprisingly she also
made Ukraine accept IMF loans, getting Ukraine into the IMF predatory lending/austerity scam.
FYI, the advocates for intervening in the Ukraine are the ones accusing Pres Putin
1. with invading Crimea -- false
2. interfering with US elections -- sabotage an offense that certainly means war -- unfounded
3. that the Russians and the President operated in as collaborators in sabotaging US election also false
this president in response signed a document that the Russians did spy and further implemented the worst sanctions to date
against Russia despite the lack of evidence
as it is that Pres. Putin is certainly not being excused -- ;laugh - not even from things he has not been proved to have done
:Laugh ---
It's like when the police say you did something but can't prove it so they get some others to say you did it because they know
you did it
-even there's no evidence you did.
If you don't understand just review the SP Mueller investigation and the subsequent impeachment inquiry -- this is not new
game for anyone familiar with prosecutor methods.
This is true, all of this could have easily been avoided if the US stopped meddling and withdrew its troops from the former USSR.
People like Taylor and Kent show there is an agenda to start a war with Russia. Hopefully the upcoming Ukraine-Russia peace summit
can settle this conflict.
1. The military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify their exorbitant budgets.
2. The spooks need a Big Enemy to justify Big Brother and also their increasingly open interference in domestic politics.
3. The people who run things need a distraction, lest the masses start to demand the sorts of reforms that would take money
out of rich people's pockets. A Big Enemy does this just fine.
Russia makes a better Big Enemy than does China, for US business is already too intertwined with China and its supply chains
reach deeply into that country. Any disruption to those links would cost a lot of money.
TAC has been doing great work covering the Ukraine.
Even so-called conservatives play along with the mainstream media's and establishment's narrative, with the likes of NRO's
warmongering neocons, such as the Jay Nordlinger, constantly banging-on about poor little Ukraine being a "struggling democracy"
in need, rather than a deeply divided and failed state that perhaps should never have existed in its present borders as a "sovereign
nation." The best solution for the Ukraine would probably be to split it into two, with Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula
perhaps just becoming part of Greater Russia.
FYI, the advocates for intervening in the Ukraine are the ones accusing Pres Putin
1. with invading Crimea -- false
2. interfering with US elections -- sabotage an offense that certainly means war -- unfounded
3. that the Russians and the President operated in as collaborators in sabotaging US election also false
this president in response signed a document that the Russians did spy and further implemented the worst sanctions to date
against Russia despite the lack of evidence
as it is that Pres. Putin is certainly not being excused -- ;laugh - not even from things he has not been proved to have done
:Laugh ---
It's like when the police say you did something but can't prove it so they get some others to say you did it because they know
you did it
-even there's no evidence you did.
If you don't understand just review the SP Mueller investigation and the subsequent impeachment inquiry -- this is not new
game for anyone familiar with prosecutor methods.
That's a strawman and there's nothing to refute, the article is correct. Because the US government and CFR globalist thinkers
like Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Friedman, and George Soros have talked about the geopolitical importance of Ukraine since the
1990s -- read Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard from 1996, where talks about the need for the US to take control of Ukraine from Russia
to prevent Russia from becoming a great power that can challenge US global hegemony, or Soros' admission on a 60 Minutes interview
from 1998 that he has invested billions in Ukraine, particularly in the Ukrainian military. As Brzezinski says, the US was quick
to recognise the geopolitical importance of an independent Ukrainian state, and became one of Ukraine's strongest backers in the
1990s for this reason. Globalist plans for Ukraine go back many years.
Polls before the Maidan show most Ukrainians had a very positive image of Russia as well, and increasingly people in Ukraine
are getting tired of the war, which is why they voted massively for Zelensky over Poroshenko.
When I look at our foreign policy, before Trump, you have to go back to Reagan to have any semblance of policy based in reality.
While Trump is kinda of a bull in a china shop, at least he highlights some of the asinine policies the 'experts' have been pursuing.
Russia's objection to US and EU interference into Ukrainian politics makes as much sense as US objection. would if Russia were
in Mexico attempting to draw them into a confederation with Moscow.
He may be as immoral as hell. Most of them, R or D, are, in case you haven't noticed. The fact is, there's still no factual evidence
he committed any impeachable in this specific case.
So, if the employees of the government who are involved in international affairs do not agree with the President, the President
is accused of an impeachable offense? These two are not patriots in the usual sense. Nor are they public servants. They see themselves
as somehow above the Law. Above the Constitution. Applauded by those trying ever since the election to bring down a President.
Seditionists.
The last 30 years has been a complete disaster for US foreign diplomacy. We are being led by complete morons! Trump is a big step
in the right direction.
The fact is, it was a U.S. sponsored coup by the Obama administration that overthrew a democratically elected government in Ukraine.
Here is the Feb 2015 Obama CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria...note that Obama says 'Yanukovich fleeing AFTER we brokered a deal
to transition power in Ukraine'...incredible. Play
Hide
Why is it wrong and improper to know whether or not a presidential candidate's family was involved in corrupt dealings abroad?
But that's not even the question, because the issue of what Trump may or may not have done is not the real issue. DC is full of
corruption and none of it is ever punished, so we know that's not what they care about. What this is about is Trump's disagreement
with the establishment on Russia-Ukraine policy and the greater geopolitical picture. Thinking this is about some minutiae over
who said what on a phone call and what he mayor may not have really meant is naive and ignorant of the true nature of politics.
These situations are not compartmentalised, these have to be seen from the the big picture of geopolitics.
He sensible policy would be to Finlandize Ukraine and Byelorus. NATO would not have them as members and Russia would let them
pursue economic ties with Europe. This worked for Finland through put the Cold War and kept the region peaceful
This is the legacy of careerism within the Foreign Service. People get positions in which they live comfortably, attending all
the right parties and getting a sophisticated world view and seldom have any loyalty or accountability to the Commander in Chief.
That's a problem.
When Vindman claimed he was disturbed by what he heard, instead of following the chain of command, which he
invokes almost as often as his rank, he lawyers up. Why? Who is Vindman reporting to if not the President? Too many of these folks
act as if the change in administrations is merely a formality to which they can choose to embrace or not. Almost without exception,
we have seen testimony from people whose personal history is in the Russian/Ukraine theater and who have family and history there.
This is problematic. If anyone ever looked and sounded the part of a mole, it was Vindman today.
These maniacs are provoking nuclear war.
They fail to understand that, unlike 50 years ago when America had a decentralized industrial economy and banking system, 2
large nukes aimed at NYC and DC would destroy the country.
This is the only conservative site worth reading. I do love me some serious and deep analysis from Conservatives in important
geopolitical issues. God for a return to the days of Buckley. It would be glorious.
Fantastic analysis of the 3D chess game. But we are talking about Biden and Clinton so we need not overthink this. Obama gave
1 billion of taxpayer money to Ukraine. Ukraine gave Burisma some of that according the government of the UK. And once Burisma
was in receipt of our aid funds, millions flow through right back to the very same bad actors like Biden who directly controlled
the one billion in foreign aid. I wish this was more complicated. I wish it made Americans seem smarter. But to this old guy it
seems like a good old fashioned and very simple run of the mill scam . And in this scam the only person we know for fact cashed
the checks is Biden.
Come on Barr. It's time to do what we all know what needs to be done.
"But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that
the EU has a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18
trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6
trillion?"
An excellent question. The cold war is over. We won. We don't need to keep fighting it. Russia is not that much of a threat
to us.
Think about it. Our State Department has been in operation for well over 100 years in some form or another. Are we ANY safer?
Fire them all. No pension for failure.
For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.
Putin is a serious strategist – on the premises of Russian history. Understanding US values and psychology are not his strong
suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point among US policymakers.
-- Henry A. Kissinger in 2014 at the start of the Ukraine crisis (writing in the Washington Post.)
I cannot believe that the State Department was unaware of the intertwined history of Russia and the Ukraine or rather given State's
rigid worldview I can believe it. The Russians knew perfectly well that the United States was pulling the strings of the so-called
Maidan revolution and that the end would be to plant Nato and the EU right on Russia's doorstep.
Previous attempts to push Nato into parts of the south of the former Soviet empire had been fought off. Nothing could be more
predictable than that the Kremlin would do everything it could to oppose what it saw as hostile interference in the Ukraine on
behalf of "reformers". The US plays by the same rules. Cuba and the earlier Monroe doctrine are prize exhibits.
Obama slotted temperamentally into the State Department worldview or maybe it was the other way round. It was a worldview that
got the Middle East profoundly wrong at every turn including misundertanding the Arab Spring, support for the deeply anti-Western
Muslim Brotherhood, the appeasement and promotion of Iran, the abandonment of the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran, the destruction
of Libya as a going concern and how to tackle Syria. If there was an opportunity to get something wrong, Obama and the bow ties
managed it. They left behind a trail of wreckage.
Worst of all, Obama, the great opponent of nuclear proliferation, turned out to be its greatest enabler but ensured that he
would be long out of office when it happened and the media started asking "who lost Iran?" If Obama achieved one thing, it was
finally to kill off nuclear non-proliferation as a viable ambition. A nuclear Iran isn't just a threat to its neighours. It is
a direct missile threat to the EU which has happily collaborated in advancing Iranian power.
Unsurprisingiy, Trump rejected all this and it is for this that he is vilified by the foreign police dinosaurs who try to delude
the nation into believing that even when what they do ends in manifest disaster, there is no alternative. There is hardly a word
leaked by the foreign policy to the willingly ignorant media that is not a lie. The mess is theirs and they hate Trump for wakening
Americans up to their self-serving, somnolent incompetence.
The usual response to posts like this is to accuse the writer of being a traitrous Putin lover. On the contrary, know thy enemy.
The maxim doesn't mean have a beer with him. It means understand him.
Excellent statement of the "Thucydides trap" argument for caution regarding Russia and its traditional sphere of concern. But
Merry leaves us with a cliffhanger: what is the sound US Russian policy given his concerns and cautions? Moreover, his rendition
is vulnerable to a counterargument, namely, that Putin's Russia has gone far beyond the seizure or control of "protective lands"
towards an encirclement or menacing of Europe. This can be seen unfolding in Russia's military presence on Syria's (and potentially
Libya's) Mediterranean coast, its sale of weapons to Turkey, its connivance with Iran's Middle Eastern proxy wars, and the potential
for petro-blackmail of its energy customers. Add to this the affirmative case for European interest in Poland, whose capital Warsaw
is exposed to attack from its eastern and southern flanks just as Moscow is immediately threatened from its western and southern
flanks. Perhaps all this just confirms how far down the path to the "Thucydides trap" the principal parties have traveled. Yet,
all the same, on what grounds do we rationalize Russian inroads into the Mediterranean? Free navigation of the seas?
I like this article but Russia is no longer a declining power technically. It's GDP is slowly rising again in the last few years.
They did take a hit from sanctions and low oil prices but they are staring to recover to some degree.
Russians like Putin because their economy is much better now than it was during the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The problem this country has with Russia is that they were a declining power and now are back on the rise. China is more of
a threat but the imbeciles in the establishment keep focusing on trying to undermine Russian security. They seem to really believe
Putin is their enemy without realizing the overwhelming majority of Russians have issues with our stupid foreign policy.
Google Russian GDP, especially through time, and you'll see what I mean.
Is it any wonder that the old foreign service establishment "embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous"?
The foreign service exam of that era (probably no better today) tested substantially on ones knowledge of fiction: novels and
such. Rather like choosing career foreign service officers based on a person's performance in the entertainment trivia night at
the local watering hole. It was a test of memory not logic or insightfulness or historical perspective. These folks are not latter-day
De Toquevilles or great historians, even if many came from colleges viewed as top drawer.
One thing that few appreciate is that US actions in the Ukraine in 2013/14 prompted Russian retaliation in the 2016 election.
The Russians had been playing by our rules. (Party of the Regions won a free and fair election in the Ukraine) and then we supported
a violent extra-constitutional takeover.The Obama administration wanted to see a repeat of the performance in Kiev, in Moscow
with Putin playing the part of Yanukovych. The Russian response was to attack the fault lines in American Society. Their ultimate
goal is to see the kind of rioting in the US that we had supported in Kiev in the Winter of 14.
American diplomacy has become dangerously simplistic and one-dimensional in outlook. Turkey bad, Kurds good. Iran bad, Israel
good. Russia bad, Ukraine and NATO good. You try talking with Russia, Iran or Turkey you'll be crucified in domestic politics.
Russia on the other hand doesn't have this simplistic view. They wisely recognize that the world is varying shades of gray.
Excellent piece. Bottom line: the Ukraine is within Russia's "sphere of influence", not ours. Not our problem. The last time a
major power attempted to insert itself within another country's sphere of influence was in 1962. Anybody remember the Cuban Missile
Crisis?
Mr. Merry is entitled to his point of view, but I find his remarks to be out of touch -- sort of like another "Chicken Kiev" speech
with the date "2019" slapped on it. Perhaps he would benefit from a couple of tours of duty in Kyiv, like George Kent and Bill
Taylor. Then he would appreciate the fact that the United States does have real interests in preserving Ukrainian sovereignty,
along with the independence of all the former Soviet states who have split off from Russia. He should also not be so quick to
characterize Kent's and Taylor's testimony. They were in Congress not to express a policy position on Russia, but to act as fact
witnesses to the potentially impeachable actions of the President and his circle. So, let's not get into conspiracy theories about
what "elites" believe. It's one short step from that to muttering darkly about the 'Deep State" and Comet Pizza.
Is it any wonder that the old foreign service establishment "embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous"?
The foreign service exam of that era (probably no better today) tested substantially on ones knowledge of fiction: novels and
such.
Rather like choosing career foreign service officers based on a person's performance in the entertainment trivia night at the
local watering hole. It was a test of memory not logic or insightfulness or historical perspective. These folks are not latter-day
De Toquevilles or great historians, even if many came from colleges viewed as top drawer.
Agreed. However, an addendum, you seem to have forgotten to mention Russia's aggressive
training whales to spy on Norway, crickets to drive the US embassy in Cuba nuts, weaponizing
Masha and the bear, using Pokemon to sow the seeds of discord, contemplating on freezing up a
few states, any many others the mere thought of gets one wound up.
11/21/19 David Stockman on the Phony 'Ukrainegate' Witch Hunt
by Scott | Nov 22, 2019
| Interviews David Stockman
discusses everything that's going on with Ukraine and President Trump right now, which he says
is nothing more than a shallow ploy to oust the president and to gin up fear around the general
threat of Ukrainian and Russian power. Stockman reminds us that compared to America Russia has
a tiny GDP and a weak military, posing no credible threat to the U.S. They would be perfectly
happy to get along with us, he says, if it weren't for a deliberate effort to expand NATO right
up to their borders. America should show the same willingness to cooperate with them.
"The Ukrainian Influence Peddling Rings – A Microcosm of How Imperial Washington
Rolls" (
Antiwar.com Original )
David Stockman is the ultimate Washington insider turned iconoclast. He began his career in
Washington as a young man and quickly rose through the ranks of the Republican Party to become
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After
leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He is the author of
Trumped! ,The Triumph of
Politics , and his history of the financial crisis, The
Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America .
It's beginning to seem like an assault by the Zulu army of American politics – they
just never stop coming.
We are referring to the Russophobic neocon Deep Staters who have trooped before Adam's
Schiff Show to pillory POTUS for daring to look into the Ukrainian stench that engulfs the
Imperial City – a rank odor that is owing to their own arrogant meddling in the the
internal affairs of that woebegone country.
This time it was Dr. Fiona Hill who sanctimoniously advised the House committee that there
is nothing to see on the Ukraine front that involved any legitimate matter of state; it was
just the Donald and his tinfoil hat chums jeopardizing the serious business of protecting the
national security by injecting electioneering into relations with Ukraine.
She warned Republicans that legitimizing an unsubstantiated theory that Kyiv undertook
a concerted campaign to interfere in the election – a claim the president pushed
repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate – played into Russia's hands.
"In the course of this investigation," Dr. Hill testified before the House Intelligence
Committee's impeachment hearings, "I would ask that you please not promote politically
driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests."
Folks, we are getting just plain sick and tired of this drumbeat of lies, misdirection and
smug condescension by Washington payrollers like Fiona Hill. No Ukrainian interference in the
2016 US election?
Exactly what hay wagon does she think we fell off from?
Or better still, ask Paul Manafort who will spend his golden years in the Big House owing
to an August 2016 leak to the New York Times about an alleged "black book"
which recorded payments he had received from his work as an advisor to the Ukrainian
political party of former president Yanakovych. As we have seen, the latter had been removed
from office by a Washington instigated coup in February 2014.
By its own admission, this story came from the Ukrainian government and the purpose was
clear as a bell: Namely, to undermine the Trump presidential campaign and force Manafort out
of his months-old role as campaign chairman – a role that had finally brought some
professional management to the Donald's helter-skelter campaign for the nation's highest
office.
In the event, this well-timed bombshell worked, and in short order Manafort resigned,
leaving the disheveled Trump campaign in the lurch:
government investigators examining secret records have found Manafort's name, as well
as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was
used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr.
Manafort's main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012,
according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau . Investigators
assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients
also included election officials.
In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies
.. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million
deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort
and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Manafort's involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously
come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential
campaign – from Mr. Trump's favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation
of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats' emails – an examination of
Mr. Manafort's activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of
public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in
Kiev.
The bolded lines in the NYT story above tell you exactly where this was coming
from. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau had been set up by an outfit called "AntAC", which
was jointly funded by George Soros and the Obama State Department. And there can be little
doubt that the Donald's accurate view at the time – that Crimea's reunification with
Mother Russia after a 60 year hiatus which had been ordered by the former Soviet Union's
Presidium – was unwelcome in Kiev and among the Washington puppeteers who had put it in
power.
For want of doubt that the Poroshenko government was in the tank for Hillary Clinton, the
liberal rag called Politico spilled the beans a few months later. In a January
11, 2017 story it revealed that the Ukrainian government had pulled out all the stops
attempting to help Clinton, whose protégés at the State Department had been the
masterminds of the coup which put them in office. Thus, Politico concluded,
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to
back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information
on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race ..
But Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the
race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from
engaging in one another's elections.
While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between
governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump
campaign – and certainly for Manafort – can be traced more directly to the
Ukrainian government.
Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency – and publicized
by a parliamentarian – appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments that were
earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president,
Yanukovych.
TheNew York Times, in the August story revealing the ledgers'
existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were "a focus" of an
investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the
FBI was pursuing an overlapping inquiry.
Yet Fiona Hill sat before a House committee and under oath insisted that all of the above
was a Trumpian conspiracy theory, thereby reminding us that the neocon Russophobes are so
unhinged that they are prepared to lie at the drop of a hat to keep their false narrative
about the Russian Threat and Putin's "invasion" of Ukraine alive.
Needless to say, Fiona Hill is among the worst of the neocon warmongers, and has made a
specialty of demonizing Russia and propagating over and over flat out lies about what
happened in Kiev during 2014 and after. Thus, in one recent attack she claimed,
Russia today poses a greater foreign policy and security challenge to the United States
and its Western allies than at any time since the height of the Cold War. Its annexation of
Crimea, war in Ukraine's Donbas region, and military intervention in Syria have upended
Western calculations from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. Russia's intervention in Syria,
in particular, is a stark reminder that Russia is a multi-regional power ..
There is not a single true assertion in that quotation, of course, but we cite it for a
very particular reason. Shifty Schiff & his impeachment tribunal have brought in Hill
– and Lt. Colonel Vindman, Ambassador Taylor, George Kent and Tim Morrison previously
– in order to created an echo chamber.
That's right. The Dems are parroting the neocon lies – whether they believe them or
not – in order to propagate the impression that the Donald is undermining national
security in his effort to take a different posture on Russia and Ukraine, and is actually
bordering on treason.
Thus, Adam Schiff repeated the false neocon narrative virtually word for word at the opening
of the public hearings:
"In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's
embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian
empire."
That's pure rubbish. It's based on the Big Lie that the overwhelming vote of the Russian
population of Crimea in March 2014 was done at the gun point of the Russian Army. And that
event, in turn, is the lynch-pin of the hoary canard that Putin is seeking to rebuild the
Soviet Empire.
So it is necessary to review the truth once again about how Russian Crimea had been
temporarily appended to the Ukrainian SSR during Soviet times.
The allegedly "occupied" territory of Crimea, in fact, was actually purchased from the
Ottomans by Catherine the Great in 1783, thereby satisfying the longstanding quest of the
Russian Czars for a warm-water port. Over the ages Sevastopol then emerged as a great naval
base at the strategic tip of the Crimean peninsula, where it became home to the mighty Black
Sea Fleet of the Czars and then the Soviet Union, too.
For the next 171 years Crimea was an integral part of Russia (until 1954). That span
exceeds the 170 years that have elapsed since California was annexed by a similar thrust of
"Manifest Destiny" on this continent, thereby providing, incidentally, the United States Navy
with its own warm-water port in San Diego.
While no foreign forces subsequently invaded the California coasts, it was most definitely
not Ukrainian and Polish rifles, artillery and blood which famously annihilated The Charge Of
The Light Brigade at the Crimean city of Balaclava in 1854; they were Russians defending the
homeland from Turks, French and Brits.
And the portrait of the Russian "hero" hanging in Putin's office is that of Czar Nicholas
I – whose brutal 30-year reign brought the Russian Empire to its historical zenith. Yet
despite his cruelty, Nicholas I is revered in Russian hagiography as the defender of Crimea,
even as he lost the 1850s war to the Ottomans and Europeans.
At the end of the day, security of its historic port in Crimea is Russia's Red Line, not
Washington's. Unlike today's feather-headed Washington pols, even the enfeebled Franklin
Roosevelt at least knew that he was in Soviet Russia when he made port in the Crimean
city of Yalta in February 1945.
Maneuvering to cement his control of the Kremlin in the intrigue-ridden struggle for
succession after Stalin's death a few years later, Nikita Khrushchev allegedly spent 15
minutes reviewing his "gift" of Crimea to his subalterns in Kiev.
As it happened, therefore, Crimea became part of the Ukraine only by writ of one of the
most vicious and reprehensible states in human history – the former Soviet Union:
On April 26, 1954. The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet
transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian
SSR ..Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial
proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the
Ukrainian SSR .
That's right. Washington's hypocritical and tendentious accusations against Russia's
re-absorption of Crimea imply that the dead-hand of the Soviet presidium must be defended at
all costs – as if the security of North Dakota depended upon it!
In fact, the brouhaha about "returning" Crimea is a naked case of the hegemonic arrogance
that has overtaken Imperial Washington since the 1991 Soviet demise.
After all, during the long decades of the Cold War, the West did nothing to liberate the
"captive nation" of Ukraine – with or without the Crimean appendage bestowed upon it in
1954. Nor did it draw any red lines in the mid-1990's when a financially desperate Ukraine
rented back Sevastopol and the strategic redoubts of the Crimea to an equally pauperized
Russia.
In short, in the era before we got our Pacific port in 1848, and even during the 170-year
interval since then, America's national security has depended not one whit on the status of
Russian-speaking Crimea. That the local population has now chosen fealty to the Grand Thief
in Moscow over the ruffians and rabble who have seized Kiev amounts to a giant: So what!
The truth is, when it comes to Ukraine there really isn't that much there, there. Its
boundaries have been morphing for centuries among the quarreling tribes, peoples, potentates,
Patriarchs and pretenders of a small region that is none of Washington's damn business..
Still, it was this final aggressive drive of Washington and NATO into the internal affairs
of Russia's historic neighbor and vassal, Ukraine, that largely accounts for the demonization
of Putin. Likewise, it is virtually the entire source of the false claim that Russia has
aggressive, expansionist designs on the former Warsaw Pact states in the Baltics, Poland and
beyond.
The latter is a nonsensical fabrication. In fact, it was the neocon meddlers from
Washington who crushed Ukraine's last semblance of civil governance when they enabled
ultra-nationalists and crypto-Nazis to gain government positions after the February 2014
putsch.
As we indicated above, in one fell swoop that inexcusable stupidity reopened Ukraine's
blood-soaked modern history. The latter incepted with Stalin's re-population of the eastern
Donbas region with "reliable" Russian workers after his genocidal liquidation of the kulaks
in the early 1930s.
It was subsequently exacerbated by the large-scale collaboration by Ukrainian nationalists
in the west with the Nazi Wehrmacht as it laid waste to Poles, Jews, gypsies and other
"undesirables" on its way to Stalingrad in 1942-43. Thereafter followed an equal and opposite
spree of barbaric revenge as the victorious Red Army marched back through Ukraine on its way
to Berlin.
So it may be fairly asked. What beltway lame brains did not chance to understand that
Washington's triggering of "regime change" in Kiev would reopen this entire bloody history of
sectarian and political strife?
Moreover, once they had opened Pandora's box, why was it so hard to see that an outright
partition of Ukraine with autonomy for the Donbas and Crimea, or even accession to the
Russian state from which these communities had originated, would have been a perfectly
reasonable resolution?
Certainly that would have been far preferable to dragging all of Europe into the lunacy of
the current anti-Putin sanctions and embroiling the Ukrainian factions in a suicidal civil
war. The alleged Russian threat to Europe, therefore, was manufactured in Imperial
Washington, not the Kremlin.
In fact, in 1989 and 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration assured Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev that if he accepted German unification, the West would not seek to exploit
the situation through any eastward expansion – not even by "one inch," as
then-secretary of state James Baker assured Gorbachev. But Bill Clinton reneged on that
commitment, moving to expand NATO on an eastward path that eventually led right up to the
Russian border.
So Robert Merry said it well in his excellent piece on the entire neocon Ukraine Scam that
is being paraded before the Schiff Show.
That is, what is being desperately defended on Capitol Hill is not the rule of law,
national security or fidelity to the Constitution of the United States., but a giant Neocon
Lie that is needed to keep the Empire in business, and the world moving ever closer to an
utterly unnecessary Cold War 2.0 between nation's each pointing enough nuclear warheads at
the other to destroy the planet.
NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the
expansion countries lying east of Germany. As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued
stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in NATO
either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security.
True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their
elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to respond favorably to Western financial
blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine,
renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official
status to the Russian language. These actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but
they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations aimed
at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater
economic ties to Russia, pro-Western Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged
street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria Nuland
gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia.
Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely
Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey
Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian coup, she
shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position,
demonstrating the influence that enables US meddling in foreign countries.
That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to
protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine (the so-called Donbass in the country's
east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated a
plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly
the "sham referendum" described by Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass
Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward.
The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in
the center of Eurasia – the global "heartland," in the view of the famous British
geographic scholar Halford Mackinder – renders it always a potential threat. Its
vulnerability to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands.
Its national temperament seems to include a natural tendency towards authoritarianism. Any
sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind.
But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia,
the Alliance has been the more aggressive player – aggressive when it pushed for NATO's
eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the US
government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the
encirclement of Russia; aggressive when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for
Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian orbit with
economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected
Ukrainian government; and aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge
Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood.
George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this
aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon
its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues and
leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well.
This is a replay of Vietnam Communist Domino Theory. May all those neocons rest in Eternal
Hell.
Notable quotes:
"... Now is not the time to retreat from our relationship with Ukraine, but rather to double down on it. As we sit here, Ukrainians are fighting a hot war on Ukrainian territory against Russian aggression. ..."
"... I went to the front line approximately 10 times during a hot war sometimes literally as we heard the impact of artillery, and to see how our assistance dollars were being put to use. ..."
"... Ukraine, with an enormous land mass and a large population, has the potential to be a significant force multiplier on the security side And now Ukraine is a battleground for great power competition with a hot war for the control of territory and a hybrid war to control Ukraine's leadership. ..."
"... She explained that the US-funded and fascist-led "Maidan Revolution" of 2014, which she and other State Department officials absurdly called the "Revolution of Dignity," was part of this conflict. "That's why they launched the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, demanding to be a part of Europe," she declared. ..."
"... Diplomat George Kent invoked the same theme in his testimony last Wednesday, saying: ..."
"... Ukraine's popular Revolution of Dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-Russian leadership to flee to Moscow. After that, Russia invaded Ukraine, occupying seven percent of its territory, roughly equivalent to the size of Texas for the United States ..."
"... Since then, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their territorial integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression. American support in Ukraine's own de facto war of independence has been critical in this regard. ..."
"... Kent subsequently compared the role of the United States in the Ukrainian civil war to that of Spain and France in the American War of Independence. In that conflict, Spain and France were officially at war with Great Britain, including formal declarations of war in 1778 and 1779. ..."
"... If Kent's analogy is true, then the United States is in an undeclared war with Russia. ..."
"... But when has this war ever been discussed with the American people? Was there ever a congressional vote to authorize it? ..."
"... When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces," she said, threatening the "president, or anyone else, [who] impedes or subverts the national security of the United States. ..."
"... "In an otherwise divided Washington, one of the few issues of bipartisan agreement for the past six years has been countering Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's broad plan of disruption. That effort starts in Ukraine, where there has been a hot war underway in the east for five years " ..."
"... @wendy davis ..."
"... @jim p ..."
"... @lotlizard ..."
"... Mykola Zlochevsky, former employer of Hunter Biden and current partner of the Atlantic Council ..."
' Who decided the US should fight a "hot war" with Russia? ', 23 November 2019 . Andre Damon,
wsws
"There is a saying attributed to the banker J.P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons
for what he does -- a good one and the real one ."
If the alleged "organized crime shakedown" by Trump was the "good" reason for the
impeachment inquiry, the "real" reason has emerged over two weeks of public congressional
hearings. The hearings have lifted the lid on a massive US conspiracy to spend billions of
dollars to overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine in 2014 and foment a
civil war that has led to the deaths of thousands of people.
The impeachment drive is itself the product of efforts by sections of the intelligence
agencies and elements within the State Department to escalate Washington's conflict with
Russia, with potentially world-catastrophic consequences.
On Thursday, Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell showed a photo of Ukrainian President
Zelensky in body armor on the "front lines" of the civil war in eastern Ukraine. He asked the
State Department witnesses "why it's so important that our hard-earned tax dollars help
President Zelensky and the men standing beside him fight Russia in this hot war?"
David Holmes, political counselor at the US embassy in Kiev, replied:
Now is not the time to retreat from our relationship with Ukraine, but rather to
double down on it. As we sit here, Ukrainians are fighting a hot war on Ukrainian territory
against Russian aggression.
Later in his testimony, Holmes pointed to the massive sums expended by the United States
and its European allies to fight this "hot war," saying the US had provided $5 billion and
its European allies $12 billion since 2014.
In her testimony last week, the former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovich recalled that
as ambassador:
I went to the front line approximately 10 times during a hot war sometimes literally
as we heard the impact of artillery, and to see how our assistance dollars were being put
to use.
She added:
Ukraine, with an enormous land mass and a large population, has the potential to be
a significant force multiplier on the security side And now Ukraine is a battleground for
great power competition with a hot war for the control of territory and a hybrid war to
control Ukraine's leadership.
She explained that the US-funded and fascist-led "Maidan Revolution" of 2014, which
she and other State Department officials absurdly called the "Revolution of Dignity," was
part of this conflict. "That's why they launched the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, demanding
to be a part of Europe," she declared.
Diplomat George Kent invoked the same theme in his testimony last Wednesday,
saying:
Ukraine's popular Revolution of Dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-Russian
leadership to flee to Moscow. After that, Russia invaded Ukraine, occupying seven percent
of its territory, roughly equivalent to the size of Texas for the United States
Since then, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their
territorial integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression. American support in
Ukraine's own de facto war of independence has been critical in this regard.
Kent subsequently compared the role of the United States in the Ukrainian civil war to
that of Spain and France in the American War of Independence. In that conflict, Spain and
France were officially at war with Great Britain, including formal declarations of war in
1778 and 1779.
If Kent's analogy is true, then the United States is in an undeclared war with
Russia.
But when has this war ever been discussed with the American people? Was there ever a
congressional vote to authorize it? Does anyone believe that if the question, "Do you
want to spend billions of dollars to help Ukraine fight a war with Russia," were posed to the
American public, the percentage answering yes would be anything more than minuscule? Of
course, that question was never asked." [snip]
"But in the congressional hearings this week, government officials declared that any
questioning of this aid is virtually treasonous. In her testimony on Thursday, former
National Security Council officer Fiona Hill accused anyone who questions that "Ukraine is a
valued partner" of the United States of advancing "Russian interests. "
" When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces,"
she said, threatening the "president, or anyone else, [who] impedes or subverts the national
security of the United States. "
In 2017, Hill penned a blog post for the Brookings Institution calling Trump a
"Bolshevik," echoing statements made more than 60 years ago by John Birch Society leader
Robert W. Welch, who declared that President Eisenhower was a "communist."
Underlying the mad allegations of the Democrats that Trump is functioning as a "Russian
asset" is a very real content: The extremely dangerous drive by factions within the state for
a military confrontation between the United States and Russia, whose combined nuclear weapons
arsenals are capable of destroying all of humanity many times over.
There is no "peace" faction within the American political establishment. No credence can
be given to either one of the parties of US imperialism, which have, over the course of
decades, presided over the toppling of dozens of governments, the launching of countless wars
and the deaths of millions of people."
Patrick Martin from his Oct. 16, 2019 ' The Trump
impeachment and US policy in Ukraine '
"This utterly reactionary, pro-imperialist role was demonstrated Friday in the tribute
that Yovanovitch paid, in the course of her testimony, to Arsen Avakov, the Ukrainian
interior minister (head of the domestic police) under both the current president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, and his predecessor Petro Poroshenko. Avakov is a principal sponsor of fascist
militias such as the Azov Battalion , which glorify the Ukrainians who collaborated with the
Nazis during World War II against the Soviet Union. In other words, the State Department
officials being celebrated in the media for defending American democracy are actually working
with the fascists in Ukraine .
While Yovanovitch hailed Avakov, Kent cited as his heroes among immigrants who have
rallied to the defense of the United States Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger, two of
the biggest war criminals of the second half of the twentieth century ." [snip]
""The connection between the impeachment drive and differences on foreign policy was spelled
out Friday on the front page of the New York Times, in an analysis by the newspaper's senior
foreign policy specialist, David Sanger, a frequent mouthpiece for the concerns of the CIA,
State Department and Pentagon, under the headline, " For President, Case of Policy vs.
Obsession." [snip]
But Sanger goes on to spell out, in remarkably blunt terms, the real foreign policy issues
at stake in the Trump impeachment. He writes,
"In an otherwise divided Washington, one of the few issues of bipartisan agreement for
the past six years has been countering Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's broad plan of
disruption. That effort starts in Ukraine, where there has been a hot war underway in the
east for five years "
Trump, according to Sanger, has betrayed the anti-Russia policy outlined by his own
administration in a Pentagon strategic assessment which declared that the "war on terror" had
been superseded as the top US priority by "great-power competition," particularly directed at
China and Russia. He sacrificed this policy to his own personal, electoral interests, as
expressed in the comment by the US ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland:
"President Trump cares more about the investigation of Biden" than about the military
conflict between Ukraine and Russia."
They'll bust both your kneecaps and then fit you with cement overshoes and toss you into
the ocean. Trump is finding out the hard way that entrenched interests in the US government
wield vast veto power over anything a president wants to do.
He's his own worst enemy with his self-sabotaging Twitter rants, endless character
assassinations, hastily burnt bridges, and conflicting statements that change based upon
the last person he talked to. Trump doesn't inspire loyalty in those who work for him and
around him. OTOH, that doesn't excuse the Deep State, an unelected cabal secretly running
our government and risking our lives with endless wars and Russia baiting. If impeachment
has shown nothing else, it's that the Deep State is real and usually gets its way.
almost all the casualties are Russian speakers in the East. Back in the early coup days
there were 37 claims that Russian troops invaded Ukraine. Which turned out to be none. I
still remember when Pravda in New York had a blurred photo they claimed to be a Russ
officer (and how do you get blurring in the digital age) which turned out to be a Ukranian
officer facebook photo. They never explained how that happened.
great context. kent's number 13,000, and yes, they were likely all Novoroosians
, if he hadn't pulled that figure out of his ass, anyway. photos of 'little green men' in
ancient soviet uniforms, old tanks left over from the days of yore.
was kent counting the dead inside the trade unions massacre in odessa petrol-bombed by
the neo-nazis?
in depth reads for later, and thank you, miz lizard. funny that the Atlantic council (at
least one version) had chosen Zelenskiy based on promises to end corruption (read: so
ukraine could have the lucre to enter Nato). and yet, he'd kept 9as per the photo caption)
Mykola Zlochevsky, former employer of Hunter Biden and current partner of the Atlantic
Council in hi cabinet, isn't it?
be encouraged to read your stockman links to his 'The Ukrainian Influence Peddling Rings
– A Microcosm of How Imperial Washington Rolls', David Stockman,
November 13, 2019 , i'll offer a few excerpts. i rarely (if ever) call anything a 'must
read', but even you, voice, might want to dig into this one (part I of II, if i get his
drift).
i'm assumming his historical narrative is correct, as all the pieces i do know about are
there are well, but what he writes i hadn't known is key, of course. his language is also
colorful as all giddy-up, which i like, and good on him. he's lost me a bit in some
sections, as he names names, lobbying firms, and so on, but that's on me, not stockman.
"The latest dispatch from the Wall Street Journal on the stench wafting westward from
Kiev reveals more about the rotten foundation of UkraineGate than its authors probably
understood.
Burisma Holdings' campaign to clean up its image in the West reached beyond the 2014
hiring of Hunter Biden, son of the then-U.S. vice president, to include other
well-connected operatives in Washington, according to officials in both countries and
government records.
The Ukrainian company, owned by tycoon Mykola Zlochevsky, also hired a lobbyist with
close ties to then-Secretary of State John Kerry, as well as a consulting group founded
by top officials in the Clinton administration that specialized in preparing former
Soviet-bloc countries to join NATO (Blue Star Strategies).
Soon the efforts bore fruit. With the help of a New York-based lawyer, Mr.
Zlochevsky's U.S. consultants argued to Ukrainian prosecutors that criminal cases
against the company should be closed because no laws had been broken.
Burisma later became a sponsor of a Washington think tank, the Atlantic Council,
whose experts are often cited on energy and security policy in the former Soviet
Union.
Simple translation: Zlochevsky was an ally, officeholder (minister of ecology and
natural resources) and inner-circle thief in the ousted government of Viktor Yanukovych.
He therefore needed to powder the pig fast and thoroughly in order to hold onto his
ill-gotten billions.""
[longish snip of a who's who involvement]...................
"Finally, the Clinton wing of the Washington racketeering system had to be covered,
too – hence the above mentioned Blue Star Strategies. And the bolded sentence from
the WSJ story quoted below tells you all you need to know about its business, which was
to " .help former Soviet countries prepare for NATO consideration".
That's right. With the Soviet Union gone, its 50,000 tanks on the central front
melted-down for scrap and the Warsaw Pact disbanded, the rational order of the day was to
declare "mission accomplished" for NATO and effect its own disbandment.
The great parachuter and then US president, George Bush the Elder, could have actually
made a jump right into the giant Ramstein Air Base in Germany to effect its closure. At
that point there was no justification for NATO's continued existence whatsoever.
But the Clinton Administration, under the baleful influence of Washington busybodies
like Strobe Talbot and Madeleine Albright, went in just the opposite direction. In
pursuit of Washington's post-1991 quest for global hegemony as the world's only
superpower and putative keeper of the peace, they prepared the way for the entirety of
the old Warsaw Pact to join NATO.
So doing, however, they also laid the planking for a revival of the cold war with the
Kremlin. As the father of containment and NATO during the late 1940s, Ambassador George
Kennan, observed at the time, the Clinton Administration's policy of expanding NATO to
the very doorstep of Russia was a colossal mistake." [longish snip]
...............................
"So that's how the Imperial City rolls. People make policies which extend the Empire
while in office – as did these Clintonistas with the NATO expansion project –
and then cash-in afterwards by peddling influence in the corridors of the beltway on
behalf of Washington's newly acquired vassals and supplicants.
In this case, all roads lead to the Atlantic Council, which is the semi-official
"think tank" of NATO in Washington and is infested with Russophobes and Clinton/Biden
operatives. The latter, of course, make a handsome living peddling anti-Putin propaganda
– the better to grease the Washington purse strings for unneeded military spending
and foreign aid, security assistance and weapons sales to the "front line" states
allegedly in the path of Kremlin aggression."
thank you, miz lizard. love this title of his on the sidebar: ' Democrats Empower a Pack
of Paranoid Neocon Morons '. ; )
i'll grab part II and read it greedily when i have more time.
putting them in the context of the region's deeper past. The first two parts of a
series.
The Special Operations Detachment "Azov", often known as Azov Battalion, Azov
Regiment, or Azov Detachment, (Ukrainian: Полк
Азов) is a Ukrainian National Guard regiment,[1][2][3][4] based
in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal region.
In 2014, it gained notoriety after allegations emerged of torture and war crimes, as
well as neo-Nazi sympathies and usage of associated symbols by the regiment itself, as
seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, one of the original symbols used by the
German Nazi Party. In 2014, around 10-20% of the unit were neo-Nazis.[9] In 2018, a
provision in an appropriations bill passed by the U.S. Congress blocked military aid to
Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology. [10] Members of the regiment come
from 22 countries and are of various backgrounds.[11]
On 13 April 2014 Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov [nb 1] issued a decree
authorizing creating new paramilitary forces from civilians up to 12,000.[22] The Azov
Battalion (using "Eastern Corps" as its backbone[20]) was formed on 5 May 2014 in
Berdiansk[23] by a white nationalist.[24] Many members of Patriot of Ukraine joined the
battalion.[20] Among the early patrons of the battalion were a member of the Verkhovna
Rada Oleh Lyashko, and an ultra-nationalist Dmytro Korchynsky and businessman Serhiy
Taruta and Avakov.[25][20] The battalion then received training near Kiev by instructors
with experience in the Georgian Armed Forces.[
In September 2014, the Azov battalion was expanded from a battalion to a regiment and
enrolled into the National Guard of Ukraine.[23][33] At about this time it started
receiving increased supplies of heavy arms.[33] The Azov battalion received funding from
the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and other sources (believed to be Ukrainian
oligarchs).
As of late March 2015, despite a second ceasefire agreement (Minsk II), the Azov
Battalion continued to prepare for war, with the group's leader seeing the ceasefire as
"appeasement".[33] In March 2015 Interior Minister Arsen Avakov announced that the Azov
Regiment would be among the first units to be trained by United States Army troops in
their Operation Fearless Guardian training mission.[44][45] US training however was
withdrawn on 12 June 2015, as US House of Representatives passed an amendment blocking
any aid (including arms and training) to the battalion due to its Neo-Nazi
background.[46] After the vote Congressman John Conyers thanked the House saying "I am
grateful that the House of Representatives unanimously passed my amendments last night to
ensure that our military does not train members of the repulsive neo-Nazi Azov Battalion,
along with my measures to keep the dangerous and easily trafficked MANPADs out of these
unstable regions."[45]
Since 2015 Azov is organising summer camps where children and teenagers receive
practice in civil defense and military tactics mixed with lectures on Ukrainian
nationalism.[48][20]
Since 2015 the Battalion has been upgraded to Regimental status and "Azov" is now
officially called "Special Operations Regiment" , with combat duties focused on
reconnaissance, counter-reconnaissance, EOD disposal, interdiction and special weapons
operations.
Foreign membership [edit]
According to The Daily Telegraph, the Azov Battalion's extremist politics and
professional English social media pages have attracted foreign fighters,[30] including
people from Brazil, Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, France, America, Greece,
Scandinavia,[2][30] Spain, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Russia. [2][56][57] About 50
Russian nationals are members of the Azov regiment.[58]
According to Minsk Ceasefire Agreements, foreign fighters are not allowed to serve in
Ukraine's military:[66] since "Azov" Regiment was granted full military status, its
foreign volunteers were compelled either to take Ukrainian citizenship, or to leave the
Regiment.
Human rights violations and war crimes[edit]
Reports published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR) have connected the Azov Battalion to war crimes such as mass looting, unlawful
detention, and torture.[68][69] An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated that the
organisation had "collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities by
Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of
Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was
documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and February
2015".[68] Another OHCHR report documented an instance of rape and torture
Rodnovery, symbolism and neo-Nazism [edit]
Emblem featuring a Wolfsangel and Black Sun
Most soldiers of Azov are followers of a Ukrainian nationalist type of Rodnovery (Slavic
Native Faith), wherefrom they derive some of their symbolism (such as a variation of the
swastika symbol kolovrat). They have also established Rodnover shrines for their
religious rites, including one in Mariupol dedicated to Perun.[70][71][72][unreliable
source] German ZDF television showed images of Azov fighters wearing helmets with
swastika symbols and "the SS runes of Hitler's infamous black-uniformed elite corps".[73]
Due to the use of such symbols, Azov has been considered to have connections with
neo-Nazism, with members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia and expressing
Neo-Nazi views.
The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel[78][79][80] and the Black
Sun,[78][81][82] two Nazi-era symbols adopted by neo-Nazi groups.
In 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision blocking any training of
Azov members by American forces, citing its neo-Nazi background. In previous years,
between 2014 and 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed amendments banning
support of Azov, but due to pressure from the Pentagon, the amendments were quietly
lifted.[87][88][89] This move has been protested by Simon Wiesenthal Center which stated
that the move highlights danger of Holocaust distortion in Ukraine.[89] On 26 June 2015,
the Canadian defence minister declared as well, that training by Canadian forces or
support would not be provided to Azov. [90]
While Azov Battalion troops have denied that the organization has any neo-Nazi or white
supremacist beliefs, journalists stated that "numerous swastika tattoos of different
members and their tendency to go into battle with swastikas or SS insignias drawn on
their helmets make it very difficult for other members of the group to plausibly deny any
neo-Nazi affiliations" .[85]
no more US training? dunno what to say to that. but i plugged '2018' into a bing search
of azov torchlight parades and found this from 2016 instead (although there were some
later, as well):
Ukrainian ultra-nationalist Azov battalion [as well as Right Sector' stages torch-lit
march in Kharkov (VIDEOS)], 12 Dec, 2016 , RT.com
really according to Eva
Bartlett who'd committed journalism in the donbass independent republics, zelenskiy
hasn't been able to control them (as promised) either.
it's a good time to remember all who'd invested in the ukraine who had interest in the
Maidan putsch, isn't it?
The Special Operations Detachment "Azov", often known as Azov Battalion, Azov
Regiment, or Azov Detachment, (Ukrainian: Полк
Азов) is a Ukrainian National Guard regiment,[1][2][3][4]
based in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal region.
In 2014, it gained notoriety after allegations emerged of torture and war crimes,
as well as neo-Nazi sympathies and usage of associated symbols by the regiment
itself, as seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, one of the original symbols
used by the German Nazi Party. In 2014, around 10-20% of the unit were neo-Nazis.[9]
In 2018, a provision in an appropriations bill passed by the U.S. Congress blocked
military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology. [10] Members
of the regiment come from 22 countries and are of various backgrounds.[11]
On 13 April 2014 Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov [nb 1] issued a decree
authorizing creating new paramilitary forces from civilians up to 12,000.[22] The
Azov Battalion (using "Eastern Corps" as its backbone[20]) was formed on 5 May 2014
in Berdiansk[23] by a white nationalist.[24] Many members of Patriot of Ukraine
joined the battalion.[20] Among the early patrons of the battalion were a member of
the Verkhovna Rada Oleh Lyashko, and an ultra-nationalist Dmytro Korchynsky and
businessman Serhiy Taruta and Avakov.[25][20] The battalion then received training
near Kiev by instructors with experience in the Georgian Armed Forces.[
In September 2014, the Azov battalion was expanded from a battalion to a regiment
and enrolled into the National Guard of Ukraine.[23][33] At about this time it
started receiving increased supplies of heavy arms.[33] The Azov battalion received
funding from the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and other sources (believed
to be Ukrainian oligarchs).
As of late March 2015, despite a second ceasefire agreement (Minsk II), the Azov
Battalion continued to prepare for war, with the group's leader seeing the ceasefire
as "appeasement".[33] In March 2015 Interior Minister Arsen Avakov announced that the
Azov Regiment would be among the first units to be trained by United States Army
troops in their Operation Fearless Guardian training mission.[44][45] US training
however was withdrawn on 12 June 2015, as US House of Representatives passed an
amendment blocking any aid (including arms and training) to the battalion due to its
Neo-Nazi background.[46] After the vote Congressman John Conyers thanked the House
saying "I am grateful that the House of Representatives unanimously passed my
amendments last night to ensure that our military does not train members of the
repulsive neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, along with my measures to keep the dangerous and
easily trafficked MANPADs out of these unstable regions."[45]
Since 2015 Azov is organising summer camps where children and teenagers receive
practice in civil defense and military tactics mixed with lectures on Ukrainian
nationalism.[48][20]
Since 2015 the Battalion has been upgraded to Regimental status and "Azov" is now
officially called "Special Operations Regiment" , with combat duties focused on
reconnaissance, counter-reconnaissance, EOD disposal, interdiction and special
weapons operations.
Foreign membership [edit]
According to The Daily Telegraph, the Azov Battalion's extremist politics and
professional English social media pages have attracted foreign fighters,[30]
including people from Brazil, Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, France, America,
Greece, Scandinavia,[2][30] Spain, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Russia. [2][56][57]
About 50 Russian nationals are members of the Azov regiment.[58]
According to Minsk Ceasefire Agreements, foreign fighters are not allowed to serve
in Ukraine's military:[66] since "Azov" Regiment was granted full military status,
its foreign volunteers were compelled either to take Ukrainian citizenship, or to
leave the Regiment.
Human rights violations and war crimes[edit]
Reports published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR) have connected the Azov Battalion to war crimes such as mass looting,
unlawful detention, and torture.[68][69] An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated that
the organisation had "collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities
by Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of
Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was
documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and
February 2015".[68] Another OHCHR report documented an instance of rape and
torture
Rodnovery, symbolism and neo-Nazism [edit]
Emblem featuring a Wolfsangel and Black Sun
Most soldiers of Azov are followers of a Ukrainian nationalist type of Rodnovery
(Slavic Native Faith), wherefrom they derive some of their symbolism (such as a
variation of the swastika symbol kolovrat). They have also established Rodnover
shrines for their religious rites, including one in Mariupol dedicated to
Perun.[70][71][72][unreliable source] German ZDF television showed images of Azov
fighters wearing helmets with swastika symbols and "the SS runes of Hitler's infamous
black-uniformed elite corps".[73] Due to the use of such symbols, Azov has been
considered to have connections with neo-Nazism, with members wearing neo-Nazi and SS
symbols and regalia and expressing Neo-Nazi views.
The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel[78][79][80] and the Black
Sun,[78][81][82] two Nazi-era symbols adopted by neo-Nazi groups.
In 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision blocking any
training of Azov members by American forces, citing its neo-Nazi background. In
previous years, between 2014 and 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed
amendments banning support of Azov, but due to pressure from the Pentagon, the
amendments were quietly lifted.[87][88][89] This move has been protested by Simon
Wiesenthal Center which stated that the move highlights danger of Holocaust
distortion in Ukraine.[89] On 26 June 2015, the Canadian defence minister declared as
well, that training by Canadian forces or support would not be provided to Azov.
[90]
While Azov Battalion troops have denied that the organization has any neo-Nazi or
white supremacist beliefs, journalists stated that "numerous swastika tattoos of
different members and their tendency to go into battle with swastikas or SS insignias
drawn on their helmets make it very difficult for other members of the group to
plausibly deny any neo-Nazi affiliations" .[85]
It's great that Ukraine's revisionist far-right politics are at least getting some
attention in the press. But what you won't read in these reports is that the U.S.
government had recently sponsored a "cultural" exhibit that celebrated the Nazi
collaborator who is now getting his own street in Kiev. You can't make this stuff up!
But we have to help the Nazis because Putin's Russia is invading and we owe it to them
to.... blehh!
yasha levine commits good journalism, there too! i'd never even heard of Nil Khasevych
nor his Kil the Jews wood block prints. zelenskiy is not only jewish, but russian speaking,
ukrainian is his second language as i understand it.
imagine now living on Khasevych; wouldn't you be proud? i'd been on yasha's account
recently looking for his take (if any) on the intercept/NYT collaboration on the Iranaian
leaks. i'd figured his link to the history if U S meddling at the bottom would speak at
length about Pierre Omidyar's investments (centre UA, USAID, etc.) and maybe (then)
monsanto/billy gates.
thank you; a whoosh -worthy exposé. do you get his newsletter,
snoop?
p.s. on edit: i tried to subscribe, but it costs money. oh, well...
It's great that Ukraine's revisionist far-right politics are at least getting some
attention in the press. But what you won't read in these reports is that the U.S.
government had recently sponsored a "cultural" exhibit that celebrated the Nazi
collaborator who is now getting his own street in Kiev. You can't make this stuff
up!
But we have to help the Nazis because Putin's Russia is invading and we owe it to
them to.... blehh!
There is lots of good info on Twitter about the Ukraine system and corruption. Bibi
didn't have any problems dealing with the neo Nazis there either which threw me for a loop.
But then it was people in our country that made Hitler's war chest. Bush Sr., Ford and lots
of others thought Hitler's system should be implemented here. Oh yeah and of course the
banks..
Yasha Levine commits good journalism, there too! i'd never even heard of Nil
Khasevych nor his Kil the Jews wood block prints. zelenskiy is not only jewish, but
russian speaking, ukrainian is his second language as i understand it.
imagine now living on Khasevych; wouldn't you be proud? i'd been on yasha's account
recently looking for his take (if any) on the intercept/NYT collaboration on the
Iranaian leaks. i'd figured his link to the history if U S meddling at the bottom would
speak at length about Pierre Omidyar's investments (centre UA, USAID, etc.) and maybe
(then) monsanto/billy gates.
thank you; a whoosh -worthy exposé. do you get his newsletter,
snoop?
p.s. on edit: i tried to subscribe, but it costs money. oh, well...
especially with the editing. but it' like the game of telephone, isn't it? 'he told me
he overheard...', and someone told me s he heard..., yada, yada,
but just think if Pelosi hadn't limited the inquiry to One Phone call? 'as trump's
puppet, is zelenskiy's claiming 'no quid pro quo worth anything?'
There is lots of good info on Twitter about the Ukraine system and corruption. Bibi
didn't have any problems dealing with the neo Nazis there either which threw me for a
loop. But then it was people in our country that made Hitler's war chest. Bush Sr.,
Ford and lots of others thought Hitler's system should be implemented here. Oh yeah and
of course the banks..
Nah not so much. Numerous websites wrote about it back when it happened just like they
wrote about Hunter Biden and Burisma. But now I'm seeing the main stream media trying to
tell us that it didn't happen that way. Well here's one article that hasn't been scrubbed
yet.
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly
working to boost Clinton.
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating
a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to
back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging
information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National
Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to
expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to
people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's
resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to
Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally
directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
Ahh that good ole but. Yes what people in Ukraine did was bad, but.... and here's the
but.
Russia's effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved
the country's military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S.
intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that
Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect. And at a
Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
said " I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to
interfere in our election process than we've seen in this case."
There's little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers
suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the
country -- not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia -- would render it unable to
pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country's election. And
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.
Yet Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the
race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from
engaging in one another's elections.
Well there you have it. People in Ukraine were digging up dirt on people in Trump's
campaign whilst Vlad only placed a few ads on FB and most of them were placed after the
election was over. Badder Russia.
That Ukraine was trying to get Hillary elected was well known in the Ukraine government,
but sure let's just say it never happened like that. Then of course there was Hillary
hiring people in another country to dig up dirt too, but that doesn't count. Why? Reasons
of course and because it was Hillary and the DNC doing it. See? Reasons.
Next paragraph starts with this.
Russia's meddling has sparked outrage from the American body politic. Lots of words
about how that outraged people here...and more blah blah blah stuff.
Next paragrap
Ukraine, on the other hand, has traditionally enjoyed strong relations with U.S.
administrations. Its officials worry that could change under Trump, whose team has
privately expressed sentiments ranging from ambivalence to deep skepticism about
Poroshenko's regime, while sounding unusually friendly notes about Putin's regime.
Poroshenko is scrambling to alter that dynamic, recently signing a $50,000-a-month
contract with a well-connected GOP-linked Washington lobbying firm to set up meetings
with U.S. government officials "to strengthen U.S.-Ukrainian relations."
Hmm hint of a quid pro quo there?
BTW. Lindsay Graham wants to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe says that he will regret
doing that for the rest of his life. Stay tuned for the fireworks.
Ahh yes Russia was the one that started that propaganda. Burisma and Biden was always on
the up and up so don't even think that they weren't. I really don't know how people who
believe everything about Russia Gate and now Ukraine Gate can keep their beliefs intact
when there is so much information showing that what they believe is wrong or didn't happen
the way they think it did.
Nah not so much. Numerous websites wrote about it back when it happened just like
they wrote about Hunter Biden and Burisma. But now I'm seeing the main stream media
trying to tell us that it didn't happen that way. Well here's one article that hasn't
been scrubbed yet.
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after
quietly working to boost Clinton.
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump
by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents
implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the
matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies
research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation
found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National
Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort
to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according
to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's
resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to
Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or
centrally directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic
emails.
Ahh that good ole but. Yes what people in Ukraine did was bad, but.... and here's
the but.
Russia's effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin,
involved the country's military and foreign intelligence services, according
to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the
possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the
president-elect. And at a Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper said " I don't think we've ever encountered a
more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've
seen in this case."
There's little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers
suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the
country -- not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia -- would render it unable to
pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country's election. And
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.
Yet Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in
the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments
refrain from engaging in one another's elections.
Well there you have it. People in Ukraine were digging up dirt on people in Trump's
campaign whilst Vlad only placed a few ads on FB and most of them were placed after the
election was over. Badder Russia.
That Ukraine was trying to get Hillary elected was well known in the Ukraine
government, but sure let's just say it never happened like that. Then of course there
was Hillary hiring people in another country to dig up dirt too, but that doesn't
count. Why? Reasons of course and because it was Hillary and the DNC doing it. See?
Reasons.
Next paragraph starts with this.
Russia's meddling has sparked outrage from the American body politic. Lots of words
about how that outraged people here...and more blah blah blah stuff.
Next paragrap
Ukraine, on the other hand, has traditionally enjoyed strong relations with U.S.
administrations. Its officials worry that could change under Trump, whose team has
privately expressed sentiments ranging from ambivalence to deep skepticism about
Poroshenko's regime, while sounding unusually friendly notes about Putin's
regime.
Poroshenko is scrambling to alter that dynamic, recently signing a $50,000-a-month
contract with a well-connected GOP-linked Washington lobbying firm to set up meetings
with U.S. government officials "to strengthen U.S.-Ukrainian relations."
Hmm hint of a quid pro quo there?
BTW. Lindsay Graham wants to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe says that he will
regret doing that for the rest of his life. Stay tuned for the fireworks.
this morning intending to grab some of his quotes and links here: ' November
20, 2019 , Impeachment Circus - Today's Bombshell Is Another Dud one chris cilizza link
i'd given to linda wood to see if she or others might parse for me/us.
"The impeachment circus continued today with a refreshingly candid opening statement
from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU. Sondland was involved in diplomatic
efforts in Ukraine. Instead of stonewalling Sondland just let it all out:
'Gordon D. Sondland testified that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on the
pressure campaign, and that he told Vice President Mike Pence about an apparent link
between military aid for Ukraine and investigations of Democrats. Mr. Sondland
confirmed there was a "clear quid pro quo" for a White House meeting between President
Trump and Ukraine's president.'
The
anti-Trump media see this as another "bombshell" that will hurt him.
But it is more likely that Sondland's testimony will help President Trump and those
involved on his side.
Ahh yes Russia was the one that started that propaganda. Burisma and Biden was
always on the up and up so don't even think that they weren't. I really don't know how
people who believe everything about Russia Gate and now Ukraine Gate can keep their
beliefs intact when there is so much information showing that what they believe is
wrong or didn't happen the way they think it did.
Almost everything Americans have ever been told about US foreign policy is a lie. Almost
everything we think we know is still a lie.
The Democrat's immediate goal is to install Mike Pence as President as soon as
possible.
Everything depends on this. Pence is the continuation of Obama's Neocon policies in
Ukraine and throughout the world. Biden is the premier Neocon on the 2020 ticket. His job
is to lie himself into the nomination and pick-up a Neocon Vice President. If he loses to
Pence, it doesn't matter. The CFR wins either way. And we're off to war with Russia.
This is a must read for those who want to know what is happening to them. And happening
fast.
It will be hard to see the world the same way again.
as with a hella busy 3-day weekend, i hadn't intended to, but what with the smoke
coming out of my ears and all...
i'd long claimed that i'd want to go out in a first strike as well, and here we are
just east of the shit-head capital of bumfuck, CO (h/t ed abbey).
now there are a number of NORAD
sites , but most nations as i understand it still have No First Strike Rules, but
the US no longer does, iirc (meaning: don't count on it). our daughter and her family
live in el paso county, CO home of one or two, one an alt-site under cheyenne
mountain.
i've often been a bit glib as to: 'Who will stop the US Empire? Those who can...and
must.'
but i dunno who that might end up being, nor how including with nukes. but at this
point, i guess it's all philosophical to me, as we're all living on borrowed time, and
Live in the Moment when possible.
i do so wish i could help you ease your fears, my friend.
there's no way i can read anything that long, especially in the zero-hedge format. but i
found it at the duran, and an easier read on my eye-brain configuration at the
saker . strategic culture usually carries his columns, but not this one...yet.
even scanning at the zero hedge version, i hadn't spotted pence's name. in which part
(I-IV) was it? zuesse has always needed a good editor, imo. but yeah, Pentecostal Pence
gives me the shivers.
Almost everything Americans have ever been told about US foreign policy is a lie.
Almost everything we think we know is still a lie.
The Democrat's immediate goal is to install Mike Pence as President as soon as
possible.
Everything depends on this. Pence is the continuation of Obama's Neocon policies in
Ukraine and throughout the world. Biden is the premier Neocon on the 2020 ticket. His
job is to lie himself into the nomination and pick-up a Neocon Vice President. If he
loses to Pence, it doesn't matter. The CFR wins either way. And we're off to war with
Russia.
This is a must read for those who want to know what is happening to them. And
happening fast.
It will be hard to see the world the same way again.
i read the comments on the saker version, what was key was what zuesse hadn't written
(i.e. any mention of the CIA), and part IV at the duran,, withut elaborating, much of which
i disagreed with.
there's no way i can read anything that long, especially in the zero-hedge format.
but i found it at the duran, and an easier read on my eye-brain configuration
at the
saker . strategic culture usually carries his columns, but not this one...yet.
even scanning at the zero hedge version, i hadn't spotted pence's name. in which
part (I-IV) was it? zuesse has always needed a good editor, imo. but yeah, Pentecostal
Pence gives me the shivers.
@Pluto's Republic or New York for sure. There are a lot of other target rich areas
like Langley, the Silicon Valley area and certainly that big base in San Diego in
California, the possible list is long because this Country is littered with military
installations.
But I'd expect that if Russia had only two nukes to fire Washington DC and NY would be
the instant decision. DC is 'evil Central' to most of the world, and NY City's Wall Street
is its oxygen supply and without those two cities it's like chopping off the head of the
snake. (no offense to snakes intended)
It fills the soul with dread. There is no one left to fight the poisonous empire
from the inside. All have succumbed. They will be along soon enough to clean up these
fragments and send them down the memory hole. I'm going to dwell in the large-target
cities from now on. I intend to be vaporized in the first strike.
are brilliant and vital to understanding the Ukraine situation. I think Part 2 is most
important, even though I disagree with him on one point. He establishes how stupid and
moronic the Democrats' impeachment witnesses are to suggest we have to fight Russia in
Ukraine so we don't have to fight them here. He shows how minuscule Russia's conventional
weapons systems are compared to ours, especially with respect to sea and air power, and
then he states,
... Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military
establishment anywhere near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its $61 billion of
military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32 days of Washington's current $750
billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland security in
America short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a
continuation of mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got
through 45-years of cold war when the Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy
committed to a hostile ideology; and during which time it had been armed to the teeth via
a forced-draft allocation of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to the
military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the
country's anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and
populations of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian
"stans" among others. Yet given those realities we are supposed to believe that the
self-evidently calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs the Kremlin is going to go
mad, defy MAD and trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is
laughable. Not only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is the
extent of what he's got. That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force to the
North American continent is nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere between nichts
and nothing.
I agree with Stockman that in a conventional war with the U.S., we win. But that's just
exactly the problem. Russia can't have a conventional war with us or with NATO. It's
defense from us is ONLY nuclear assured destruction. So the problem is not whether or not
he's nuts. The problem is that we are nuts. Our government is nuts. Our government has a
first strike policy, meaning our government considers it rational to eliminate a portion of
the American people, which in our Nuclear Posture Review would be catastrophic, in order to
win a war with Russia.
... The NPR argues that additional low-yield options are "not intended to enable"
nuclear war-fighting "[n]or will it lower the nuclear threshold" (p. 54). But this
assertion ignores the fact that the stated purpose is to make their use "more credible"
in the eyes of U.S. adversaries , which means that they are meant to be seen as "more
usable."
The belief that a nuclear conflict could be controlled is dangerous thinking. The fog
of war is thick, the fog of nuclear war would be even thicker. Such thinking could also
have the perverse effect of convincing Russia that it could get away with limited nuclear
use without putting its survival at risk.
Many military targets are in or near urban areas. It has been estimated that the use
of even a fraction of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces could lead to the death of tens of
millions of people in each country. An all-out exchange would kill hundreds of millions
and produce catastrophic global consequences with adverse agricultural, economic, health,
and environmental consequences for billions of people.
No country should be preparing to wage a "limited nuclear war" that neither side can
guarantee would remain "limited." Rather, as Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail
Gorbachev declared in 1985, today's Russian and U.S. leaders should recognize that "a
nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."
and i agree: it's not the defense budget that matters. in this nation, the defense
industries are allowed to do 'cost over-runs', and russia's weapons of war and defensive
war are clearly superior. see how many are wanting russian man-pads missile defense, for
instance.
i'll take part two, but at anti-war.com to the café. commenter juliania loved
part I witless! i was sad to read that justin raimondo has already crossed over, may he
rest in power. one place i'd blogged for a time were outraged i tell you, Outraged, that a
libertarian wrote for antiwar.com. needless to say, i didn't last long at the
accursed dagblog.com.
are brilliant and vital to understanding the Ukraine situation. I think Part 2 is
most important, even though I disagree with him on one point. He establishes how stupid
and moronic the Democrats' impeachment witnesses are to suggest we have to fight Russia
in Ukraine so we don't have to fight them here. He shows how minuscule Russia's
conventional weapons systems are compared to ours, especially with respect to sea and
air power, and then he states,
... Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military
establishment anywhere near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its $61 billion
of military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32 days of Washington's current
$750 billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland
security in America short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a
continuation of mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got
through 45-years of cold war when the Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy
committed to a hostile ideology; and during which time it had been armed to the teeth
via a forced-draft allocation of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to
the military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the
country's anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and
populations of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian
"stans" among others. Yet given those realities we are supposed to believe that the
self-evidently calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs the Kremlin is going to
go mad, defy MAD and trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is
laughable. Not only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is
the extent of what he's got. That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force
to the North American continent is nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere
between nichts and nothing.
I agree with Stockman that in a conventional war with the U.S., we win. But that's
just exactly the problem. Russia can't have a conventional war with us or with NATO.
It's defense from us is ONLY nuclear assured destruction. So the problem is not whether
or not he's nuts. The problem is that we are nuts. Our government is nuts. Our
government has a first strike policy, meaning our government considers it rational to
eliminate a portion of the American people, which in our Nuclear Posture Review would
be catastrophic, in order to win a war with Russia.
... The NPR argues that additional low-yield options are "not intended to enable"
nuclear war-fighting "[n]or will it lower the nuclear threshold" (p. 54). But this
assertion ignores the fact that the stated purpose is to make their use "more
credible" in the eyes of U.S. adversaries , which means that they are meant to be
seen as "more usable."
The belief that a nuclear conflict could be controlled is dangerous thinking. The
fog of war is thick, the fog of nuclear war would be even thicker. Such thinking
could also have the perverse effect of convincing Russia that it could get away with
limited nuclear use without putting its survival at risk.
Many military targets are in or near urban areas. It has been estimated that the
use of even a fraction of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces could lead to the death of
tens of millions of people in each country. An all-out exchange would kill hundreds
of millions and produce catastrophic global consequences with adverse agricultural,
economic, health, and environmental consequences for billions of people.
No country should be preparing to wage a "limited nuclear war" that neither side
can guarantee would remain "limited." Rather, as Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail
Gorbachev declared in 1985, today's Russian and U.S. leaders should recognize that "a
nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."
"... They don't need to convince activist Democrats that Trump needs to go. The most vocal have demanded it since 2016, even before inauguration. Others have joined them more recently. Polls show some independent voters are moving in their direction, fueled by an intense media campaign. So far, however, the numbers are not nearly enough to isolate Trump (as Nixon was isolated) or to convince two-thirds of the Senate to convict him. The upper chamber needs a lot more incriminating evidence and so does the public. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The best way to understand the speaker's true aim is to ask 'how would Pelosi, Schiff, and their allies act if their goal was really to remove Trump from office by impeachment?' ..."
"... It's not only that the current procedures are intensely partisan, that witnesses are interviewed in secret, that Pelosi has set ad hoc rules by fiat, or that Republicans have been entirely shut out of the process ..."
"... More damage is coming if impeachment reaches a House vote. Pelosi holds the speaker's gavel because centrists Democrats won in districts Trump carried three years ago. Their voters' central message was to work with Republicans and get things done. These newly elected officials couldn't accomplish that. The fault may not be theirs, but they still have nothing to show voters back home. If they lose next year, Pelosi could lose her gavel. ..."
"... This drama is building to a nasty climax: a dirty campaign from now until November 2020. Trump and his allies will run on a strong economy and against a 'do nothing' Congress controlled by 'radical socialists'. Democrats will run against a 'corrupt, erratic, self-dealing Trump and his spineless supporters.' ..."
The most important thing to know about Democrats' impeachment inquiry is this: it is
not about removing President Trump now; it is about damaging him now so he can be
defeated next year.
Impeachment normally seeks to remove the president (or a federal judge) from office. A
successful House vote is only the first step. The Senate needs strong evidence to convict, and
House leaders try to provide it with their investigation and public hearings. That's what we
learned in seventh-grade civics.
But Nancy Pelosi is not in middle school. She is teaching postgraduate courses, and she
knows a Republican Senate is very unlikely to convict Donald Trump without a lot more evidence
than has been brought to light along with a groundswell of public support. So, the House
speaker has a more realistic goal, and it's a purely political one. Her aim is to prevent
Trump's reelection. To do it, she has exerted tight, unilateral control over the process and
handed day-to-day investigation to her California protégé, Adam Schiff, who heads
the committee on intelligence. His secret hearings are in sharp contrast to the open ones held
for Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton by the House Judiciary Committee.
Schiff's closed-door sessions, his refusal to allow Republicans to call witnesses, and his
prohibition of White House participation are all clear indications of Pelosi's strategy. She
and Schiff are using the investigation as publicly funded opposition research, complete with
subpoena power, much like the probe that resulted in the second volume of Robert Mueller's
report.
They don't need to convince activist Democrats that Trump needs to go. The most vocal
have demanded it since 2016, even before inauguration. Others have joined them more recently.
Polls show some independent voters are moving in their direction, fueled by an intense media
campaign. So far, however, the numbers are not nearly enough to isolate Trump (as Nixon was
isolated) or to convince two-thirds of the Senate to convict him. The upper chamber needs a lot
more incriminating evidence and so does the public.
The Democrats have promised that material before but failed to deliver. Last year, Schiff
claimed he had proof of Trump's malfeasance, but he couldn't deliver. Jerry Nadler, chair of
the Judiciary Committee, tried to find something -- anything -- but failed and turned his
committee into a partisan food fight. The Democrats and their media allies had counted on
Robert Mueller, but that didn't work out, either. None of these failures means the Democrats,
Washington Post , or New York Times won't find more compelling evidence this
time, but the track record is not encouraging.
So far, all they've got is a questionable phone call from the president to his Ukrainian
counterpart, a pause in aid to Ukraine (which Kyiv didn't know about and had no practical
effect), and a hyperbolic, second-hand complaint from an anonymous CIA operative. The spy, who
worked with then-Vice President Biden, claimed whistleblower protection under suspiciously new
rules and worked with Schiff's staff to report it. (Schiff lied about this contact.) We don't
know the name of the whistleblower or who else he may have spoken with, aside from his
attorneys. We don't know which CIA officers at the White House passed along the information or
whether they will seek whistleblower protection to cover their unauthorized disclosures of
classified information.
The whistleblower allegations and Rudy Giuliani's ties to now-indicted Ukrainians raise
serious questions about the president's conduct. Polls show the public is concerned. But
'concerned' does not mean 'convinced'. Voters want clear-cut evidence of high crimes before
removing a duly-elected president from office, especially since they get to vote on him next
year. They also want evidence that impeachment is bipartisan, that it seeks to protect our
country and not just one party.
Pelosi knows she cannot provide it. She is not counting on an avalanche of damning new
evidence or a collapse of Trump's Republican support in the House or Senate. Instead, she's
counting on the damage she can do to Trump's chances in 2020. It's a risky strategy, one that
could sink the president but could also endanger the Democrats' House majority.
The best way to understand the speaker's true aim is to ask 'how would Pelosi, Schiff,
and their allies act if their goal was really to remove Trump from office by
impeachment?'
The short answer is that they would bend over backwards to show the whole process is fair,
open, and deliberate. They would use that impartial process to forge a broad, bipartisan
consensus that the president had committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and should be
removed. That's exactly what Democrats did during the Nixon impeachment. It's not what they are
doing now.
It's not only that the current procedures are intensely partisan, that witnesses are
interviewed in secret, that Pelosi has set ad hoc rules by fiat, or that Republicans have been
entirely shut out of the process . Nor is it only that Pelosi and her allies are
determined to rush a foregone conclusion through committee and avoid going to court if Trump
refuses to provide documents or witnesses. (Normally, federal courts would settle such a
standoff between the legislative and executive branches.) Schiff and Pelosi have announced that
they won't litigate these issues or give the White House due process. Instead, they will count
any refusal as evidence of obstruction. Their reason is simple: speed is more important than
judicial legitimacy.
All these are important points, but there is a bigger one. These streamlined, partisan
procedures are proof that House Democrats are not trying to win bipartisan support for
impeachment or set the stage for Senate conviction. They are building a case against Trump to
defeat him at the ballot box.
Politically, that strategy makes sense. Republican officeholders won't abandon Trump unless
he is badly weakened. Until then, they fear his clout; he has proven he can defeat enemies in
party primaries. Just ask the governors of Florida and Georgia.
Pelosi understands this terrain and the choice it poses. She can either drop the endless
investigations and face the wrath of her party base, or she can plunge ahead, call it
impeachment, and hope to defeat Trump next year. She has chosen the latter.
This impeach-and-be-damned strategy is risky. It is already hurting vulnerable, centrist
Democrats, and the damage could mount. Ukraine is the only plausible issue for impeachment, but
that focus has already knee-capped the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. His son,
Hunter, earned big money from a Ukrainian energy company without any qualifications beyond his
DNA. The more Democrats focus on Ukraine, the worse for Biden.
More damage is coming if impeachment reaches a House vote. Pelosi holds the speaker's
gavel because centrists Democrats won in districts Trump carried three years ago. Their voters'
central message was to work with Republicans and get things done. These newly elected officials
couldn't accomplish that. The fault may not be theirs, but they still have nothing to show
voters back home. If they lose next year, Pelosi could lose her gavel. That's one reason
she has postponed a floor vote to authorize the inquiry. But she can't delay forever or deliver
on the centrists' promise to pass significant, bipartisan legislation.
This drama is building to a nasty climax: a dirty campaign from now until November 2020.
Trump and his allies will run on a strong economy and against a 'do nothing' Congress
controlled by 'radical socialists'. Democrats will run against a 'corrupt, erratic,
self-dealing Trump and his spineless supporters.'
Unless the Democrats can find a clean, competent, center-left candidate to lead them, they
face a difficult task. They will need to sell the public on unpopular, brutally expensive new
Washington programs. That agenda doesn't just split the country, it splits the Democrats. What
unifies them is hating Trump and everything he stands for.
Pelosi's impeachment strategy is not separate from this electoral calculation. It's central
to it.
Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the
University of Chicago, where he founded the Program on International Politics, Economics, and
Security. This article was originally published on
RealClearPolitics .
"... Fiona Hill, a "respected Russia scholar" and former senior White House official, added a harsh critique during testimony on Thursday. She told some of Mr. Trump's fiercest defenders in Congress that they were repeating "a fictional narrative." She said that it likely came from a disinformation campaign by Russian security services, which also propagated it. ..."
"... In a briefing that closely aligned with Dr. Hill's testimony, American intelligence officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged in a yearslong campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for Moscow's own hacking of the 2016 election, according to three American officials. The briefing came as Republicans stepped up their defenses of Mr. Trump in the Ukraine affair. ..."
"... The accusations of a Ukrainian influence campaign center on actions by a handful of Ukrainians who openly criticized or sought to damage Mr. Trump's candidacy in 2016. ..."
"... Just keep in mind that those claims are unfounded. The 'handful' of Ukrainians managed, with help from the Democratic National Council, to push Trump's campaign manager to resign. They even bragged about it. Ukrainians were also the biggest foreign donors to Hillary Clinton's foundation. ..."
"... Those are "unfounded claims about Ukrainian interference". Because Putin pointed them out. However, let me assure you that neither the Times nor the CIA would ever make unfounded claims of a Russian operation. It is Russia that is trying 'to sow discord'. It is not an unfounded Democratic impeachment inquiry that does that. ..."
Fiona Hill, a respected Russia scholar and former senior White House official, added a harsh
critique during testimony on Thursday. She told some of Mr. Trump's fiercest defenders in
Congress that they were repeating "a fictional narrative." She said that it likely came from
a disinformation campaign by Russian security services, which also propagated it.
In a briefing that closely aligned with Dr. Hill's testimony, American intelligence
officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged in a
yearslong campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for Moscow's own hacking of
the 2016 election, according to three American officials. The briefing came as Republicans
stepped up their defenses of Mr. Trump in the Ukraine affair.
...
The revelations demonstrate Russia's persistence in trying to sow discord among its
adversaries -- and show that the Kremlin apparently succeeded, as unfounded claims about
Ukrainian interference seeped into Republican talking points.
So there was no Ukrainian meddling, no Ukrainian interference. Claims thereof are
unfounded! But just a few sentences later the piece curiously says something different:
The accusations of a Ukrainian influence campaign center on actions by a handful of
Ukrainians who openly criticized or sought to damage Mr. Trump's candidacy in 2016.
Just keep in mind that those claims are unfounded. The 'handful' of Ukrainians managed, with help from the Democratic National Council, to push
Trump's campaign manager to resign. They even bragged about it. Ukrainians were also the biggest
foreign donors to Hillary Clinton's foundation.
However, because Putin once pointed that out, those claims must be unfounded. They must be
Russian disinformation:
During a news conference in February 2017, Mr. Putin accused the Ukrainian government of
supporting Hillary Clinton during the previous American election and funding her candidacy
with friendly oligarchs.
It is not clear when American intelligence agencies learned about Moscow's campaign or
when precisely it began.
...
One target was the leak of a secret ledger disclosed by a Ukrainian law enforcement agency
that appeared to show that Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's onetime campaign chairman, had taken
illicit payments from Ukrainian politicians who were close to Moscow. He was forced to step
down from the Trump campaign after the ledger became public in August 2016, and the Russians
have since been eager to cast doubt on its authenticity, the former official said.
Those are "unfounded claims about Ukrainian interference". Because Putin pointed them
out. However, let me assure you that neither the Times nor the CIA would ever make
unfounded claims of a Russian operation. It is Russia that is trying 'to sow discord'. It is not an unfounded Democratic impeachment
inquiry that does that.
Posted by b on November 23, 2019 at 18:08 UTC | Permalink
Maybe the CIA has decided that they need to make the claims more obtuse so that even the
mentally competent have trouble explaining the 11 dimensional chess involved.
After all, if Trump singlehanded, as he claims, kept Xi from sending the troops into HK
then Putin assuredly can influence American politics.....if Putin only could make it all go
away.....what a waste of time, energy and money that could be spent on improving the lot of
the poor, living on the streets in the US
When and how will the private finance empire circus end?
At least the US has Bernie and Tulsi calling out the coup in Bolivia for what it
is.....maybe there is hope.
Manafort was managing campaigns of pro-Russian political parties/candidates in Ukraine for
7 years or so before being hired by Trump. My understanding is that Manafort was warned that
his work was undermining USA efforts in Ukraine.
Why did America First Trump bring on Flynn?
Flynn was known to be hated by the intelligence community for having told the world that
the Obama Administration made a "wilful decision" to support the rise of ISIS.
Why did America First Trump make pleas for Putin to release Hillary's emails via
Wikileaks?
It was already known that some of the emails contained top secret information. AFAIK, USA
would consider any publication a crime.
These were set-ups.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Why was "independent", "socialist true believer", supposed man-of-integrity Sanders
sheepdogging for Hillary ("enough with your damn emails")?
Why did Hillary, a seasoned campaigner with virtually unlimited resources, make so many
grievous mistakes in the 2016 election? She snubbed Sanders and his supporters; took the
black vote for granted; insulted whites as "deplorables"; chose not to campaign in the THREE
STATES that she know would decided the election. Why didn't she pull out all the stops to
win? For her beloved establishment? For her own aspirations as first women President? If she
failed because she was "over confident" as some have suggested, then why did she pay for the
Steele dossier as "insurance"? There was no need for insurance if she knew she would win and
if she were unsure of winning she should have done everything possible to win (as any real
candidate would have).
Why did America First Trump use British company Cambridge Analytica? We later
learned that facebook provided the same info to dozens of other companies (debunking the
initial excuse that Cambridge Analytica had special access to facebook info). Was it because
the Russiagate disinfo and CIA election meddling campaign was located in UK?
Why did Trump initiate Ukrainegate by talking about investigating Biden on a diplomatic
call? He's smart enough to know that such political machinations are handled behind the
scenes.
This Reality Show Presidency is all about kayfabe as the Deep State restructures to meet
the challenge from China and Russia, and seeks to manufacture consent for a war with
Iran.
The take away quote
"
Defend American Democracy has spent six figures on television advertisements pressuring
Republican members of Congress to "hold the president accountable for abusing his office and
risking national security for his own gain." The group, which primarily targets
swing-district Republicans, prominently features military veterans in its ads and presents
itself as a veterans group to local media outlets.
........
The 501(c)(4) group is managed by Eric Kessler, a former Clinton administration official who
runs the philanthropic firm Arabella Advisors. The anonymously funded nonprofit was behind
several groups that ran "issue ads" to benefit Democrats during the 2018 midterms, as well as
Demand Justice, a group that spent millions of dollars on ads attacking Brett Kavanaugh
during his nomination to the Supreme Court. The Sixteen Thirty Fund and its sister 501(c)(3)
nonprofit, New Venture Fund, have fiscally sponsored at least 80 of their own groups,
bankrolling those entities in a way that leaves almost no paper trail.
"
The US has the best government Russian influence has not bought.
div> @b #3
I really think the twitter account is satire, judging from other tweets and the profile
pic.
So Russia hacked and attacked Hillary and DNC as Russia. (I believe that is still the
official left-Dem-media meme, despite investigation producing no evidence.) And they attacked
Trump disguised as Ukraine.
This sowing discord is a busy undertaking.
And rather unnecessary, considering the pre-existing state of discord in the nation and
politics, a duplicitous Dem party lost in the wilderness, as it searches a popular cry that
won't actually empower people, a Republican Party that was overwhelmed by a populist tide and
candidate not sanctioned by the leadership, and a legacy media that can crank up divisions on
command.
Maybe I should've posted my comment @6 on the "Impeachment Circus" thread instead.
It just struck me that neoMcCarthist smearing of Russia (which is ongoing, as proven by
b's post) was made possible via the kayfabe of Russiagate, which had it's origins in the 2016
election.
Fiona Hill...another bare faced liar whose name is not Hillary Clinton....I am no longer
astonished that this crap is actually publishable despite the evidence available to anyone
with at least two brain cells. Having followed on the Net the coup in Ukraine in 2014 from
2013 on via live blogs by Western corespondents who are not beholden to the MSM, I know what
lies that latter "journaille" gets away with.
Fiona Hill is an expert on Russophobic content. Like Condi Rice, a Soviet Scholar, she knows
nothing truthful about Russia. Else, why does she lie about Russia?
The think tanks, academia and State Dept. spew out the lies which the Media multiplies.
99% of Russian experts are Russophobes who possess little expertise, some practicing their
propaganda for decades. Many of them excrete books on regular schedules.
The first test (since 2014) of any expert's credentials is his/her position on Crimea. The
next test is on Russian aggression.
If anyone suggests Crimea does not belong to Russia (most especially the federal district of
Sevastopol), then they are ignorant or lying. You either know that in 1954 Crimea was
unconstitutionally given to Ukraine by the Ukrainian Khruschev. It was illegal by USSR law.
2014 corrected that injustice. The experts who profess otherwise are lying.
And if anyone suggests that the Russians are aggressors, they are lying. If Russia was an
aggressor in Georgia or Ukraine, neither would have governments that are so anti-Russian or
militaries that could form a small parade, much less beg for inclusion in NATO.
Russia reacted to Georgian aggression and mass murder. In Ukraine, the Donbass is a Russian
assisted self-defense operation against an ethnic cleansing war. Russia's participation has
been to save 2.5 million Russian-speaking Ukrainians from slaughter ('filtration' is the Ukie
euphemism for killing the Donbass separatists who refuse Kiev's nazi regime).
Russian 'aggression' is a construct of propaganda. Taken in the context of NATO expansion
and encroachment right to the borders of Russia, there is nothing but lies tied to the
'aggression' canard.
We have had 28 years of demonization of the Russian Federation. Russophobia is centuries
old in some societies. Of late, it focuses on the attempts to separate away from Russia the
brother republics of the CIS region of Eurasia. Fed lies, distortion of history, linguistic
differences, religious issues and economic disadvantages, a mania against Russia has been
cultivated. It all is led by "the experts" like Fiona Hill.
We see the same dynamic used against China with Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and
Inner Mongolia. Propaganda. Lies. Experts who mouth the Sinophobic fabrications are the
talking heads on Media and on Congressional sideshows.
Russophobia and Sinophobia are industries now. Fame, publishing riches, TV appearances,
YouTube videos abound with the 'expertise' of these haters.
Judge the output of these expert operatives. The content is always flawed. The truth is
always hidden. But lies fly fast and loose.
Some people actually do believe this stuff, dependent on their partisan world view.
The IG report, which will outline abuses of the FISA system which appears to have
authorized surveillance of Trump campaign by the FBI, is scheduled for release on December 9.
The degree to which it will be damaging to the Russian collusion/hacking/sowing discord
anti-Trump crowds was anticipated yesterday by the simultaneous publication by CNN and WaPo
of assurances by unnamed "officials" that the report will not find anything but minor
discrepancies. Getting out ahead of the story so obviously and more than a week in advance
likely means the report will be damaging - although that may be just a Russian talking
point.
But much as I enjoyed this, I still have to point out that if Ukrainian meddling was so
important and their US consorts so treasonous, then Russian meddling was so important and
*their* consorts so treasonous. You can't honestly have it both ways, either the Democrats'
excusing Ukrainians or the Trumpists excusing Russia. Actually, you can't even honestly say
you know either made any difference. No one sensible thinks either party meant to give aid
and comfort to enemies of the US---the constitutional* definition of treason---unless you
believe the US is justly in undeclared war with the rest of humanity. The only big difference
is that it was Trump who openly asked for foreign assistance in a public speech. The only
conclusion to draw from that is Trumpists are whiners who can dish it out but can't take
it.
*The legalistic assholes who want to deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral
College on the fraudulent grounds that a technicality matters more really are against
majority rule. Of course they also pretend that impeachment reverses elections. The cherry on
top of this turd sundae? They would reject the 26th Amendment, which would have been invoked
against Reagan as well as Trump (and possibly his original, Nixon, as well.) Pence is not
even man enough to do his duty.
Why did the Hildabeast get the Steele Dossier as insurance if she was confident of
victory?
For the same reason that a healthy person in their 20's or 30's, someone not in the least
expecting to die for decades, purchases life insurance covering their family. Just "in case"
the wildly improbable does indeed happen.
I can't see anyone who has a realistic chance of being elected president, let alone with
the historic feat of being the first female president deliberately throwing all this
away.
No matter how often I'm brought to consider this, it still seems striking that 2 years and
$40 million in US law fare waged by the Special Prosecutor is not enough to see Fiona Hill
laughed out of chambers at her RussiaRussia harangue, whereas the NYT is able to establish an
equivalent lack of foundation to the Ukraine meddling thesis in a thrice, notwithstanding
rather substantial counter-evidence long in the public domain. Indeed the Grey Lady does not
even try to debunk these claims, allowing herself instead to refer to them debunked. If you
say so, apparently, or if you and your cohort say so often enough.
For any progressives still gaslighted by this, I invite you to consider a similar
full-court legal, media, IC / Deep State campaign featuring most of the same actors, engaging
next in the hobbling or destruction of a Bernie Sanders presidency.
Or the Steele Dossier was intended so much insurance as a cudgel to beat the fallen
Donald, post-election loser, while he was down. This was the man whose most stirring
electoral refrain was "lock her up." She and her masters would have had every reason to want
to grind him into the dirt after beating him.
Fiona Hill studied Russian history with Richard Pipes, the Evil Empire man. Pipes is and
was a laughingstock in academia. No one would study with him who had an actual interest in
the supposed field of study. Being his protegé was simply a roll of the dice for a
careerist. Hill also studied with a Ukrainian emigré named Szporlak. He was likely
closer to awake during class than Pipes, who really was a very old fool while supervising
Hill.
Condoleeza Rice notoriously wrote her dissertation about the postwar Czech military while
having minimal ability in Russian and less in Czech. More likely it was simply ghostwritten.
Full of egregious errors, placing Czech politicians at heart of action while they were
actually teaching at University of Chicago.
Sorry, oldhippie, Pipes wasn't and is not a laughingstock in academia. He merely should have
been. His son Daniel is doing the same in middle east studies and he's not a laughingstock
either. It is hard to underestimate how little effect adhering to the basic scholarly
standards can have in keeping out motivated reasoning, double standards, agendas, political
servitude, etc. It is quite likely that Pipes has a better reputation than Stephen Cohen, J.
Arch Getty or Sheila FitzPatrick. He certainly has a better reputation than a Mark Tauger.
Pipes' classes at Harvard in 70s were a spectator sport. Come and see the Cold War fossil.
Lectures routinely interrupted by gales of laughter. Yes, he had a comeback. No, no one has
ever taken him or his 'scholarship' seriously. He simply happens to be useful. Daniel is just
as bad.
Paul @ 22, wrote: "She [Harridan Hillary] and her masters would have had every reason to want
to grind him [Tweetie Bird] into the dirt after beating him."
I agree, but there was also the need to demonize Russia and V.V.Putin to lay the ground
for the war against Russia. The campaign against Trump began in January 2016, launched by
Brennan and the CIA, whose strumpet H.H. had been since back in Arkansas.
Already in July 2016, she was openly campaigning against V.V.P. There was ONE ( 1! )
foreign policy plank in her platform, and it was the no-fly zone over Syria. General Joseph
Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, testified before the United States Congress
in mid-September 2016, on which occasion he was asked about the no-fly zone. He responded,
promptly and unequivocally, that it would mean war with Russia.
If war with Russia had not been the objective, the Great Grey Whore would have used its
position in New York to investigate Tweetie Bird and publish to the world, indeed, hammer to
the world, the long grotesque story of his attempt to make a career in real estate, and the
fraud he engaged in from the start. His string of bankruptcies was the most spectacular in
the history of American business enterprise (this from somebody who has studied United States
economic and financial history) instead of letting him constantly blather on about what a
great businessman he was etc.
His father had him on the payroll when he was two, to the tune of $200,000, in order to
pass wealth on to him without paying the very high gift tax. By the time his father died, he
had made over to Tweetie Bird something in the neighborhood of $420 million. And Tweetie Bird
squandered it all, plus the fabulous real-estate empire that his father had left him -- all
gone...
In 2002, Tweetie Bird was over $3 billion (yes, BILLION) in debt to 72 banks in New York
and no New York bank would give him a credit line, which he desperately needed to keep up his
incessant refrain that money is no object for Donald Trump. So, he turned to the Russian
oligarchs for whom he had been laundering money to generate cash flow. They gave him a credit
line through the Cypriot banks that they controlled, and now they own him. They are his
Russian connection, not V.V.P., who has been fighting the oligarchs since he first took
office -- look at what V.V.P. did to Michail Khodokovski: ten years in the gulag (he's now
living in Switzerland reduced to scraping by on the ten or so billion that he had squirreled
away in Swiss banks).
Tweetie Bird owns NOTHING. Everything is in the name of the Trump Organization, to protect
it from confiscation when the reckoning comes. And, since the T.O. publishes NOTHING about
its affairs, it's reasonable to assume that he is in debt to his Cypriot banks, probably to
the tune of five or six billion at this point, and that they hold liens on every piece of
property he claims as his own.
Tweetie Bird is all about Tweetie Bird, exclusively. His pitch for détente with
Russia was a classic case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, to wit he intended
to lift the sanctions if V.V.P. would round up the oligarchs who have Tweetie Bird over the
barrel and pack them off to the gulag. However, in August 2017, Congress pulled the rung out
from under him by reinforcing the sanctions and thus removing them from executive order
purview and placing them under Congressional authority.
Hilarious someone said. Really. The Russians would have to be superhuman geniuses to do half
of what US 'Intelligence' says about them. It is transparently true, OTOH, that CIA and etc.
are true clods and dolts. It's tautological really.
My understanding is that Manafort was warned that his work was undermining USA efforts in
Ukraine.
So what? Maybe Trump wanted to undermine the Washington Borg's efforts in Ukraine as they
were counter to his principle foreign policy - cordial relations with Russia. Since Trump was
very clear about this policy all through the election, he has every right to implement that
policy regardless of what anyone opposed to him might think or try to do. It's one of the
basic concepts of a democratic system (yeah, I am aware that the U.S. is a republic not a
democracy, etc.) that the successful candidate should be able to implement any legal policy
that was part of his manifesto.
As for Trump asking the Russians to look for Hillary Clinton's e-mails, it was a joke. Added
to which it was a reference to the 30,000 "personal" e-mails that that idiot, Hillary
Clinton, had managed to mislay and not the DNC and Podesta e-mails that were leaked by some
unknown party to Wikileaks.
These low brow knuckle draggers know how to spin lies. Their useless parade of irrelevant
nincompoops proves an ongoing campaign to demonize Russian people. We all see it here
constantly on other blogs and MSN reports. These people know very well who their match is and
cannot compete socially, on certain new military complexes, political maturity, etc. I offer
Sergey Lavrov as a person not matched by any other nation. All western parasites in
opposition pale in stature, political maturity, and brains. The Russians know what the deal
is with these western crybabies, and know they are dealing with premature juveniles. These
people show how weak they are by their actions and the Russians show patience. Oh, and that
kayfabe word, Trump ..."be fake."... has much experience with it from his wrestling exposure.
This farce has that written all over it, fake bullshit.
I have been watching the Trump impeachment hearings farce on television over the past weeks
and have heard enough BS by the so-called witnesses to fertilize the Sinai Desert. The real
reason behind the hearings is not 'quid pro quo,' but 'cui bono' (who benefits). The parade
of over-the-hill Cold War warriors has reinforced my belief that the impeachment hearings are
essentially an attempt by the old Cold War guard to retain their privileges and positions of
power in Washington. As for Ms. Fiona Hill, she is a prime example of the old dictum that
states, "A Brit with an upper class accent reading the phone book sounds smarter to most
Americans, than Abe Lincoln reading the Gettysburg Address.
Macabre Comedy is the only appropriate descriptive term IMO. Russia is a very busy nation,
every bit as busy as its leader VV Putin. Who within the Evil Outlaw US Empire's national
government is even close to being Putin's equivalent? The vast majority are mere
kindergarteners in comparison, Trump included. In case you've been asleep since 2007 or so,
Putin and all of Russia are working their tails off to improve their nation and their
comrades's wellbeing and in doing so have surpassed The Empire is qualitative military
equipment, nuclear engineering, and a host of other areas, along with building several
geoeconomic blocs of kindred nations to which the Empire can only answer with idiotic
accusations and factless BigLie Media items.
If anything tells us how low the Evil Outlaw US Empire has sunk, it's this attempt to
impeach a POTUS using bullshit for evidence. The would be emperor isn't the only one sans
clothes--the entire imperial edifice is revealed as a scrawny, emaciated, traumatized waif
that the curtain can no longer hide.
Headline: "How True Is the Story on Which the US Sanctions against Russia Are Based?"
Very good question!! Glad someone in the MSM is (finally) asking it . . .
"Mit seinen Aussagen zum Tod eines Whistleblowers brachte Bill Browder die Amerikaner gegen
Putin auf. Doch seine Darstellung ist voller Widersprüche. Von Benjamin Bidder "
With his statements regarding the death of a whistleblower [Magnitsky was no such thing]
Brill Browder [arch scumbag] stirred up the Americans against Putin. But his account is full
of contradictions [you don't say].
And at Bidder's website in addition:
"Washington based its sanctions on Browder's account of Magnitsky's death."
Unfortunately the Spiegel story is behind a paywall. Perhaps someone here has a sub.
People here may recall that a very good documentary about the whole affair, "Behind the
Scenes," made by Andrei Nekrasov, was buried in the USA but was available online. It is a
great explanation of the scurrilous Browder and his role in getting the balling rolling in DC
against Putin. Has great footage of Browder running away from cameras, men trying to serve
subpoenas, and, in front of the camera, squirming-and-sweating-while-lying.
So it seems to me like good news if questions about Browder and his tale are raised in Der
Spiegel---even though I haven't read the article.
I have no argument with constitutional executive powers. I do have many arguments against
Unitary Executive Theory. You can campaign on a policy and implement it once elected, but you
can't use executive power with corrupt intent and claim immunity.
I have been watching closely both the Trump and the Hillary misbehaviors for quite a
while. Your post up above is, I think, the first string of assertions about the pair of them
that I agree with without exception . As far as the activities that you covered in
that post are concerned, you've got each of them nailed to a "T".
I hope we'll see further comments from you, that will exhibit the same degree of
accuracy.
The degree of dishonesty and blatant manipulation by the MSM has reached ridiculous levels.
MSM journalists are not journalists, they are lying, evil peddlers of propaganda shilling for
the military industrial complex; they are as blood-stained as the psychopathic elite that
they so faithfully serve...they should be held responsible for their lies, up to and
including prosecution for war crimes:
There is an article on
telepolis (no paywall, in German) on the Spiegel piece, demasking the author Benjamin
Bidder as someone who belatedly jumps on the bandwagon that others have set in motion, first
and foremost the Russian filmmaker Andrej Nekrasov.
Really @ 33 Thanks for the reference to the Der Spiegel article questioning Magnitsky. Hij is
absolutely ground zero of the whole Russia paranoia and Ukraine obsession. The US has lost
all perspective: an insignificant place like Ukraine dominates its national and foreign
policies while its own people have to pay the price.
Thanks mk @ 37. Sure Nekrasov investigated the Magnitsky story but his film was available to
no one in the US and the EU in the standard outlets (TV, cinema, etc.). Der Spiegel is MSM as
any MSM can be and it is then significant that the publication prints this article, even if
Magnitsky and the anti-Russian mania he set in motion with the help of US politicians is
still enigmatic. How can one man recruit the whole US political system to protect his
personal wealth? Has a contributed to the campaign funds, Clinton Foundation, etc.?
Hillary Clinton: "We better get to the White House if most of us do not want to end up at the
lamp posts". O America, if you knew what these people are doing to the Americans----- after
they got rid of president Kennedy.
It is important to remember that Hillary Clinton as Sec of State transacted her entire
computer communications operation on an unsecured server in a closet at her home. It was
shared with the Clinton Foundation. It was never secured or in any way made available to the
US Government IT security team.
Likewise she used unsecured phones.
That is what the problem was as that server would have been accessed by a number of state
actors who would suspect some benefit might come their way if they peeked. A cinch for any
state actor let alone a clever hacker.
Hillary Clinton is guilty of the single extreme national security breach in US history.
And they are killing Assange to cover for her criminal treachery.
Mina @40: A beggars banquet. A festival of corruption. I wonder when it will dawn on those
needy greedheads that the Sauds are running on empty too ...
A minor point, true enough, but Fiona Hill does most definitely *not* have an ""upper
class English" accent. (As a former Brit of English and working class origin, that is as
apparent as could be.) Her accent is a much softened after many years away from her working
class family origins in North-Eastern England - specifically, County Durham, and as many
years trying to rid herself of those working class origins, taints there remains the local
lilt to her diction.
Regarding her rank, stinking Russophobia - I would suggest that its origins were *not*
from her background (her father was a coal miner) but rather from the fact that she spent her
late teens and early adulthood under the Thatcher the Snatcher government and its deliberate
ending of public ownership of basic services as it installed TINA - pure rapacious,
plundering, mammon and moloch worshipping corporate-capitalism allied to imperialism.
Add to these likely background effects, the desire among some of those of working class
origins who, on achieving a tertiary education have every intention of eschewing and
disparaging their backgrounds and adopting wholeheartedly the worldview of the ruling elites.
Not at all unusual, certainly in the UK.
Definitely totally distorted. Inaccurate (I doubt that she has ever spent much, if any,
time in Russia with ordinary, working class Russians - ho no, too far down the ladder) and
extremely partisan. Another Dem shill?
An aside: my late husband's friends are all highly educated and all (the American ones,
anyway) glued to the impeachment hearings and gung-ho for them.... Education isn't all it's
cracked up to be, clearly. (And For the record - I am very much anti-both parties.)
Really?? @ 33 : thanks for reminding us about Andrei Nekrasov's "Behind the Scenes". The
effort to bury it as well as the reaction (including -- especially? -- from among the
Congresscritters) was an outstanding example of groupthink -- everybody move in lock-step
with the prescribed belief and vilify, demonize those who dare to propose something different
that contradicts the groupthink
Antispin @ 35, thanks for the compliment. I keep trying...
Glad some of you appreciated the parody. We need such cleverness. It is at the opposite
end of the spectrum from groupthink, and it's a good antidote to the mind-numbing drivel of
mendacious mainstream media.
In reply to Karlof1 - absolutely agree about the abilities of V. Putin and his team. If ONLY
we had any government (had any akin to them over the past decades) as able, sensible,
concerned about their country as Putin and his team clearly are, we'd be a peaceful,
non-terroristic, economically more equal place. I would also include with V. Putin and his
team, Xi and his government and the Iranian elected government - and Khamenei. Our lot are
squealing, uneducated (in the true sense of the term) greedy, amoral children by comparison
AnneR @ 46 wrote: "Education isn't all it's cracked up to be, clearly."
Education has both a very positive and a very negative dimension.
On the positive side is the socialization that puts one in touch with many people, most of
whom, ideally, one would mot meet otherwise (not the least of whom are great teachers at all
levels) and teaches one to get along with them. Also, on the positive side is learning: it
saves one from constantly reinventing the wheel, so to speak, and gives a personal touch to
imparted knowledge.
On the negative side is the lock-step conformity it can -- and more and more does --
impose on social mores. Also there is the transmission of the mindset and beliefs that Andrew
Carnegie splendidly called the gospel of wealth (he was gung-ho for it, of course -- God made
him rich because God wanted him to be rich...). Both of these are essential underpinnings to
groupthink (which, by the way, was studied in depth at Yale University in the 1960s, and
where it got it's name).
There's a movie called "Billy Elliot", which takes place in the 1980s UK, that tells this
story: the boy had a miner father and a miner older brother, with high class consciousness --
there's even a scene where they fight over one of the members who violated the strike and
went to work.
But none of that matters of little Billy, as he wants to be a ballet dancer. The riot
police, the strikes, all of that appears just as a background, the landscape, over which he
and his best friend talk about wanting to do ballet.
The figure of Billy Elliot represents the transition in the UK from an industrial economy
to a services one, and the transition of a social-democratic UK to a neoliberal UK.
Many assume that "education" involves learning true things. There is reason for this
assumption in engineering and math, as these actually involve logical proofs. However many
professionals, presumably "educated" are ignorant of the basic science necessary for
understanding and proving...pharmacists who are re-leaved of the obligation to, for example,
ever take a chemistry class, or chemistry test. Thus the assumption is, well, not always
valid. Other examples abound...look for a few. Ask, for example, the X-Ray technician a few
questions about the physics of his job...
However the assumption fails entirely when one enters the bizarre realm of canonical
myth...such as "history" or "political theory" or the Chicago School of Econ.
It is also often assumed that education involves teachers. I have not noticed that such
people are, generally, of any value. Rather, the profession of teaching serves to park people
who might upset matters in a place where they are under control and addicted to their
paychecks, and serve up propaganda according to the rule.
And it is assumed that it involves a forum dedicated to what they call education, when in
reality it is that forum where the process that binds takes place. The Toga, the Bath>
"Hence, too, a liking sprang up for our style of dress, and the "toga" became fashionable.
Step by step they were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant
banquet. All this in their ignorance, they called civilization, when it was but a part of
their servitude." (Tacitus)
Think jeans and Hollywood, and propaganda.
One particularly egregious difference 'tween education is the exclusion of any formal
study of Rhetoric and logic, with developed skill in these, as a basic prerequisite. Such
matters are now generally ignored, and have been in the canonical syllabus of US "education"
for, more or less, a century.
AnneR @ 46 wrote: "Education isn't all it's cracked up to be, clearly."
Like with food, deprivation is bad, but content, the manner of serving etc. can have a
variety of effects. Here we have an example of a narrower phenomenon, meritocracy. Somewhere
I read that the imperial government of China had European guest and advisors who informed
their host about certain advances in Europe like clock construction and improved cartography,
but who also brought back information about the Chinese method of selecting officials on the
basis of examinations. Initially, the English adopted civil service selected by examinations
to rule India, and that worked so well that the system was extended for the government of
England as well. Like in China, the key was to learn the wisdom of the classics. Of course,
Confucius was replaced with Plato, Horace etc. Back in China, Confucius seems to be replaced
by the study of the History of Chinese Communist Party -- obligatory regardless of the
major.
However, what is outright sinister is the coupling of "narrative building" performed for
intelligence/national security apparatus in USA and UK with academia. "Properly thinking"
luminaries from top institutions of learning were recruited for the purpose, with Fiona Hill
mentor being prime example. From what I understand, Richard Pipes left the position of the
head of Russian and Slavic Studies at Harvard to be CIA consultant where he lead Team B to
assess the intentions and capabilities of USSR. Unlike more realistic team A, Team B strongly
exaggerated both sinister plans of USSR, basically suggesting that without heeding the
constraints of MAD, they will attempt to subjugate the West, and the capabilities. Almost
hiilariously, his team postulated that the symptoms of economic stagnation in USSR were faked
to lull the West into complaisance. Recommendations of Team B were enthusiastically adopted
by Reagan administration to justify acceleration of defense spending. Check "Team B" in
Wikipedia. "I would say that all of it was fantasy. ... if you go through most of Team B's
specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were
all wrong." Needless to say, the theory of faked economic decline was absurd.
Lamentably, Pipes did not abandoned his teaching duties, and while he toiled as the head
of Team B he was mentoring Ph. D. students including Fiona Hill.
*The legalistic assholes who want to deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral
College on the fraudulent grounds that a technicality matters more really are against
majority rule. Of course they also pretend that impeachment reverses elections. The cherry on
top of this turd sundae? They would reject the 26th Amendment, which would have been invoked
against Reagan as well as Trump (and possibly his original, Nixon, as well.) Pence is not
even man enough to do his duty. by: steven t johnson @ 17 <=you might also be interested
to know that these same types want to take control of all of the resources, all of the
departments, all of the labor, and all of whatever else that exist in America so the USA can
use them to conduct continuous war and manage the grey zone.. read on..
The white paper "Russian Strategic Intentions"[ https://cryptome.org/2019/07/Pentagon-Russia.pdf],
caste its analysis of the future in terms of "competition and conflict" and presents, in its
preface, a long list of those associated to the claim that the USA should use "all of its
instruments of state power" in a comprehensive fashion, to manage grey area warfare, to
promote elite interest in far away places, and to impose aggression (in environment, in
economic activity, with influence campaigns, with paramilitary assault, with cyber intrusion,
and with political warfare) as a defense to Russian grey zone global activities. What bull
shit! no wonder Americans cannot understand Article II Presidents or the USA endangering
Americans and their quality of life because the USA is involved in bombing, destructing and
aggressing activities. The groups that wrote this report have decided they should decide for
the American public, what the USA policy should be? I wonder what Americans would say about
that?
Is it true that "Americans need go no further than think tanks and intelligence services
supporting USA aggression in foreign lands, to find their enemies and to discover the cause
of why their lot has been reduced to forth world peon status? Who in America allowed groups
of the type that wrote this paper to decide, or even to think about deciding, for Americans
what the USA should be doing? Why is not "war for ever, even when there is no war" the
narrative debated by USA politicians competing to govern America? Governed Americans and
governed Russians should build a stadium, outfit the personnel in Russian and USA
governments, their think tanks and their intelligence services with uniforms, lock the two
opposed teams in the stadium, and sell the TV rights to pay off the national debt of all of
the nations of the world as these two teams as they fight it out to the last man, woman and
paper tiger warrior.
Consider this fascinating assumption or projection => "Russia believes..there is no
unacceptable or illegitimate form of deterrence, compellence, or escalation
management(Goure).. [<= I cannot find in real life the continuum of conflict this group
talks about?]. Like Russia's perception of its competition with the USA, its perception of
conflict is dichotomous: one is either at war or not at war." I had no idea Russia could
believe anything? Apparently think tanks supporting the USA; think Russia can think, and
have concluded, as a result of their thoughts, that war exist, even when: there is no war? My
USA cat jumped over the starry moon, while his Russian cow chased earthly rats? The so-called
Russian grand (balance of powers) strategy vs whole of USA government liberal order
management of the international grey zone => compels and escalates the USA, sez the
report, to maintain a continuous state of war?
.. "Countering Russian provocations [<=competition maybe, but not provocation?] requires
all instruments of USA national power, they say?" <=note: as long as not on American soil
who cares?
Piotr seems to agree with Walter. The general principle seems to be "We'll know our
disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false"
(Casey/ Honneger) and of course everyone must recall Clapper complaining about the Russians
finding "fissures in our [US/CIA] tapestry" (one never hears the word "tapestry" in US
English except, generally,in the phrase "tapestry of lies"...unless one is involved with
curtains or one sort, or another...the term "Eiserner Vorhang" popularized by
Churchill...that's a tapestry, ain't it?
If their lips move, they lie, friend. And do not look behind the green tapestry at the
mighty Wurlitzer...
Well, snake, the thalassocratic rule of the Anglosaxon diaspora into forward operating base
(former republic) USA has evidently failed, and "they" now follow not the republic's laws,
but the ukase of Imperial method. They have no other methods.
This was also the reason for England to start WW1. German industry and Ruski resources
would (will/is/has) integrate(d) Heartland and create(d) a tellurocratic reality those Fine
fella's down at the shop cannot abide.
Think of this as a loose connecting rod in a chevy motor...you know what's going to
happen, but it's the only way to go...so you pretend it's ok...
If US intelligence agencies are asserting that Ukraine meddling in the US election was a
Russian operation, when in fact Ukraine did indeed heavily meddle in the elections, isn't
that treason by the US intelligence agency officials concerned?
" deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral College on the fraudulent grounds that a
technicality matters more really are..."
The US, formerly a Republic and remaining approximately Republican in institutional
appearances and out-side form, has never been a democracy. It was not intended to be, though
it had some democratic forms. ("Democracy" is without semantic value as it is used these
days.)
That's not a trivial technical characteristic. It was intentional and basic. It's the lay
of the Basic Law of the US since 1789 or so, and perhaps less so in the actual Basic Law c
1776...some claim the 1778 Law was not properly ratified...a sound argument once, eclipsed
entirely by long custom, custom being the basis of all Law (and some Ukase).
Of course nowadays it's not even a Republic, more like an animated zombie largely under
the incompetent control of several elite clubs, including foreign and also zionist and also
financial clubs, which are in constant turmoil...because these clubs are running out of
options.
When you are in a conflict set and run out of options, then you almost always lose...since
everybody can see what you must do, and they themselves make plans to counter yours.
In this undertaking the Ruskis and the Chinese have preeminence.
It's already over... Soon they will realize that, and make deals.
............
BM, fair question about the Big T. It depends on who writes the History, curtain-makers
or... At the present time Big T cannot exist, but...one may assume that the Russian
Historians and the Chinese Historians will say "Big-T".
"The legalistic assholes who want to deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral
College on the fraudulent grounds that a technicality matters more really are against
majority rule."
You seem to advocating the concept of mob rule. Do you understand that a popular opinion
is not necessarily a correct opinion?
Other important aspect of the Ukrainegate, which leads all the way to the Syriagate, of
utmost importance for European security, since we are made aware that matters of security are
directly in the hands of people strange, or in the way to be strange, to European interests
and organzitions, keeping all European institutions hostage of the NATO military
alliance´s interests, and which differs from the main point it is given here, that
related to the meddling in US elections, as if that were what most matter...when it is the
other way around, that the USUK complex meddles in each adn every aspect of Euroepan life,
interests, prospects and security, underminig them all...
I did watch that film when it was linked at an article about the whole affair at the Unz
Review (now I think the Bitchute link is once again neutered). Before seeing this article I
was virtually ignorant of the Magnitisky affair, scumbag Browder, and the putative affair's
influence on American policy. Here is the UNz Review article, by Israel Shamir: http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-good-fortune-of-mr-browder/?highlight=Browder
(sorry if not doing link properly)
It's a long story, which Shamir tells pretty clearly.
Kurz um, the American public was denied the chance to evaluate Browder's claims themselves by
viewing the film. Truly, censorship at its most naked.
Bidder may be jumping on a bandwagon (and, I don't know what he actually writes!!) but Der
Spiegel is 150% MSM, toeing the American line in most respects. So I do think even this
headline is worth noting.
However, I have read a large portion of the Telepolis article and it should be read by
anyone interested in Browder/Magnitsky. It is really a case study of an incredibly successful
disinformation campaign. Which are only possible with active and passive collusion of many
state and nonstate actors and of course the MSM media.
(Also, it looks as though Telepolis has been following this story in other articles that call
out news organizations and EU entities for their complicity in pushing Browder's narrative
and ignoring many counter-signs. Including canceling and otherwise burying Nekrasov's
excellent film.)
Actually, the larger topic in light of the Russiagate and impeachment circuses being
"clash of the titans' disinformation campaigns."
oldhippie@25 The anecdotes about what the insiders kept secret is instructive. The gales of
laughter did nothing to impair Pipes' academic reputation, nor were they meant to, I imagine.
Being a respected academic means also being respected in government and in the media, which
Pipes was. Team B and all that
Walter's babble about a Republic instead of a democracy is reactionary cant. The
Constitution originally read that the electors would be in fact the electors, interposing
against a majority to elect a responsible candidate, one determined to preserve the ruling
class. In those times, that meant slavers, of course. But, in Washington's elections,
Hamilton, concerned to prevent an inadvertent tie, intrigued to make sure John Adams got
fewer electoral votes than the popular voting of the time required. Adams was irate. In
Adams' own election, Hamilton supposedly tried to get the electors to switch votes so that a
Pinckney of South Carolina was elected. (Adams was honest in pecuniary matters and rather
intelligent, but he was something of a dingbat, which piety about the "Founding Fathers"
refuses to admit.) Adams was even more furious. And Jefferson made political capital,
swearing to all that his party's electors would vote the people's will. They did, and
promptly created a constitutional crisis when Jefferson and Burr tied, throwing the election
into the House. The intrigues aimed at overturning the people's will provoked talk of another
revolution or the break up of the union.
The principle that electors are not agents to actually elect the president but mere cogs
was established. It was affirmed by the incandescent fury of the Jacksonians at J.Q. Adams.
And it was further confirmed when the contested election of 1876 again was loud with talk
about uprisings. It was only the obscene withdrawal of troops from the South, protecting the
Klan etc., that pacified the uproar. It was not until the political degeneration of the later
years which lead the coward Gore to roll over. As mere agents of the popular vote, yes, the
EC is a mere technicality. My guess is that Walter personally would sneer at a criminal
defendant who relied on a technicality about their rights to get an acquittal. But the other
Walters want to use a technicality to take away people's rights. Then they are so shameless
as to pretend to virtue and wisdom.
As for the notion that the Electoral College is the enemy of the people's rights, instead
of the states' right? In this thread there are idiots ranting about treason because of email
server. If you want to see treason, look at the history of the Confederate States of America.
That's treason. We have a national government, it's part of the constitution (14th Amendment
is otherwise gibberish.) Thus, the Electoral College as a treaty compact between "sovereign"
(semi-sovereign is not really a thing!) is also dead. The EC is just a technicality. Walter
would implicitly have us believe that if the electors just picked someone else through
conspiracy among themselves, then the President chosen would be the President because that's
the Constitution, and that's just the way it is. Electors keeping faith with the people
instead of their parties would have voted for the person who won the vote. And Walter
wouldn't accept the result, no matter how much it followed the Constitution (which it would
have!) because reactionary scum like Walter are always liars.
Ant. seems to think the minority of the good people should overrule the common peoples,
aka the mob. It is doubtful Ant. would know the good people if they were in the same room.
The assumption that Ant. is one of the good people is simply slavish adoration. Also, the
only real meaning to "mob" is "collective noun for people rioting." An election is not a
riot. This is slander by some whose rancid contempt for humanity at large should be directed
first at Ant.
V. Putin said that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but... American journalists, of course,
are aware that this statement is unfounded, and, of course, is Russian disinformation.
Because V. Putin said this.
You seem to advocating the concept of mob rule. Do you understand that a popular opinion is
not necessarily a correct opinion?
Gee! And here I was under the impression that THE MAJORITY of the people equals democracy.
But because most Americans are nuts, Amerikkka, would be the exception to that rule.
By the same token, pretending the Electoral College equals democracy is also legitimizing
the fact that a few married cousin crazies and evangelized bible thumpers from sparsely
populated hicktowns and rednecks, and pretend gentry from the Confederacy have equal
representation to the most populated states in the Union.
Let me though make a precise evaluation: Crazytown U.S.A. imposed karma Trump on the
majority, because a big part of that majority betrayed liberal anti-war values to neoliberal
peace equals war Nobel drone Obama and neoliberal hawk Killary cackling like a shrew
at the Al-Qaeda gang slaughter of Gaddafi.
Now, Amerikka has a ZioCon for President that pardons and glorifies war criminals, that
arms a proxy war committing starvation genocide, that steals oil resources from Syria, that
wields economic tyranny against Venezuela and Iran for the purpose of regime change and
control of foreign energy riches, that is meddling in Lebannon, Iraq and Latin American
countries usurping the will of people, and who gives away territory in Syria and Palestine to
Zionists not to mention his fascist takeover of the Judiciary and and total ignorance of the
climate change threat.
So even though you're totally wrong on what democracy is, it doesn't matter, because
Amerikkka's majority is getting exactly what it deserves for having betrayed and surrendered
liberal values to Neocons like GWBush, Neolibs like Killary and all in service to Zionism and
Zionists like Kissinger and billionaires like Saban and Adelson and the corporate sheisters
on Wall Street.
Very few Americans have a mind of their own raised on the Zionist corporate media alphabet
soup that scrambles the brain. So you're right, the majority, deserve the Trump karma imposed
on them by the lowest crazy common denominator in Amerikkkan society promoted by the
Electoral College and who are the most useful idiots of Zionist supremacy.
And then everyone wonders about the growing desperation manifested by mass tent cities,
mass opiod consumption and mass incarceration. Amerikka is occupied and Trump is the enforcer
of the occupier.
Now try and find a more precise observation of the truth.
America is an insane asylum that masquerades as the "world's leading democracy."
This country is truly unhinged and lives in its own Orwellian reality. The
Ukraine/impeachment issue is only symptomatic of this broader pathology.
For the USA, it doesn't make a difference what actual reality is. What matters is that
America defines what counts as reality itself--not matter how ludicrous or fake it is.
As a former high-level Bush Regime openly admitted in an interview with journalist Ron
Suskind:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're
studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new
realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's
actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
This American mentality is most evident in the USA's sociocidal wars of aggression around
the world and the lies that America peddles to pimp for its wars--as well as its political
balkanization, regime change, or destabilization campaigns that it dresses up
as"pro-Democracy"(TM) movements:
Mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
The fake War on Terrorism
The bogus War on Drugs
Humanitarian Intervention, or the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine
Freedom and Democracy
All-American Lies....
Americans truly are the people of the Big Lie.
There should be a Cordon Sanitaire placed around the United States (and its crime
partners/allies) to prevent this American plague from infecting the rest of the word.
@54 snake "Governed Americans and governed Russians should build a stadium, outfit the
personnel in Russian and USA governments, their think tanks and their intelligence services
with uniforms, lock the two opposed teams in the stadium, and sell the TV rights to pay off
the national debt of all of the nations of the world as these two teams as they fight it out
to the last man, woman and paper tiger warrior."
That's awesome! I was just listening to Devo's 1981 New Traditionalists album the other
day, and while I put it on to listen to "Beautiful World" ("It's a beautiful world, for
you...not me!"), the following song is "Enough Said" and these are the great lyrics:
"Take all the leaders from around the world
Put them together in a great big ring
Televise it as the lowest show on earth
And let them fight like hell to see who's king
Gather up the pieces when the fight is done
Then you'll find out living really can be fun
Enough said!"
You can find in youtube - too apropos to not share.
Jackrabbit 6
"took the black vote for granted"
So very true. Team HRC must have thought they could flip states like Pennsylvania by taking
the cities just like BHO did. Instead the states "deplorables" were dismissed. BHO did the
same but he had the cities in his pocket. But in today's PC hypocrisy, you can't point to
race as being a major factor.
psychohistorian 7
These NGOs and other organizations have an added influence on our politics. For some reason
the MSM doesn't mention them much. It's like the White Helmets. Search for their history at
YouTube and you get the official obfuscation. But toss in Purpose and AVAAZ and you find
more.
@ STJ #63> who wrote, inter alia> "reactionary scum like Walter are always liars." et
sec
Many thanks, Friend. As no doubt all here are well-aware, the resort to ad hominem occurs
when the speaker has no actual argument.
I am obliged. Glad you agree with Walter, and also very glad you do not like that...your
inner-conflict may be part of the dialectic. I hope it works out for you, Steve.
see, if you like, McHenry,"The American Historical Review", vol. 11, 1906 p 618
Here's another bull's eye observation: it's more efficient and cunning to manipulate through
social media tech-savvy means and other localized machinations the really susceptible, dumb,
but important groups in swing states made powerful by the Electoral College than to tackle
the opinion of the urban majority with a few critical articles and the appearance of a
pay-off ledger. Besides, the entirety of Europe was critical of candidate Trump. The
criticism of Trump was not specfic to Ukraine alone. So either the meddling was based on a
vast conspiracy of criticism or it was based on a campaign of targeted populist propaganda
directed at the right and working class together with a perfectly-timed leak that the DNC was
sabotaging Sanders cleverly meant to turn part of the left base against the Dem Party. I say
the latter.
Now don't try to convince me that Ukraine would meddle to turn the left base of the
Democratic side against Hillary when Ukraine preferred her. That logic just don't fly.
The question to ask is. Who had the unlimited financial resources, political connections
and tech savvy to pull the meddling off? I'll give you some clues: it's the usual suspect,
starts with Z and it's mostly based in Israel, the U.S. AND in the Russian oligarchy.
Trump is the Chosen Zionist President and there's nothing more to look at here. The
Ukraine and Russia factors are superfluous and moot to that over-arching FACT.
The most important thing is to learn to read and write.
Rhetoric and logic are important to follow after.
The basis of my comment is that I am currently reading Frederick Law Olmstead's The Cotton
Kingdom.
Fascinating. Unvarnished look at the antebellum South. There was a lot of variation among
states and communities. but the basics remain the same (he covers a very wide territory, both
geog. and intellectually and makes very detailed observations of all that he
encountered).
A huge factor (per FLO) in the mental, psychological, intellectual, economic etc
impoverishment of the South was a lack of any cultural institutions, people lived too far
apart to hire any kind of teachers, of course the slaves were virtually all of them also
uneducated. but in, say, South Caroline 25% of the whites also could not read or write or do
elementary sums.
As adults we all have the responsibility to (continue to) educate ourselves. I get nervous
when I hear people putting a pox on education per se. There are no guarantees when human
beings invent or are given various types of tools. Trying to win the argument by withholding
the provision or preventing the acquisition of tools sounds akin to considering people
"uppity" for using the intellectual tools they possess.
@uncle tungsten | Nov 24 2019 11:58 utc | 44 (the email affair and server)
Assume that the Bruce-Partington Submarine plans (Y'all know yer Holmes?) are under
control of Billary Jones, a senior official in an Imperial State. Billary needs money and has
guilty secrets. He's being blackmailed by Oberstein, a spy.
Jones then accidentally leaves the plans where Oberstein sees and photographs them.
Hi there Stevie...conflict is debilitating, eh? Find the Franklin quote yet? He was there,
and you? But I assume you haven't even realized it wuz Bennie F. Best o' luck.
(apologies to Conan Doyle)
69 Shmoe
Sorry about link not working. Esp since it was so long.
I usually activiate Google translate from a Google hit. But
I think you can also activate Google translate from the original webpage. This link pasted
into a new window (the URL space) did get me to the translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Browder-und-das-Magnitski-Narrativ-Ende-einer-Desinformationskampagne-4595245.html&prev=search
">https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Browder-und-das-Magnitski-Narrativ-Ende-einer-Desinformationskampagne-4595245.html&prev=search">https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Browder-und-das-Magnitski-Narrativ-Ende-einer-Desinformationskampagne-4595245.html&prev=search
In case that still does not work, type the title into your browser and then "translate."
If you use Google you should get a hit that shows the German title with "translate this page"
to the right.
Here is the title:
"Browder und das Magnitski-Narrativ: Ende einer Desinformationskampagne?"
Another way is to type "Google Translate German to English" into your browser. You get a
page with a box for German text on the left and English translation on the right.
There are 99 comments so far and a few posters are scratching their heads about what Der
Spiegel is up to with this apparent 180. So it might be interesting to paste a few of them
into Google translate. Here is one:
"What is going on at the mirror (Spiegel)? Since the well-established narrative has been
cultivated about the mean Russians since the founding and has been shown to 100%
transatlantic loyalty, now suddenly something like that. Is this just an accidental slip of
reason or is there more behind it?"
Google translate does make mistakes, beware. A typo can lead to absurdity.
Oh, and one more salient, obvious fact in the form of a question: Why would the biggest and
worst Neocon, Zionist shill in Congress, Lindsey Graham risk his dignity to such an extreme
to rescue Trump's ass if Trump were not the Chosen Zionist President??? ... I'm waiting...10,
9, 8...
Lindsey is the barometer of who and what Zionists want and because they want Trump over
Biden, Lindsey is now at war with his former Dem friend. Lindsey's a loyal subject of Zionism
that butters his bread and that's why he'll do anything to protect Trump.
Amazing really. Back some 3-4 years ago, the wiley Russians looked into the future to
understand that they needed to blame the Ukrainians for interfering in the election. They
predicted that deep state actors would reveal that Trump would in fact strong arm the
Ukrainians into revealing dirt on Joe Biden.
As for the teaching of classical Rhetoric and Logic. Absolutely. Give people the tools to
understand arguments and their validity. One of the best books I had and which I stupidly
lost was a compendium of rhetorical devices as labeled in the original Latin and Greek by
drunk monks of the Medieval Europe. It was just amazing how these rhetoricians drew up a
taxology of the various techniques and tropes--from honest to dishonest. A great toolkit.
"What is going on at the mirror (Spiegel)? Since the well-established narrative has been
cultivated about the mean Russians since the founding and has been shown to 100%
transatlantic loyalty, now suddenly something like that. Is this just an accidental slip of
reason or is there more behind it?"
@ Erelis | Nov 24 2019 19:32 utc | 79 There was once a defrocked Jesuit (with tenure at a
major university) who taught sodomy to the choir and rhetoric to his friends and those whom
he thought might be. He also favored snow... But...as you say, the original Latin and Greek.
A good man, but a pervert, and not a pederast. I liked the guy, and he knew his subject, ah,
the academic subject, to near perfection. He wrote speeches on the side for major political
figures, for cash. Thus in part did my own inability to suspend disbelief become cemented.
For money? Good thing they caught him...oh yeah, his popness also runs a cash an' carry,
don't he? Well, somebody said... (Like Martin Luther?)
Anyway the reason to study rhetoric is that it shall be used against you. Knowing the
Science and Art is your only safe defense, your only warning of true intent by rhetorical
analysis and logical deduction matching real events and actions. Without Rhetoric you are a
chump, a mark, a fool, and like sheep. Ewe! (haha) With it you can form reasoned ideas about
the future intention of any speaker. This may be useful.
The first test (since 2014) of any expert's credentials is his/her position on Crimea. The
next test is on Russian aggression.
If anyone suggests Crimea does not belong to Russia (most especially the federal district of
Sevastopol), then they are ignorant or lying.
Posted by: Red Ryder | Nov 23 2019 19:53 utc
I think that Red Rider is wrong here, starting from assumptions. One assumption is that
rather than status quo 1-5 years before the time we are making a judgment, we should look
back ca. 200 years etc. That could imply that India should belong to United Kingdom,
subsequent treaties notwithstanding.
Even more wrong is the hidden assumption that there should be some general principles that
guide "us" as to who owns what (they actually exist but wait) that hold regardless of
"Washington consensus". Perhaps using lower case in "us" was misleading. History explains the
ethnic and linguistic composition of Crimea etc. but really, everybody agrees the it is not
the only determinant. But let us consider some cases:
Annexation of Tuva and Sikkim. Somehow, nobody cares.
De-facto annexation of North Cyprus which now operates as a quasi-independent state fully
dependent on Turkey. Locals and Turks are satisfied, the rest of NATO and perhaps UN does not
recognize legality, but apart of Greek speaking countries, nobody makes a big deal out of it.
Sanctions? Hehe.
Annexation of Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Universal mild disapproval, except for USA
-- wholehearted approval there.
Crimea. Total need to apply severe sanction forever to maintain faith in "our"
principles.
Cynthia Chung invaded my brain and wrote the short essay that's been on the tip of my tongue
for some months now, "On
Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace'" . Within its body is linked two extremely important items,
the first being Elliott Roosevelt's book about his father Franklin As He Saw It (available limited
preview at link), and the second being an excerpt from that book of paramount
importance .
The more well known name of Churchill's "Sinews of Peace" speech is "The Iron Curtain
Speech" given at Fulton, Missouri on 5 March 1946, not quite 11 months after FDR's passing.
Here is the opening appetizer from that speech Chung bases the rest of her essay upon:
"This threatening message was not only meant for the Soviets, but was also directed to the
Americans and in between the lines Churchill stated ' Things are going to be very
different from now on. Your dead president cannot protect you any longer .' Some may be
surprised to hear such an aside comment, more likened to the outer ruminations of
Shakespeare's Iago." [My Emphasis]
Things did immediately become different. I consistently point out that the Evil Outlaw US
Empire immediately began violating the UN Charter and thus its own Constitution and Law of
the Land upon its coming into force; however, what I've neglected to point out until now is
that the UK also began violating it just as immediately as did France, although neither has
anything similar to the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause that might be used to curb illegal
behavior. I often point to historical What Ifs? as in this case regarding the coup made
against Henry Wallace, FDR, and the wholesale overturning of the reasons given for waging the
war and winning the peace. Ms. Chung does an excellent job of highlighting what those were,
how they were smashed, and why. I really can't stress the great importance of her essay
enough; its educational importance is second to none! Read it, save it, make sure its read by
your entire family, take it to your kid's teachers, share it with everyone you know and those
you don't. The only people I can conceive of who wouldn't want to know its contents are
racists/imperialists--dare I say fascists--like Churchill. Three generations of people were
subjected to a geopolitical power play that never should have occurred--the deaths,
destruction, and wasted opportunities likely total in the Quadrillions of Dollars. I must
admit some admiration for Chung's an optimist as she clearly shows in her conclusion; my
adding it here in no way diminishes her essay's power and importance:
"The intended policies by Franklin D. Roosevelt for the post war world are still waiting
to be implemented today.
"So what can we the people do about this? We can wake up to the fact that this has
occurred and recognise that the mainstream presentation of world dichotomy today is just
continuing this sickly narrative. That Russia and China are not some monstrous race and that
we should weigh what is currently being offered as an olive branch with great and serious
reflection. That is namely the Eurasian Economic Union and the New Silk Road which also
applies immensely to the US.
"Let us not continue to remain shackled in despair and inaction but rather realise that
there is a great opportunity still for the Century of the Common Man."
Walter confirms being a liar when paragraphs of argument are miscalled "inter alia," then
ignored. The snide insult by the way functions as a fallacious ad hominem, doubly confirms
thatif Walter knows rhetoric, then Walter is doubly a liar. Last and least citing a 1906
volume of American Historical Review to someone who doesn't have university library access is
a snob's rudeness. I'm defeated by the puzzle of what Walter thinks Walter has to be snobby
about. A collection of American Historical Review isn't exactly nothing, but to get snobby
over it? Really?
"... "...it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia." ..."
"... Neocons resurrect tribal memories to fan the flames ..."
"... Imo Vindman's testimony revealed a 'personal' grudge against Russia. Hill also displayed a 'obsession' with Russia imo..... its interesting her Russian instructor at Harvard was Richard Pipes, the supreme Russian hater. ..."
"... Perhaps you should consider the influence of Ukrainian emigre groups/lobbies. They are essentialy an extension of the Galician movement you refer to. ..."
"... Machiavelli warned repeatedly of the baleful results that listening to exiles gets you into (specifically concerning attempts to reinstate some exiles in the place they came from), George Washingtons farewell adress can be read in a similiar way. Here is the thing with exiles: ..."
"... Lets pretend that Atlantis exists, but 98% of Americans do not particularly care about this country. Now something happens there that genereates exiles. If those exiles are at least somewhat savy, they will passionately argue that the current atlantean government is pure evil. Other then that, they will strive to make themselfs usefull to the host nation. Now, lets pretend that you have 5 such atlantean exiles in a group of 100 politicians. The atlantean exiles would care primarily about condeming the atlantean government, and may be in a position to deliver political points in other areas to anyone who is asking. A normal "I dont care about Atlantis" politican will see a fairly simple cost benefit thing, I condemn Atlantis, something about which I do not care at all, and in return the exiles will back something I care about, like my health policy. ..."
"... This is by no means a rapid development, but give it a couple of decades and the exchange of many such small favors will essentially result in a large group of politicians who will underwrite things like "Atlantis delenda est", mostly because they dont actually care about Atlantis. ..."
"... I don't know why this campaign against Russia was launched but at least part of it was domestic political pressure from Clinton Dems towards Trump Reps. What better way to deflect criticism about the foreign influences on the Clinton Dems (massive bribes from the usual suspects, either direct or via the Clinton Fdn.) but by accusing your opponent of being in the pay of foreign powers? ..."
"... Hillary Clinton shrieking about "Russia Wikileaks" seems to me to be pure projection and also rationalising a cause for her defeat other than the incompetence and corruption of her campaign. ..."
"... Also it seems to me that the Russian defeat of the regime change op in Syria (altho the situation seems rather fluid at the moment...) is another motivation where Israel's interests loom large. ..."
"... A grandfather and great grandfather were in a Union regiment but that hardly is proof that I am a Union man. Unusual family demographics to be sure but even then those Ukrainians served in that SS unit over 70 years ago. I doubt they were even then motivated by National Socialist ideology. Hatred of Russians was likely the primary motivation, as now. The German invasion was an opportunity to settle scores. ..."
"... I understand the hatred but not the application of "Nazi" to any Ukrainian thinking. If "Nazi" merely connotes "thuggish" then perhaps that explains the Azov formations but I suspect much more is at work. Additional inquiry is warranted. ..."
"... Many of those in the Ukrainian SS units ended up in Canada after WW2, resulting in the very pro Ukranian actions of the Canadian Government post 2014. Their FM, Christina Freeland, is a descendant. ..."
"... After the fall of the Former Soviet Union in 1991, saw a resurgence of the OUN. ..."
"... The Ukrainian Nazi formations and political factions openly call themselves Nazis. For that matter, everyone else called them Nazis too, at least before they became useful to the neocons. I'll spare everyone an explanation of Ukrainian diaspora culture, but I will say that, before WWII, the principal Ukrainian nationalist folk devil wasn't Russia. It was Poland and the Jews. ..."
"... Could the anti Russia bias be as simple as the need to protect the empires of people in State and Defence etc that would be no longer needed if Russia was a 'good' guy? ..."
"... Then there is the MIC and the lobbying flows of money into Congress.Russia is far too important to too many insiders to be anything but an enemy. ..."
"... As pointed out earlier - the military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify its exorbitant budgets. The Deep State, the Borg, the Blob, whatever you want to call it, needs a Big Enemy to justify its spying and increasingly blatant interference in domestic US politics. ..."
"... the Russian nation is greatly under populated and owns a staggering per cent of the planets natural resources of every description. envy by those look from the outside towards russia is alone sufficient justification for wanting to grab it for themselves as has been unsuccessfully tried for centuries. ..."
"... The irony, of course, is that in Jewish folk memory, the most pig-headed (pun intended) and virulent anti-Semites were the peasants of Galicia (western Ukraine) and Poland. ..."
"... I also share your bafflement and not just with the political positions of the likes of Victoria Nuland. What do US & UK hope to gain? I can't see any benefits. ..."
Giraldi suggests, "...it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are
merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia." That aligns more readily with
neocons' (and their oligarch supporters') psychopathic obsession with power and control via
the state. Giraldi also illustrates another more recent period in history when the neocons
were not decidedly anti-Russian:
In fact, the neocons got along quite well with Russia when they and their overwhelmingly
Jewish oligarchs and international commodity thieves cum financier friends were looting the
resources of the old Soviet Union under the hapless Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Alarms
about the alleged Russian threat only re-emerged in the neocon dominated media and think
tanks when old fashioned nationalist Vladimir Putin took office and made it a principal
goal of his government to turn off the money tap.
There was no monolithic 'Jewish Oligarch' club cashing in on Yeltsin's Russia. In the
broadest sense, the western neocon-friendly Russian-Jewish oligarch group(s) were booted out
by Putin, while rival group(s) stayed in Russia and submitted to Putin's reforms (whatever
that means). Saker has written in the past about the various Jewish oligarch factions in
Russia. It's complicated and beyond me.
Israel Shamir attempts to untangle the contradictory views on Ukraine from the State of
Israel, Ukrainian-Jewish oligarchs, neocons and Jews from the US, Ukraine and Russia:
Summary: 'Tribal' oversimplifies - no unified opinion. It's complicated. Mr. Shamir's
views seem reasonable and go a long way to explaining the contradictions to me.
Giraldi suggests, "...it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are
merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia."
I have a great deal of respect for Phil Giraldi but he is wrong here--it has nothing to do
with "Bolshevism", whatever that means in the American context, but with settling accounts
with 1930s purges of largely, not exclusively, Jewish Trotskists from the party and a
consistent anti-Zionist position of USSR till the every end. Now, with Russia effectively
de-fanging Israel, they go apoplectic. Modern neocons have zero relation to Bolshevism and if
they dream about anything--it is mostly have Russia gone as such.
''A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and
neocons toward Russia. There are a lot of Jews scattered among these groups. .... Or, do
these people see Russia as a plausible geopolitical rival for the US? Surely it cannot be as
simple, or simpleminded as that.''
Jews have next to zero political control in Russia and I do think that the Zionist see
Russia, as the only other superpower, as a hindrance to their aims for one thing.
Also any state where Jews 'lost out' is subject to vilification and branded as evil.
Imo Vindman's testimony revealed a 'personal' grudge against Russia. Hill also
displayed a 'obsession' with Russia imo..... its interesting her Russian instructor at
Harvard was Richard Pipes, the supreme Russian hater.
As for the non Jewish Neos what would they do without a big scary enemy to fight?...they
might have to actually concentrate on doing things for America.
If anyone is interested here is a nice tool for following congressional bills and etc..
Mostly good for counting all the money they are giving away and the sanctions on countries
they are demanding....they aren't doing much of anything else in congress if you don't count
the kangaroo court circus.
How odd on PBS tonight - 'Secrets of Her Majesty's Secret Service" - an inside look at the
worlds only defense against Russia -a love letter to M16 and it nearly 100 year "special
relationship" with the US and CIA.
What strange timing for such a calculated PR piece for an extremely publicity shy Five
Eyes operation. Were they trying to get ahead of the coming Russiagate investigation reports
with this engaging documentary - we are in fact the James Bonds of the world and we know you
Americans love James Bond.
Anyone else see it or have I gotten aa sinister cabal derangement syndrome behind even PBS
"friendly" documentaries?
"A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and
neocons toward Russia" Perhaps you should consider the influence of Ukrainian emigre groups/lobbies. They are
essentialy an extension of the Galician movement you refer to.
" Is it Russia's relentless persecution of homosexuals?" What's the evidence for this
persecution?
Essentially, when both 2 persons as contrary to each other as George Washington and
Niccolo Machiavelli agree on something, it behoves one well to listen.
Machiavelli warned repeatedly of the baleful results that listening to exiles gets you
into (specifically concerning attempts to reinstate some exiles in the place they came from),
George Washingtons farewell adress can be read in a similiar way. Here is the thing with
exiles:
Lets pretend that Atlantis exists, but 98% of Americans do not particularly care
about this country. Now something happens there that genereates exiles. If those exiles are
at least somewhat savy, they will passionately argue that the current atlantean government
is pure evil. Other then that, they will strive to make themselfs usefull to the host
nation. Now, lets pretend that you have 5 such atlantean exiles in a group of 100
politicians. The atlantean exiles would care primarily about condeming the atlantean
government, and may be in a position to deliver political points in other areas to anyone
who is asking. A normal "I dont care about Atlantis" politican will see a fairly simple
cost benefit thing, I condemn Atlantis, something about which I do not care at all, and in
return the exiles will back something I care about, like my health policy.
This is by no means a rapid development, but give it a couple of decades and the
exchange of many such small favors will essentially result in a large group of politicians
who will underwrite things like "Atlantis delenda est", mostly because they dont actually
care about Atlantis.
This is not a specifically US thing at all. My understanding is that Russias WW1 decision
to back Serbia was considerably influenced by a group of ethnically serbian/Montenegrin
advisors (who, one has to say were otherwise loyal to Russia, and had fought with distinction
in the Tsars wars, shedding their blood for Russia).
I don't know why this campaign against Russia was launched but at least part of it was
domestic political pressure from Clinton Dems towards Trump Reps. What better way to deflect
criticism about the foreign influences on the Clinton Dems (massive bribes from the usual
suspects, either direct or via the Clinton Fdn.) but by accusing your opponent of being in
the pay of foreign powers?
Hillary Clinton shrieking about "Russia Wikileaks" seems to me to be pure projection
and also rationalising a cause for her defeat other than the incompetence and corruption of
her campaign.
Also it seems to me that the Russian defeat of the regime change op in Syria (altho the
situation seems rather fluid at the moment...) is another motivation where Israel's interests
loom large.
It also seems to me to be stunningly stupid to have thrown away any potential alliance
with Russia in favor of promoting Wahabist scum. And forcing Russia into the arms of the
Chinese instead of recruiting them into the containment cordon.
Anyway, speaking as a denizen of Plato's cave, without direct knowledge of the reality of
the thing it's mostly educated guesses on my part...
A grandfather and great grandfather were in a Union regiment but that hardly is proof that
I am a Union man. Unusual family demographics to be sure but even then those Ukrainians
served in that SS unit over 70 years ago. I doubt they were even then motivated by National
Socialist ideology. Hatred of Russians was likely the primary motivation, as now. The German
invasion was an opportunity to settle scores.
I understand the hatred but not the application of "Nazi" to any Ukrainian thinking. If
"Nazi" merely connotes "thuggish" then perhaps that explains the Azov formations but I
suspect much more is at work. Additional inquiry is warranted.
Many of those in the Ukrainian SS units ended up in Canada after WW2, resulting in the
very pro Ukranian actions of the Canadian Government post 2014. Their FM, Christina Freeland,
is a descendant.
Folks like Freeland openly credit her SS grandfather for her ideology. When speaking in
public, she does then to conveniently omit his services to the national Socialist state.
Try Stephan Bandera, he was as bad of a figure as what the Russians accused him of being.
Bandera's legacy was that of a Nazi sympathizer and a real nut case too boot. He was one sick
twisted individual.
After the fall of the Former Soviet Union in 1991, saw a resurgence of the OUN.
These Russian hating individuals that composed the far-right Nazi resurgence in the Ukraine
government, started terrifying the Russian enclaves in the Crimea, and those enclaves in turn
called on their fellow Russian brothers in Russia for help, to which Putin and the Russian
military came to their aid and the annexation of the Crimea by Russia took place so as to
protect the Russian enclaves from further persecution by the Banderites. Bandera posters
became more and more prevalent. The Euromaidan protests turned more and more violent, the
wolfsangel that was formerly a symbol of the SS but was now taken up by the Azov Battalion
and other militias, the old OUN war cry of "Glory to Ukraine, glory to the heroes" that was
now ubiquitous among anti-Yanukovych protesters.
Here's some further reading regarding Stephan Bandera:
The Ukrainian Nazi formations and political factions openly call themselves Nazis. For
that matter, everyone else called them Nazis too, at least before they became useful to the
neocons. I'll spare everyone an explanation of Ukrainian diaspora culture, but I will say
that, before WWII, the principal Ukrainian nationalist folk devil wasn't Russia. It was
Poland and the Jews.
That's a very interesting write up at Zerohedge. I believe we discussed the same conduct,
though not the depth of corruption of US politicians, here while that was happening. The borg
are starting to panic with the threat of a real investigation.
Thank you for the posting and thank all for the comments.
Some of us out here in The Middle can't really understand any of the behaviors of those
good and not-so-good Swamp dwellers (any more than we can understand the behaviors of the La
La Land Californian politicians.
I understand more about the issues involving our relationship with Ukraine by reading this
post and comments than I ever would have been able to since I simply don't have time to get
large books and many detailed published papers to read.
Could the anti Russia bias be as simple as the need to protect the empires of people in
State and Defence etc that would be no longer needed if Russia was a 'good' guy?
The US's 'independent' multi-national force NATO would clearly no longer be needed, so
many years after the Warsaw Pact dissolved. Whilst the US 'occupation' forces all over the
place, but especially in Europe, could return home to the US.
Then there is the MIC and the lobbying flows of money into Congress.Russia is far too
important to too many insiders to be anything but an enemy.
Indeed, its boom time as China related structures are expanding in parallel rather than
replacing those directed at Russia.
As pointed out earlier - the military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify its
exorbitant budgets. The Deep State, the Borg, the Blob, whatever you want to call it, needs a
Big Enemy to justify its spying and increasingly blatant interference in domestic US
politics.
There are too many business ties with China, and our supply chains reach too deeply into
that country, for it to serve as a Big Enemy without causing serious disruption.
the reasons for the agreed upon antipathy towards Russia is imo not the actual reason for the
hostilities that have existed for at least the last 100 years and actually much longer.
the Russian nation is greatly under populated and owns a staggering per cent of the
planets natural resources of every description. envy by those look from the outside towards
russia is alone sufficient justification for wanting to grab it for themselves as has been
unsuccessfully tried for centuries.
why complicate matters when simple greed answers so many of the questions asked about WHY
the west hates russia.
The irony, of course, is that in Jewish folk memory, the most pig-headed (pun intended)
and virulent anti-Semites were the peasants of Galicia (western Ukraine) and Poland.
I also share your bafflement and not just with the political positions of the likes of
Victoria Nuland. What do US & UK hope to gain? I can't see any benefits.
The U.S. Pentagon and State Department have devised plans to supply Ukraine with antitank
missiles and other weaponry and are seeking White House approval, U.S. officials said, as
Kiev battles Russia-backed separatists and ties between Moscow and Washington fray.
American military officials and diplomats say the arms, which they characterized as
defensive, are meant to deter aggressive actions by Moscow, which the U.S. and others say has
provided tanks and other sophisticated armaments as well as military advisers to rebels
fighting the Kiev government.
Arming Ukraine remains a bad, foolish idea for all the reasons I have given before.
Advocates of sending weapons say that it will serve as a deterrent, but it will almost
certainly be perceived as a provocation by Moscow and could easily serve as a pretext for more
aggressive behavior from Russia and its proxies. Ukraine will not be made more secure by doing
this, and the U.S. has no obligation to help defend Ukraine in any case, but the bigger problem
with the proposal is that it has nothing to do with promoting U.S. or allied security. Some of
our most important European allies, including Germany and France, understand this, and have
opposed the same idea in the past.
Sending more weapons into Ukraine risks reigniting and escalating the conflict at the same
time that it deepens U.S. involvement in it. It would antagonize Russia while further
entangling the U.S. in a conflict in which we have no vital interests. If Russia responds in
kind or with an even more aggressive response, the U.S. can't credibly threaten to counter them
because Ukraine will always matter far more to them than it does to us. The White House should
reject the latest misguided proposal to send arms to Ukraine.
P.S. Leonid Bershidsky
spells out why sending weapons to Ukraine is also unnecessary:
Two years after both sides have largely kept to existing demarcation lines (minor
encroachments aside), it is militarily unnecessary to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons
unless the U.S. wants to encourage it to try to reclaim the "people's republics." That would
be a mistake. Though Russia doesn't have enough resources to take over and hold Ukraine while
still staying on the lookout for other military threats, it has plenty of money, firepower
and determination to defend the separatist statelets.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he
also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New
York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter . email
'Did you receive any indication whatsoever, or anything that resembled a quid pro quo?'
Former envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker: 'No.'
Devin Nunes to Tim Morrison, former NSC official: 'Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or
extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?'
'No.'
This follows the responses of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to the question of
whether he was offered a quid pro quo: US aid in exchange for investigating Hunter Biden's
corrupt dealings with the natural gas company Burisma: 'No.'
Ditto Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the European Union: was there a quid pro quo: 'No.'
(Sondland's testimony has just begun at the time of writing: rest assured it will be more of
the same.)
Last week's hearings were preposterous, a disaster for the Democrats. This week's hearings
are shaping up to be even worse news for the partisans of the Adam Schiff Show.
Remember that old hippie slogan, ' suppose they gave a war
and nobody came? ' It's been updated and applied not to international conflicts but
partisan intramural sniping: suppose they gave a hearing and nobody came?
For that's the truth of the matter. The ratings for this reality TV show are in the tank.
During Watergate, during the Clinton impeachment, people were glued to the news. Now, despite
the screaming CNN chyrons, anti-Trump Washington Post and New York Times sermons,
nobody cares.
The Adam Schiff Show is playing to itself. Even the president has realized that it is 98.6
percent farce, 1.4 percent menace. Hence his little taunts. Some Dems say
Trump should testify , assuming the 'offer' will be brusquely ignored. But Trump calls
their bluff: 'Even though I did nothing wrong,' the president tweeted , 'and
don't like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order
to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!'
That was the last you'll hear about asking Trump to testify.
And now there are reports that Trump is actively supporting impeachment. You read
that right: 'The impeachment hearings have been thrown into chaos after President Trump
announced that he supports impeachment, forcing Democrats to oppose their own impeachment
inquiry.'
OK, that last is from the
Babylon Bee , a source that is only marginally more reliable than The New York
Times.
It is a mark of the way we live now that articles in the Babylon Bee are often
indistinguishable in terms of their credibility from articles in the supposedly mainstream
media.
The Adam Schiff Show's star witness yesterday was the pathetic Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman --
and that's
Lt. Col. not 'Mr', buddy, and don't you forget it!
Some news reports say that his testimony provided nuggets for the Dems as well as
exculpatory statements for Republicans. For example, the Lt. Col. said that he thought that
Trump's request that President Zelensky investigation local corruption was 'an implied "demand"
because of the "power disparity" between the two leaders.'
So its's come to this. Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the public transcript of the July
call between President Trump and President Zelensky was accurate; he confirmed that US aid was
being held up not because of a quid pro quo but because of an OMB review to be sure its was
consistent with administration policies; he confirmed, too, that he saw no evidence of
bribery.
And this was Adam Schiff Show's 'star witness', the modern major general -- well, Lt. Col.
-- who was going to drop the bombshell that would galvanize the Democratic case for
impeachment.
Not hardly.
But mention of 'bribery' reminds me of a fact that has been little remarked. Like many
organizations, the Adam Schiff Show has begun distributing pocket editions of the US
Constitution. There are some novelties about it, however. For example, in Article II, Section
4, most editions read:
'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
The Adam Schiff Show version is more capacious:
'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, Mean Tweets,
Policies we do not approve of, Rogue Telephone Calls, being Elected without Our Permission, or
other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
I do not write in jest. You may not be able to find printed copies of the Adam Schiff Show
Constitution (including the Declaration of Dependency), but my transcription of the bit about
impeachment is an accurate transcription of the sentiment that informs it.
Lt. Col. Vindman loves his uniform -- all those medals and embroidery -- and he thought that
Donald Trump was contravening the policies endorsed by the National Security Council. That is
the essence of his complaint.
But that is just too bad for the Lt. Col. He does not set the policies. The president of the
United States does.
The president of the United States, it pains me to inform Lt. Col. Vindman, is Donald J.
Trump. He may not like that. He may think Donald is crude or wrong or ill-informed or out of
touch. That doesn't matter. He is the president. Lt. Col. Vindman's job is to carry out the
policies formulated by the president, to offer advice and counsel when asked, and otherwise to
get with the program or get out of government.
An unanswered question is why the Democrats are proceeding with this destructive farce, so
damaging to the authority of Congress and the national interest. Apart from the news rooms of
the anti-Trump press and the activist cells of 'The Resistance', it has become increasingly
clear over the past week that most of the country is either uninterested in the hearings or
actively hostile to the patent effort to smear a duly elected president.
It has been clear from the outset that the impeachment hearings are a desperate reprise of
the Russian Collusion Hoax -- an effort to stymie, distract, hamper, and ultimately to destroy
a political rival of whom the Democrats and the NeverTrump Right does not approve.
But in weaponizing the threat of impeachment -- an instrument of last resort intended by the
Founders to be a safety check against the most serious sorts of malfeasance -- by deploying
impeachment for nakedly partisan purposes because the president may (but on the evidence did
not) say something which, if interpreted with sufficient malice and hermeneutical ingenuity,
might just be construed to hint at a possibly (but probably not) inappropriate request for a
favor -- to deploy the awesome machinery of impeachment and spark such 'mighty contests from
trivial things' is a disgusting abuse of power and betrayal of the public trust.
The people understand this. Adam Schiff, drunk on his new-found celebrity and (quite
temporary) fund-raising prowess has so far failed to take it on board. The reckoning, however,
is just around the corner. The White House has slyly signaled its glee about how the farcical
impeachment hearings are proceeding. If he took his duties as a public servant to heart, Adam
Schiff would understand the peril he has brought upon his party and the disservice he has done
the country by transforming his tenure in Congress into a partisan freak show.
'If'. Well, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. The Adam Schiff Show is falling apart
before our eyes. Like a television franchise that has jumped the shark, the Democrats thought
they could transform this tawdry revenge fantasy into reality. It isn't working. The
interesting next episode will be all about damage control. How exactly the Democrats will move
to extricate themselves from this ill-advised plot is yet to be seen. But I predict that by the
New Year the impeachment frenzy of 2019 will be consigned to the rancid attic of misbegotten
partisan schemes. No Democrat will want to be reminded of it and poor Adam Schiff will take his
mad stare to those out-of-the-way, depopulated venues where embarrassing politicians go while
waiting to be swallowed up by oblivion.
Russian officials said Saturday that the U.S. decision to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons to
combat Russian-backed separatists will cause new bloodshed, as long-standing tensions between Washington and Moscow
escalated over the four-year-old conflict.
Moscow's admonition came shortly after the State Department announced Friday evening that the
United States will provide heavy armaments to Ukraine for the first time, a step up from the support equipment and
training offered so far. A statement by spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the weapons were defensive in nature, "as
part of our effort to help Ukraine build its long-term defense capacity, to defend its sovereignty and territorial
integrity, and to deter further aggression."
On Wednesday, Washington said it had approved an export license allowing the sale of light
weapons and small arms to Ukraine from commercial U.S. manufacturers.
"... Without understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but of different types zerohedge ..."
"... Victoria Nuland is reported to have been overheard to say on a cell phone - "Fuck the EU." This was evidently a response to European attempts to head off a coup by West Ukrainian sons and grandsons of Galicians (west Ukrainians) who fought with Nazi Germany against the USSR in WW2. Actually there was a Galician division (a lot of Galicians) in the Waffen SS. Some might think that was not such a bad thing in itself but does the world really need a Ukraine run by neo-Nazis? ..."
There are many instances of U.S. coups that the Government lied about and that afterward had
negative blowback. The 1953 U.S. coup against Iran's democratically elected Government wasn't
revealed to the American public until decades after it had happened. It had long been alleged to have been a
'democratic revolution' in Iran . Our Government and media have been lying to us for a long
time, and not only about 'WMD in Iraq'. We shall be documenting here that that 1953 coup
in Iran (and other similar instances by the U.S. Government) is being repeated (yet again) in
the case of the February 2014 U.S. coup that occurred in Ukraine. The regime is very effective at lying , at deceiving , at manipulating , its public, no less now than it was then .
Without
understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of
honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic
Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but
of different types zerohedge
-----------------
Victoria Nuland is reported to have been overheard to say on a cell phone - "Fuck the EU."
This was evidently a response to European attempts to head off a coup by West Ukrainian sons
and grandsons of Galicians (west Ukrainians) who fought with Nazi Germany against the USSR in
WW2. Actually there was a Galician division (a lot of Galicians) in the Waffen SS. Some might
think that was not such a bad thing in itself but does the world really need a Ukraine run by
neo-Nazis?
There is the awkward issue of the Donbas industrial region in east Ukraine. The people there
are mostly Orthodox Christians in contrast to the Galicians who claim to be my
co-coreligionists in the embrace of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Well, they are
demographically that at least. The east Ukrainians prefer Russia, poor fools. The extent of
Russian government intervention in the east is unclear to me. It is likely that it extends to
equipment, ammunition and training, at least that.
A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and
neocons toward Russia. There are a lot of Jews scattered among these groups. Is it a group
memory of Tsarist pograms that eats at them? Israel does not seem to have a special problem
with modern Russia. Is it Russia's relentless persecution of homosexuals? There are a lot of
LGBTQ supporters among the two groups. Or, do these people see Russia as a plausible
geopolitical rival for the US? Surely it cannot be as simple, or simpleminded as that. The
undying USSR as chimera? Perhaps it is that. pl
The dichotomy between the fairly good relations Russia has with Israel compared to the
States has long seemed peculiar. There are a lot of Russian Jewish ex-pats in Israel and
quite a few in the USA though I think most of those here arrived earlier than the ones in
Israel.
In spite of the wide perception here of official suppression of Jews in Russia reality
perhaps differs.
Amy Chua, in writing her book "World on Fire" recounts her Jewish husband's response when
she discovered 6 of the 7 principal oligarchs were Jewish. He raised an eyebrow and said:
"Only 6?"
The oligarchs were extremely unpopular in Russia. Some of these oligarchs have since been
purged while others re-aligned from Yeltsin to Putin.
The book is a good read about different economically dominant minorities around the
World.
Regarding the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and neocons toward
Russia, I think it might have something to do with all those Merkavas taken out by Kornets in
2006.
Well, there would be the mindset that gave rise to the Wolfowitz doctrine--a fear and
loathing of near-peer competitors. Rage at having had them down and a boot at their throats
under Yeltsin, only for them to get up off the mat. When you think of how much insulted
hubris goes into the rage against Iran after the humiliation of the Embassy takeover and
eviction. Then there is Putin's assertion of primacy over the West-aided pillage by Russia's
own oligarchs. His reading of the riot act to them, not few of whom were Jewish. Another
unforgivable sin. And perhaps more than anything the example he sets of patriotic resistance
to transnational oligarchy. And now they are beginning to hand out some diplomatic and
military ass-kickings, if war is an extension of policy, they seem to have established
military doctrine that actually serves to support diplomatic and political campaigns, rather
than the reverse. Anyway, a few thoughts...
A rabid neocon Max Boot view looks identical to Vindman views.
The article was written one year after the February 2014 coup. The logic is simple and flawed
anything that cause casualties for Russia is good for the USA. This WaPo chickenhawk "military
analyst" is simply incapable to ask a simple question: Why Russia stopped in seizing all southern
Ukraine just after the coup, when it has both the opportunities and the support of local
population to do do. They can easily for Ukrainian government in exile, who would ask for
military aid and provide this military aid on completely legitimate basis. Nobody in NATO would
even sqeek. And if Russia in interested in the preservation of the Ukrainian state, why to
antagonize it, which might prompt it to change its mind.
A distinguished group of former government officials, including former NATO commander Adm.
Jim Stavridis, Obama's former Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, Obama's former NATO
ambassador Ivo Daalder, and Clinton's former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, have
just issued a report calling for the provision of arms to Ukraine. They
write :
The U.S. government should provide Ukraine $1 billion in military assistance as soon as
possible in 2015, followed by additional tranches of $1billion in FY 2016 and FY 2017.
Additional non-lethal assistance should include: counterbattery radars, unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs),
electronic counter-measures for use against opposing UAVs, secure communications
capabilities, armored
Humvees and medical support equipment.
Lethal defensive military assistance should include light anti-armor missiles, given the
large numbers of armored vehicles that the Russians have deployed in Donetsk and Luhansk and
the abysmal condition of the Ukrainian military's light anti-armor weapons.
... ... ...
Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of the
forthcoming bookThe Road Not Taken: Edward Lansdale and the American Tragedy in
Vietnam(Liveright, 2018).
"... The most recent evidence of this was the bizarre incident earlier this week, confirmed by the government in Kiev , where 311 Ukrainian troops of the 72 nd Army brigade laid down their arms and crossed the border into Russia. Moscow's claim that they were trying to defect is suspect, especially since dozens of the troops have reportedly returned to Ukraine. Kiev argues that the troops simply ran out of ammunition. ..."
"... To complicate matters, the Ukrainian army is supported by private paramilitary groups, including both the large Donbass Batallion and a number of smaller and less formal groups based in various towns in the region. Some have already entered the heavily populated area around Donetsk. While their political sympathies lie with Kiev, these militias are not under Kiev's command and control, and certainly have not undergone any professional unit training. U.S.-supplied weapons might end up in their hands, as well, with unpredictable consequences. ..."
"... It would be tragic if U.S.-supplied ammunition or armaments ended up killing the very Ukrainian civilians that Washington hopes will be coaxed back into a unified Ukrainian state. ..."
The following is a guest post from Barnard College, Columbia University, political scientist
Kimberly Marten.
*****
Last week the Democratic Party publicly split over the wisdom of sending lethal military assistance to Ukraine. The Obama administration
is reportedly sharing some intelligence and non-lethal equipment (like night-vision goggles and armored vehicles) with the Ukrainian
army, and is preparing to up its support for Ukrainian National Guard training. But Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl
Levin joined prominent Republicans in asking Obama to go further. He
called
for defensive weapons to be sent to Kiev , including ammunition and anti-aircraft missiles, after a closed-door briefing with
Pentagon officials.
Demands for U.S. weapons support will likely grow as Russia's troop buildup along the border continues and the threat of open
warfare between the two countries increases. Obama himself has
hinted that weapons might be sent if Russia invades Ukraine. Republican Sen. John McCain accused the Obama administration of
kowtowing to Moscow and being
"cowardly"
for not sending arms already in mid-July.
But the U.S. should think twice about sending weapons to Kiev. This has nothing to do with Russia -- and everything to do with
Ukraine.
The Ukrainian military is not a well-disciplined or cohesive force. Its troops have made amazing progress in the past several
months, taking back Slovyansk and other eastern territories from the rebels. They have begun shelling rebel strongholds in Donetsk,
one of the most important targets in the campaign to retake eastern Ukraine. But their tremendous battle achievements have come in
spite of weak preparation and professionalism. This means that the United States would find itself with little control over how its
weapons might be used on the ground.
The most recent evidence of this was the bizarre incident earlier this week,
confirmed by the
government in Kiev , where 311 Ukrainian troops of the 72 nd Army brigade laid down their arms and crossed the border
into Russia. Moscow's claim that they were trying to defect is suspect, especially since dozens of the troops have reportedly returned
to Ukraine. Kiev argues that the troops simply ran out of ammunition.
Whatever the correct explanation turns out to be, it is odd that large units, presumably commanded by at least mid-level officers,
would try to escape rebel fire by seeking protection on enemy territory. At best it indicates poor logistical and operational planning.
At worst it means that weapons sent by the United States to Ukraine might well end up in rebel or Russian hands. There are
conflicting reports
about whether the border-crossing troops destroyed their weapons, or instead left them on the field for rebels to pick up.
Beyond any question of poor decision-making by the Ukrainian troops involved in this particular event, many Western analysts believe
that
the Ukrainian military is penetrated by a web of Russian intelligence agents . Its roots as an institution date to the Soviet
era, and the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991 was followed by a chaotic period where patriotism and even citizenship
were ill-defined across the post-Soviet space. Under the previous regime of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich the
Russian and Ukrainian militaries cooperated in some areas, and the defense industries of the two countries co-produced some weapons.
It is not surprising that some members of the Ukrainian military organization would have ambiguous emotions or competing loyalties
in the current conflict. Indeed a number of Ukrainian officers defected to the Russian side during Vladimir Putin's seizure of Crimea
this past spring.
But the lack of discipline and professionalism goes further. There have been numerous cases, well documented by Western journalists,
of Ukrainian forces firing on civilians in recent months.
Human Rights Watch believes
that indiscriminate rocket fire used by Ukrainian or pro-Kiev forces in Donetsk has killed over a dozen civilians in violation
of international laws of war. The New York Times reports that
the Ukrainian army probably shelled
a Donetsk dental clinic by accident on Wednesday.
To complicate matters, the Ukrainian army is supported by private paramilitary groups, including both the large
Donbass Batallion and a number of
smaller and less formal groups
based in various towns in the region. Some have
already entered the heavily populated area around Donetsk. While their political sympathies lie with Kiev, these militias are
not under Kiev's command and control, and certainly have not undergone any professional unit training. U.S.-supplied weapons might
end up in their hands, as well, with unpredictable consequences.
It would be tragic if U.S.-supplied ammunition or armaments ended up killing the very Ukrainian civilians that Washington hopes
will be coaxed back into a unified Ukrainian state. Moscow would have a field day in its local propaganda war if that happened. And
if U.S. weapons ended up in the hands of pro-Kiev non-state militias, it would take away the moral authority that Washington has
in criticizing Moscow's supply of weapons to the anti-Kiev militias. The further strengthening of non-state violent actors in Ukraine
-- even those currently fighting on the side of the government -- boosts the likelihood that the state will ultimately fail in a
flurry of local warlordism.
Until the Ukrainian military achieves a higher degree of discipline and cohesion, the U.S. needs to concentrate on helping train
those troops, not arm them. A professional army, subservient to democratic civilian authority, is one of the best guarantees of a
strong Ukrainian state in the future. Defeating Russian incursions on to Ukrainian territory might bring a short-lived sense of victory
to the American public, but immediate military gains will be meaningless if Ukrainian state security forces cannot gain legitimacy
and trust in the areas they are now trying to recapture.
Should the United States be sending hundreds of millions of dollars in lethal weaponry to
Ukraine? That's not a policy discussion we've heard aired in the past two weeks. This seems
odd, because the provision of such lethal weaponry is at the center of the rapidly-unfolding
Trump/Ukraine/impeachment drama. Trump is accused of withholding 'aid' for the purpose of
'pressuring' Ukranian authorities to carry out investigations that advance his political
interests. At least at first blush, it's a valid matter for inquiry. But what about the 'aid'
itself?
First off, 'aid' is a strangely euphemistic term to
describe high-powered anti-tank missiles, grenade launchers, and sniper rifles to be used
for the express purpose of causing death and destruction, prolonging a Cold War-style proxy
conflict between the US and Russia. That's another layer of irony, because Trump spent the
first two-plus years of his presidency being maligned as a devious colluder with Putin. Yet
here he is dispatching state-of-the-art weapons systems directly into Russia's immediate sphere
of influence. (Despite the political consternation over how the 'aid' came to be sent,
it has in fact been sent .)
The Wall Street Journal notes that the 'aid' program 'enjoys strong support on both
sides of the aisle' -- which should automatically raise red flags. Typically when an issue
becomes safely ensconced in the realm of 'bipartisan consensus' it means something sinister is
afoot. Forgotten is the fact that Barack Obama repeatedly
refused to send 'aid' of this kind, much to his credit given the dangerous geopolitical
implications. But does that mean now that the previous president had an intolerable, fringe
position on the subject? You'd never know, because the policy substance has been entirely
obscured in favor of omni-directional partisan bluster. 'Progressives' now appear to view
arming Ukraine as an intrinsic good, and conservatives/libertarians have no intelligible view
except insofar as it casts Trump's behavior in the most favorable possible light. Meanwhile
Cold War 2.0 rages on and no one cares -- other than for how it affects the latest
impeachment-frenzied news cycle.
You want to accuse Trump of corruption? Fine. Take a look at his special envoy to Ukraine,
Kurt Volker, who resigned in the heat of the latest Trump/Zelensky phone call episode. That
Volker was ever appointed to that position is almost comically
corrupt . He's the executive director of the McCain Institute, which is funded by defense
contractor behemoth Raytheon, and a lobbyist for BGR Group, which is also of course
Raytheon-funded. In his capacity as 'special envoy' he advocated for the swift dispensation of
'aid' -- which just so happens to enrich Raytheon. But Volker is only considered noteworthy
because he's provided
salacious texts to Congress, not because he's emblematic of quintessential 'swamp-like'
corruption. That enterprise, after all, is wholly bipartisan and therefore of little
interest.
Sending large amounts of lethal weaponry into a hot war scenario on Russia's border
(presumably in perpetuity) has now been sanctified as conventional wisdom. Democrats love it
because it hamstrings Trump politically, and they can insinuate that his temporary withholding
of the 'aid' helped Russia. Republicans love it because it shows Trump is 'tough on Russia' and
'tough' in general, and very eager to do whatever's necessary to drive up defense industry
profits. The impeachment fracas will leave no room for any dispassionate evaluation of the
wisdom of this policy. Oh well.
From the point of view of election promise of detente with Russia, Trump clearly betrayed them. He was a neocon puppet
from the beginning to the end, His policy was not that different from hypothetical policy of Hillary administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact, she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with zero resistance from either party. ..."
"... It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony, and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is neither ..."
"... Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so spectacularly is beyond depressing. ..."
"... The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise "Orwellian" media environment. ..."
"... The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a puppet. ..."
"... The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from the US. ..."
"... Failing impeachment, from the attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment. ..."
"... Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later. ..."
Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact,
she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with
zero resistance from either party.
CNN has published a fascinatingly manipulative and falsehood-laden article titled "
25 times Trump
was soft on Russia ," in which a lot of strained effort is poured into building the case
that the U.S. president is suspiciously loyal to the nation against which he has spent his
administration escalating dangerous new cold war aggressions.
The items within the CNN article consist mostly of times in which Trump said some words or
failed to say other words; "Trump has repeatedly praised Putin," "Trump refused to say Putin is
a killer," "Trump denied that Russia interfered in 2016," "Trump made light of Russian
hacking," etc. It also includes the
completely false but oft-repeated narrative
that "Trump's team softened the GOP platform on Ukraine", as well as the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly
invalidated claim that "Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has
focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS."
CNN's 25 items are made up almost entirely of narrative and words; Trump said a nice thing
about Putin, Trump said offending things to NATO allies, Trump thought about visiting Putin in
Russia, etc. In contrast, the 25 items which I am about to list do not consist of narrative at
all, but rather the actual movement of actual concrete objects which can easily lead to an
altercation from which there may be no re-emerging. These items show that when you ignore the
words and narrative spin and look at what this administration has actually been doing ,
it's clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that, far from being "soft" on
Russia, Trump has actually been consistently reckless in the one area where a US president must
absolutely always maintain a steady hand. And he's been doing so with zero resistance from
either party.
It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with
Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that
neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in
the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony,
and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is
neither. Observe:
1. Implementing a Nuclear Posture Review with a more aggressive stance
toward Russia
Last year Trump's Department of Defense rolled out a Nuclear Posture Review which
CNN itself called "its toughest line yet against Russia's resurgent nuclear forces."
"In its newly released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department has focused much of
its multibillion nuclear effort on an updated nuclear deterrence focused on Russia," CNN
reported last year.
This revision of nuclear policy includes the new implementation of
"low-yield" nuclear weapons , which, because they are designed to be more "usable" than
conventional nuclear ordinances,
have been called "the most dangerous weapon ever" by critics of this insane policy. These
weapons, which can remove some of the inhibitions that mutually assured destruction would
normally give military commanders, have already been rolled off the assembly line.
2.
Arming Ukraine
Lost in the gibberish about Trump temporarily withholding military aide to supposedly
pressure a Ukrainian government who was never even aware of being
pressured is the fact that arming Ukraine against Russia is an entirely new policy that was
introduced by
the Trump administration in the first place. Even the Obama administration, which was
plenty hawkish toward Russia in its own right, refused to implement this extremely provocative escalation
against Moscow. It was not until Obama was replaced with the worst Putin puppet of all time
that this policy was put in place.
3. Bombing Syria
Another escalation Trump took against Russia which Obama wasn't hawkish enough to also do
was bombing the Syrian government, a longtime ally of Moscow. These airstrikes in April 2017 and
April 2018 were perpetrated in retaliation for chemical weapons use allegations that there
is
no legitimate reason to trust at this point.
4. Staging coup attempts in
Venezuela
Venezuela, another Russian ally, has been the subject of relentless coup attempts
from the Trump administration which persist unsuccessfully to this very day .
Trump's attempts to topple the Venezuelan government have been so violent and aggressive that
the starvation sanctions which he has implemented are believed to have
killed tens of thousands of Venezuelan civilians .
"Signals coming from certain capitals indicating the possibility of external military
interference look particularly disquieting," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. "We warn
against such reckless actions, which threaten catastrophic consequences."
5. Withdrawing
from the INF treaty
For a president who's "soft" on Russia, Trump has sure been eager to keep postures between
the two nations extremely aggressive in nature. This administration has withdrawn from the 1987
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, prompting UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to
declare that
"the world lost an invaluable brake on nuclear war." It appears entirely possible that Trump
will continue to adhere to the John Bolton school of nuclear weapons treaties until they all
lie in tatters, with the administration strongly criticizing the crucial New START
Treaty which expires in early 2021.
Some particularly demented Russiagaters try to argue that Trump withdrawing from these
treaties benefits Russia in some way. These people either (A) believe that treaties only go one
way, (B) believe that a nation with an economy the size of South
Korea can compete with the U.S. in an arms race, (C) believe that Russians are immune to
nuclear radiation, or (D) all of the above. Withdrawing from these treaties benefits no one but
the military-industrial complex.
6. Ending the Open Skies Treaty
"The Trump administration has taken steps toward leaving a nearly three-decade-old agreement
designed to reduce the risk of war between Russia and the West by allowing both sides to
conduct reconnaissance flights over one another's territories," The Wall Street Journalreported last month , adding that the
administration has alleged that "Russia has interfered with American monitoring flights while
using its missions to gather intelligence in the US."
Again, if you subscribe to the bizarre belief that withdrawing from this treaty benefits
Russia, please think harder. Or ask the Russians themselves how they feel about it:
"US plans to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty lower the threshold for the use of nuclear
weapons and multiply the risks for the whole world, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai
Patrushev said," Sputnik
reports .
"All this negatively affects the predictability of the military-strategic situation and
lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which drastically increases the risks for
the whole humanity," Patrushev said.
"In general, it is becoming apparent that Washington intends to use its technological
leadership in order to maintain strategic dominance in the information space by actually
pursuing a policy of imposing its conditions on states that are lagging behind in digital
development," he added.
7. Selling Patriot missiles to Poland
"Poland signed the largest arms procurement deal in its history on Wednesday, agreeing with
the United States to buy Raytheon Co's Patriot missile defense system for $4.75 billion in a
major step to modernize its forces against a bolder Russia," Reuters
reported last year .
8. Occupying Syrian oil fields
The Trump administration has been open about
the fact that it is not only maintaining a military presence in Syria to control the
nation's oil, but that it is doing so in order to deprive the
nation's government of that financial resource. Syria's ally Russia strongly opposes this,
accusing the Trump administration of nothing short of "international state banditry".
"In a statement, Russia's defense ministry said Washington had no mandate under
international or US law to increase its military presence in Syria and said its plan was not
motivated by genuine security concerns in the region," Reutersreported last
month.
"Therefore Washington's current actions – capturing and maintaining military control
over oil fields in eastern Syria – is, simply put, international state banditry,"
Russia's defense ministry said.
9. Killing Russians in Syria
Reports have placed Russian casualties anywhere between a handful and
hundreds , but whatever the exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian
citizens as part of the Trump administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last
year.
exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian citizens as part of the Trump
administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last year.
10. Tanks in
Estonia
Within weeks of taking office,
Trump was already sending Abrams battle tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and other
military hardware right up to Russia's border as part of a NATO operation.
"Atlantic Resolve is a demonstration of continued US commitment to collective security
through a series of actions designed to reassure NATO allies and partners of America's
dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention
in Ukraine," the Defense Department said in a statement.
11. War ships in the Black
Sea
12. Sanctions
Trump approved new sanctions against Russia on August 2017. CNN reports the following:
"US President Donald Trump approved fresh sanctions on Russia Wednesday after Congress
showed overwhelming bipartisan support for the new measures," CNN reported at
the time . "Congress passed the bill last week in response to Russia's interference in the
2016 US election, as well as its human rights violations, annexation of Crimea and military
operations in eastern Ukraine. The bill's passage drew ire from Moscow -- which responded by
stripping 755 staff members and two properties from US missions in the country -- all but
crushing any hope for the reset in US-Russian relations that Trump and Russian President
Vladimir Putin had called for."
"A full-fledged trade war has been declared on Russia," said Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in
response.
13. More sanctions
"The United States imposed sanctions on five Russian individuals on Wednesday, including the
leader of the Republic of Chechnya, for alleged human rights abuses and involvement in criminal
conspiracies, a sign that the Trump administration is ratcheting up pressure on Russia," The
New York Timesreported in December
2017 .
14. Still more sanctions
"Trump just hit Russian oligarchs with the most aggressive sanctions yet," reads
a Vice headline from April of last year.
"The sanctions target seven oligarchs and 12 companies under their ownership or control, 17
senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its
subsidiary, a Russian bank," Vice reports. "While the move is aimed, in part, at Russia's role
in the U.S. 2016 election, senior U.S. government officials also stressed that the new measures
seek to penalize Russia's recent bout of international troublemaking more broadly, including
its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and military activity in eastern
Ukraine."
"The Trump administration on Thursday imposed new sanctions on a dozen individuals and
entities in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea," The Hill
reported in November of last year. "The group includes a company linked to Bank Rossiya and
Russian businessman Yuri Kovalchuk and others accused of operating in Crimea, which the U.S.
says Russia seized illegally in 2014."
17. Oh hey, more sanctions
"Today, the United States continues to take action in response to Russian attempts to
influence US democratic processes by imposing sanctions on four entities and seven individuals
associated with the Internet Research Agency and its financier, Yevgeniy Prigozhin. This action
increases pressure on Prigozhin by targeting his luxury assets, including three aircraft and a
vessel," reads
a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from September of this year.
18.
Secondary sanctions
Secondary
sanctions are economic sanctions in which a third party is punished for breaching the
primary sanctions of the sanctioning body. The U.S. has leveled sanctions against both
China and
Turkey for
purchasing Russian S-400 air defense missiles, and it is
threatening to do so to India as well.
19. Forcing Russian media to register as
foreign agents
Both RT and
Sputnik have been forced to register as "foreign agents" by the Trump administration. This
classification forced the outlets to post a disclaimer on content, to report their activities
and funding sources to the Department of Justice twice a year, and could arguably place an unrealistic
burden on all their social media activities as it submits to DOJ micromanagement.
20.
Throwing out Russian diplomats
The Trump administration joined some 20 other nations in casting out scores of
Russian diplomats as an immediate response to the Skripal poisoning incident in the
U.K.
21. Training Polish and Latvian fighters "to resist Russian aggression"
"US Army Special Forces soldiers completed the first irregular and unconventional warfare
training iteration for members of the Polish Territorial Defense Forces and Latvian
Zemmessardze as a part of the Ridge Runner program in West Virginia, according to service
officials," Army Times
reported this past July.
"U.S. special operations forces have been training more with allies from the Baltic states
and other Eastern European nations in the wake of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian
Federation in 2014," Army Times writes. "A low-level conflict continues to simmer in
eastern Ukraine's Donbas region between Russian-backed separatists and government forces to
this day. The conflict spurred the Baltics into action, as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia
embraced the concepts of total defense and unconventional warfare, combining active-duty,
national guard and reserve-styled forces to each take on different missions to resist Russian
aggression and even occupation."
22. Refusal to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian
Federation
Key point: Trump agreed to send more forces to Poland to defend it against Russia.
What Happened: U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to deploy approximately 1,000 additional
U.S. troops to Poland during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda on the sidelines of
the U.N. General Assembly in New York City, Reuters reported Sept. 23.
Why It Matters: The deal, which formalizes the United States' commitment to protecting
Poland from Russia, provides a diplomatic victory to Duda and his governing Law and Justice
ahead of November elections. The additional U.S. troops will likely prompt a reactive
military buildup from Moscow in places like neighboring Kaliningrad and, potentially,
Belarus.
24. Withdrawing from the Iran deal
Russia has been consistently opposed to Trump's destruction of the JCPOA. In a statement
after Trump killed the deal, the Russian Foreign Ministry said
it was "deeply disappointed by the decision of US President Donald Trump to unilaterally refuse
to carry out commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action", adding that this
administration's actions were "trampling on the norms of international law".
25.
Attacking Russian gas interests
Trump has been threatening Germany with sanctions and troop withdrawal if it continues to
support a gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2.
"Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said
he's looking at sanctions to block the project he's warned would leave Berlin 'captive' to
Moscow," Bloomberg
reports . "The US also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany."
"We're protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of
dollars in money from Germany" for its gas, Trump told the press.
I could have kept going, but that's my 25. The only reason anyone still believes Trump is
anything other than insanely hawkish toward Russia is because it doesn't benefit anyone's
partisanship or profit margins to call it like it really is. The facts are right here as plain
as can be, but there's a difference between facts and narrative. If they wanted to, the
political/media class could very easily use the facts I just laid out to weave the narrative
that this president is imperiling us all with dangerous new cold war provocations, but that's
how different narrative is from fact; there's almost no connection. Instead they use a light
sprinkling of fact to weave a narrative that has very little to do with reality. And meanwhile
the insane escalations continue.
In a cold war, it only takes one miscommunication or one defective piece of equipment to set
off a chain of events that can obliterate all life on earth. The more things escalate, the
greater the probability of that happening. We're rolling the dice on Armageddon every single
day, and with every escalation the number we need to beat gets a bit harder.
We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the U.S. and Russia
should stop and establish detente immediately. The fact that outlets like CNN would rather
diddle made-up Russiagate narratives than point to this obvious fact with truthful reporting is
in and of itself sufficient to discredit them all forever.
Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's, in which millions of Ukrainians were shot, raped, beaten and starved out, while
"ethnic Russians" moved in and took over. Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away, he simply
transferred the administration thereof to the Soviet Republic of "the" Ukraine (a term
Ukranians have always decried as a way to make it seem as if Ukraine had always been a part
of the USSR). The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put
them there. That argument is the same one Hitler used as his excuse to annex Poland, and Polk
used to annex Texas. It's true Russia's self-interest (and well-founded fears of foreign
betrayal) have been largely ignored, but it's also disingenuous to ignore their murderous
20th-century imperialism. Just because we're not the good guys doesn't mean they are
either.
anon4d2 , November 20, 2019 at 18:12
Perhaps you forgot that the USSR actions in eastern Europe after WWII were in direct
response to the murder of 20 million Russians in WWII by the Nazi forces, attacking through E
Europe just as Napoleon had done. All US casualties in all its wars are less than five
percent of that, and 95 percent of Nazi division-months were spent in the USSR. On that front
they had nearly all of the casualties and did nearly all of the fighting. No wonder they were
a bit uncomfortable afterward with leaving open the favorite attack route of the west. What
would the US have done if a hundred times its WWII casualties were caused by two invasions
through (for example) Mexico? Would we have left the door open? Such circumstances cannot be
ignored. Starting one's version of history after the world's greatest provocation cannot be
said to clarify the history.
Toby McCrossin , November 21, 2019 at 02:56
"Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's"
Nice alternative facts. Ukraine was one of the original constituent republics of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922!
" Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away"
Huh? Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783. You know you can check this stuff yourself
using Google, right?
"The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put them
there."
Right, so the Soviets put the Russians in Crimea in 1783, 139 years before it was in
existence. I guess the Soviets mastered time travel.
I know reading's hard and all but you might wanna try it some time.
Jon Anderholm , November 20, 2019 at 02:22
An essential article by Caitlin .. Thanks so much .
Sam F , November 19, 2019 at 22:56
Another excellent article by Caitlin Johnstone.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 19:59
Given the laws of cause and effect, our nuclear missiles might as well be considered to be
pointed straight at ourselves. Like shooting at one's image in a mirror or joining in a
mutual suicide pact. Sheer insanity.
ranney , November 19, 2019 at 17:26
WONDERFUL article, Caitlin. You are so right! I agree with Alan Ross, you deserve an award
for this, and I hope this gets passed around for a wide readership.
Antonio Costa , November 19, 2019 at 15:14
When elected POTUS you are elected, no matter the campaign rhetoric, to take the reins of
the imperial empire.
Trump did that willingly, in fact to a fault given his "big mouth". He's no more nor less
dangerous than his predecessors. And like them, his is a mass of rhetorical contradictions.
Policy is all that should really matters. It is our only means of identifying some truth.
Trump knows what most here know regarding US invasions and assassinations. What he thinks
about any leader is anyone's guess (including his). For him it's all deal making as if it's
his private Trump Towers Enterprises. But in the end he's playing the chief gangsta role of
his like. (If you've ever listened to Sinatra at the Sands (the full concert), you'll hear
how Trump has mimicked the popular gangsta singer to the last "love ya baby ").
The media is not free. It is an arm of the national security state, with occasional
outages of truth telling, all the more to tell the big lies. It's purpose is to pacify and
repress any rebellions. Since the end of Vietnam it has succeeded. And here we are, never
knowing truth from lie. (I think of Obama as deceitful to the max, while Trump just tells
transparent lies so you don't know when he's actually telling a profound truth.)
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."
-- Joseph Goebbels (was a German Nazi politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi
Germany from 1933 to 1945)
Mark Thomason , November 19, 2019 at 14:22
We can go one step further than to say that Trump was reckless toward Russia, "with zero
resistance from either party."
Both parties demanded it. They approved it as "Presidential" whenever he did it, and
attacked him for any effort to be less reckless. They'd done the same to Obama, but Trump
proved weaker and more malleable.
Jeff Harrison , November 19, 2019 at 14:14
Verra nice peroration. I have two objections. One, I doubt that the people of the Donbass
are Russian backed in the same sense that the "moderate" rebel scum in Syria is US backed
with weapons, intelligence, and training but the people of the Donbass are ethnic Russians.
With a steady stream of anti-Russian legislation coming out of Kiev, I imagine they're
looking for an out. Putin is trying to get it for them without starting a war with Ukraine.
The real question that Washington has yet to address is what are they going to do if the
people of Ukraine notice that since they signed on to the neo-liberal dictates of Washington
and Brussels they've become the poorest nation in Europe. I know that there are a number of
Ukrainians who think wistfully of the days when they were part of Mother Russia. But you
never know, the CIA is notorious for its subversion and the Ukrainians might prove to be
spectacularly stupid. After all, they weren't doing badly until they let the US and EU foment
a coup for them.
And, two, "We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the
U.S. and Russia should stop and establish detente immediately." While I agree with the
sentiment, don't bring Russia into this. Everything that Russia has done has been a reaction
to what is usually an American violation of international law. Putin has been very clear that
he wants to back off this cold war but he has also been very clear that we started it and
we're going to have to be the ones to start backing off.
David Hamilton , November 20, 2019 at 02:11
I absolutely agree with your number two reaction to Caitlin's suggestion that Russia and
the U.S. should stop it and establish detente immediately. Everything Russia's leadership is
doing is a reaction to American imperial dares to defy their law violations. They exhibit
extreme and principled restraint to the Orwellian madness emanating from this place.
I think it is important that this be understood. Russians have been used and abused once
before by American largesse in the form of Clinton's puppet's assistance in the rape of the
former Soviet Union by the Harvard-sponsored project. That was the one during the nineties
that privatized national industries and created a dozen neoliberal oligarchs. The cost was a
huge increase in death rate that lowered life expectancy into the 50's from 70 years I think.
Cynical foreign policy, isn't it?
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:16
Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official
control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so
spectacularly is beyond depressing.
Many thanks to Caitlin Johnstone, Consortium News and all the others pushing back against
this system of perception management. I keep repeating it because it rings true. It's like
waking up in the Twilight Zone.
John Neal Spangler , November 19, 2019 at 12:44
She is right. CNN. MSNBC, NYT, and Wapo totally irresponsible. Fox not much better. So
many anti-Russian bigots in US
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:37
Thank you Caitlin. The neoliberals and neocons both desperately want a greatly intensified
cold war with Russia, but want it started by Trump ( because he is personally an
outsider).
This gives the Democrat and Republican donors contracts for the war machine. Ever since
Clinton administration moved NATO to the Russian border, the process has worked for the
oligarchs who control all US policies, foreign and domestic.
The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and
Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise
"Orwellian" media environment.
For anyone who has been waiting for the publication of reporter Udo Ulfkotte's best
selling book (in Germany), a book based on his experience as a well respected journalist
whose reporting was completely compromised by Western intelligence services and business
interests, it is finally available in an English language edition. The English language
edition has been quite obviously suppressed for the last several years and the book was
published in 9 languages BEFORE this English edition became available. It is a book that is
well worth reading to better understand why literally NOTHING written by MSM should be
believed at face value, ever:
See:
I would urge anyone interested in buying this book to get it directly from the publisher-
Progressive Press. Amazon and other mega monopolies are a big part of our problems. Take the
time to make a few extra clicks and boycott Jeff Bezos.
Noah Way , November 19, 2019 at 10:58
The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which
includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a
puppet. Nobel Peace Prize winner oBOMBa bombed 7 countries, overthrew Ukraine's democratic
government, invaded Syria, armed terrorists as proxy armies, authorized drone assassinations,
and bombed a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
The last president to resist the military complex? JFK
Caitlin Johnstone's list points to growing tensions with Russia. Failure of the political
and media establishment to see this makes the task of avoiding world war three all the more
difficult. In the West the end of the Cold War was seen as the dawn of peace. But the Cold
War was the peace, a post-world war environment: we are now in a pre-world war
environment.
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:45
The Democratic Party members have not " missed" anything that Trump has done. They will
not impeach him on those grounds, because they too are guilty of complicity in those war
crimes.
As Pelosi said regarding impeaching GWB for the torture program or invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan " it's off the table". Because she was complicit.
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:23
Russia did not illegally annex Crimea. A referendum was held and 90% of the voters voted
to rejoin Russia. Most people in Crimea are ethnic Russians and speak Russian. They were
understandably scared to death of what their fate would be under the rule of the fascists the
US installed in Ukraine.
And frankly, Russia had every right to protect its only warm water port in Sevastopol that
would have been taken over by NATO if Crimea had remained part of Ukraine. Too many Americans
have been indoctrinated in the belief that Russia has no legitimate self interest to
defend.
michael , November 19, 2019 at 18:22
In addition to what Lois Gagnon points out, you have to realize that the re-patriation of
Crimea to Russia in March 2014 was the direct result of Obama, Biden, Nuland et al
overthrowing the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, in the Maidan coup
in February, 2014, and replacing him with a neoNAZI regime. Russian speech was outlawed,
which has been the language of the majority of Crimea since Catherine the Great.
The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the
Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita
median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from
the US.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 20:25
Crimeans have an absolute right of self-determination as a fundamental human right under
established international law, just as the Kosovars did when we were supporting the breakup
of Serbia when Clinton was president. Ethnic Russians voted in an overwhelming majority in a
free and fair plebiscite to rejoin Russia, which they had been part of for centuries, because
the neo-Nazi US coup government allied with Azov battalions in Kyiv terrified them and they
wanted nothing further to do with them. Crimea had every right to decide. Russia did nothing
to interfere, not a bullet was fired. Russia's troops were already stationed in Crimea by
treaty and did not invade. Russia warned NATO against the Kosovo precedent that it would come
back to bite them someday, and it was ignored. NATO is unhappy because it was denied an
illegitimate geostrategic advantage they thought they would gain. Crimea is happy, so what's
the problem?
DH Fabian , November 19, 2019 at 21:08
"We," who? Regardless, the issues you raise can't be understood outside of their
historical context, and Americans never try to understand the world within that historical
context.
anon , November 19, 2019 at 22:54
Crimea was part of Russia for roughly 200 years before the USSR premier (Kruschev?) gave
it to Ukraine, although its inhabitants were nearly all of Russian heritage and language,
like E Ukraine. So not surprising that they wanted to go back to being part of Russia.
dean 1000 , November 20, 2019 at 19:26
Couldn't agree more Lois Gagnon. Washington did an illegal coup. Russia did a legal
annexation.
btw – The Autonomous Republic of Sevastopol on SW Crimea is no longer the only
ice-free port of the Russian Navy. Kaliningrad (on the Baltic sea) has been part of Russia
since 1945. Its deep ice-free harbor is the home port of Russia's Baltic fleet according to
the 2012 world book DVD.
Good one Caitlin. Again
jdd , November 19, 2019 at 09:51
This article properly puts to rest the absurd notion that President Trump is a "tool of
Putin, " and correctly notes that it has created a potentially disastrous situation.
However,
let's put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the Anglo/American led forces arrayed
against Trump from the moment he announced his intention to run on a platform of "getting
along" with Russia and joining with Putin to defeat ISIS.
Failing impeachment, from the
attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of
Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort
to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of
the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the
current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish
testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment.
Nick , November 19, 2019 at 16:50
Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until
after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later.
Alan Ross , November 19, 2019 at 09:47
This article alone deserves an award for public service. And in a more sensibly run world
Caitlin Johnstone would have gotten at least fifty such awards for past articles.
He testified that the Iraq war would be "self financing" his reward for that brilliant bit of financial prediction was to be put
in charge of the World Bank. Can't say that the powers that be don't have a sense of humor.
"Next time, however, will be without the local allies we need."
Wolfowitz still doesn't get it, does he? There will be no "next time". Our so-called "local allies" will fight their own fights
using weapons they paid for themselves. We're going to stop squandering trillions on foreign messes and start fixing our own.
I remember that guy. I listened to him and his ilk in 2003.
Yeah, not doing that again. However I have to admire the cheek of him taking money to pretend to be an expert.
Wolfowitz and NYT: It cannot get much sicker and enraging than this but what more can one expect from the NYT.
Wolfowitz belongs back under a rock where he has been since the war crime of Iraq for which he is at least partially responsible.
The NYT, well leave it in the bottom of a bird cage where it has earned a historical place foreever. Absolutely no credibility
nor respect.
Peace with honor.
Remember that? I assume at the very bottom of it, keeping the war running is better to people like W. than to claim this kind of peace!
I completely agree.
The problem is bipartisan. There are a handful of principled antiwar politicians in both parties, but most are not. The Democrats
now oppose the war in Yemen, but as I predicted to myself ( possibly online somewhere under a different name) they would wait
a year or so until it was safe to pretend it was Trump's war. Well, it is his war now, but it didn't start that way.
I would love to see the day when a President would be impeached for participating in or supporting or starting an unjust war.
I would like to see State Department officials resigning in protest. Trump in my opinion is guilty of pressuring Ukraine and yes,
this is impeachable, but why are we arming them in the first place?
At risk of repeating myself:
Unless and until those responsible for the wars start facing very real and very personal consequences, nothing will change.
Mr. Larison is writing as if he appears to be taking seriously Mr. Wolfovitz. Attacking Iraq on fabricated pretenses, which everyone
at his level knew was fabrication is same as Hitler attacking Poland on the faked attack of a German border post by German soldiers
dressed in Polish uniforms.
By international law (if it were a higher power out there), Wolfowitz et. co. are war criminals and no attention should be
given to their utterances and be switched with the inmates at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely.
What needs to be investigated though is the purpose of these utterances, the narrative that it creates (which, to be honest,
Mr. Larison does). The narrative that comes across is the how exceptionally criminal the US Government (not the people!) in its
dealings with the outside world. And Mr. Wolfowitz has the gall to uphold this criminal behaviour as pace making. Doublespeak
through and through.
"The U.S. is never "sucked back in." Our government goes running back in at the first chance it gets. Sometimes this is driven
by threat inflation, sometimes it is driven by headlines that prompt calls for "action," sometimes it is driven by a misguided
need to show "leadership," and sometimes it is just old-fashioned "do-somethingism" where the U.S. intervenes because it can."
You forgot the wide range of black ops that are used to manipulate public opinion. I don't know why this shouldn't be acknowledged,
at least as a category if not in terms of specifics. The US institutionalized covert operations on a massive scale after WWII,
which has created a serious epistemological problem. Even if you aren't going to cite the OPCW reports doubting Assad's responsibility
for the use of chemical weapons within Syria or specifically mention CIA Operation Timber-Sycamore, it makes all the sense in
the world to acknowledge that covert operations, as a generic fact of life, really confuse how we should adjudicate responsibility
for acts of war. This is just prudence.
"... For the last twenty years Ukraine and Belarus have kept NATO and Russian forces far apart. This was an underappreciated benefit. NATO's flirtation with admitting Ukraine into the alliance simply ignored the new risks that would be assumed. If Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine, we would return to this unhappy standoff. ..."
"... If Ukraine falls into civil war, with Russia and the West aiding their respective favorites, the risk of a direct NATO-Russia clash also rises. To ensure peace between Russia and the West, the question of foreign alignment should be taken out of Ukrainian politics. ..."
"... Barry R. Posen is Ford International Professor of Political Science, MIT and Director of their Security Studies Program. He is the author of Restraint- A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy . ..."
"If, in the worst case, all Ukraine were to "fall" to Russia, it would have little impact on
the security of the United States."
Once, foreign policy experts talked about "vital interests." The term has fallen into
disuse, partly because there are no hard and fast rules for calculating what distinguishes the
"vital" from the merely "interesting." If advocates wanted their country to do a thing they
would call it a vital interest; if they did not, then they would not. But students of foreign
policy did seem to agree on one thing: vital interests were the things you were willing to have
your soldiers die for and kill for. By this measure, even the most hawkish politicians in the
United States, all of whom have eschewed any desire for a shooting match, have agreed that the
United States has no vital interests in Ukraine.
What would vital interests look like if they were present? Vital interests affect the
safety, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and power position of the United States, or indeed
of any country. If, in the worst case, all Ukraine were to "fall" to Russia, it would have
little impact on the security of the United States. Russia is no longer the strong country that
the USSR was: its GDP is dwarfed by that of the United States. Its non-nuclear military power
is woefully insufficient for the conquest of the major states of Eurasia. The possession of
Crimea, a grab for Ukraine's eastern provinces, or even the occupation of all Ukraine would not
change this. Indeed, the military conquest of Ukraine would be costly to Russia because as one
moves westward, one encounters ever-more-nationalistic Ukrainians, who have a historical
propensity to fight. Russian forces facing west would find themselves with a fifth column in
their rear.
Geography alone can sometimes create a vital interest. If Ukraine were Mexico, the United
States would have an interest in protecting it from Russia or anyone else. For Russia, Ukraine
is Mexico, and in their eyes, the United States and its Western allies have been inexorably
creeping in their direction since the end of the Cold War. Russian interests in Ukraine
probably exceed NATO's, which is why modest sanctions are unlikely to coerce Russia into
passivity. They do not want Western political, economic, and military power on their border. Of
course, the easternmost members
of NATO would not like Russian forces on their doorstep , but because they are all too weak
to defend themselves, or too confident in the United States to bother, their security depends
much more on whether the United States will make good on its alliance commitments than on
whether Russia shares a border.
The United States does have one security interest in Ukraine. Though it is not a vital
interest, the preservation of an independent
neutral zone between NATO and Russian military forces has been a stabilizing factor in
east-west relations. During the Cold War, especially in Germany, NATO and Soviet forces faced
each other head to head. Even their non-nuclear forces had powerful offensive capabilities --
thousands of tanks and aircraft that could strike deeply into the other's territory. The two
sides also possessed large numbers of nuclear weapons, and had the command, control and plans
in place to use them if necessary. This was a nervous relationship, fraught with the
possibility of escalation and mutual disaster. This is a world that neither we nor the Russians
should wish to recreate, even with the diminished forces Russia now possesses. The United
States and its allies succeeded in managing this for forty years, and we could do it again if
we had to. So preventing this is "nice to have" but not "need to have." Indeed, trying to
prevent it by force brings on the very thing we should wish to avoid. But maintaining a wide
military buffer zone is a real security interest, and the only one worth pursuing in
Ukraine.
For the last twenty years Ukraine and Belarus have kept NATO and Russian forces far apart.
This was an underappreciated benefit. NATO's flirtation with admitting Ukraine into the
alliance simply ignored the new risks that would be assumed. If Russia were to occupy all of
Ukraine, we would return to this unhappy standoff. If NATO forces were to help Ukraine resist
Russia militarily, we would also return to this situation. This is neither in Russia's
interests, nor in ours. It is far better to negotiate a mutual "hands off Ukraine" agreement.
Diplomacy, sanctions (and the threat of more), and economic assistance (bribes) to Ukraine are
the tools that the West should use to restore the status quo ante.
Western liberals will be quick to decry any security agreement reached over the heads of the
Ukrainians. The crisis in Ukraine, however, is a direct consequence of the fact that Ukrainians
do not agree on the extent to which they should be associated with the West or with Russia.
This disagreement threatens to tear the country apart. If Ukraine falls into civil war, with
Russia and the West aiding their respective favorites, the risk of a direct NATO-Russia clash
also rises. To ensure peace between Russia and the West, the question of foreign alignment
should be taken out of Ukrainian politics.
It does serves the interests of military-industrial complex. And this is all that matters.
Notable quotes:
"... IMHO, in Ukraine the USA deviated from its longstanding policy of supporting constitutional order governance, allied with far right nationalists and smashed the constitutional order installing marionette far right government ( Nulandgate ) . On the part of the USA this was done to achieve geopolitical goals of weakening Russia. On the part of UE this was done for expanding EU economic "Lebensraum" into xUSSR space. ..."
"... In this sense, Obama, and especially Obama's State Department, are a clear predecessors of Trump's turn to the right. See the discussion by Professor Cohen: ..."
While the discussion of this issue on emotional level is clearly fun, the key question here is: did the economic conditions
in the USA changed in a way that the majority of population from now on will consistently support a far right party (or a far
right faction within the Republican Party).
And to support far right (neofascist) ideas as a reaction to the process of sliding standard of living and the lack of job
opportunities in conditions of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA and the associated process of de-legitimization of neoliberal
elite (Schiff)
Marxism used to teach us that the way people live define the way people think ;-)
I am also alarmed at the support of Ukrainegate among esteemed commentariat. When you consider "military assistance" as the
way to pressure the country, the first thing to discuss is whether this military assistance serves the USA national interests
or not. This was not done.
IMHO, in Ukraine the USA deviated from its longstanding policy of supporting constitutional order governance, allied with far
right nationalists and smashed the constitutional order installing marionette far right government ( Nulandgate ) . On the part
of the USA this was done to achieve geopolitical goals of weakening Russia. On the part of UE this was done for expanding EU economic
"Lebensraum" into xUSSR space.
This was the case, long before Trump, when the USA demonstrated clearly neofascist tendencies in foreign policy. In this sense,
Obama, and especially Obama's State Department, are a clear predecessors of Trump's turn to the right. See the discussion by Professor
Cohen:
The deep state and associated political forces of neocons/neolibs is a serious problem that
threatens the USA national security. Weapons send to Ukraine can go anywhere. Risk of WWIII and
total wipeout of both the USA and Russia (and well as NATO countries in Europe) from the face of
Earth also increase.
Notable quotes:
"... All about welfare for the military industrial complex and fomenting war. ..."
Aaron Mate's Pushback show is probably one of the best shows on US and world politics out
there: my only complaint is that there are not more episodes.
Keeping the masses poor through military spending, and focused on an external bogeyman is
just a strategy the morbidly rich employ to prevent a more equitable and rational
distribution of wealth at home
"... Like a denizen of Plato's cave, or being in the film the Matrix, most people have no idea what the truth is. And the questions raised by Professor Cohen are a great service in the cause of the truth ..."
"... Professor Cohen is indeed a patriot of the highest order. The American and "Globalists" elites, particularly the dysfunctional United Kingdom, are engaging in a war of nerves with Russia. This war, which could turn nuclear for reasons discussed in this important book, is of no benefit to any person or nation. ..."
"... America and the world owe Professor Cohen a great debt. "Blessed are the peace makers..." ..."
"... An interesting quote found in the book from a surprising source, Henry Kissinger: "The demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy. It is an alibi for not having one." And then notes Cohen, "But Kissinger was also wrong. Washington has made many policies strongly influenced by the demonizing of Putin -- a personal vilification far exceeding any ever applied to Soviet Russia's latter-day Communist leaders." ..."
"In a Time of Universal Deceit -- Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act" is a well
known quotation (but probably not of George Orwell). And in telling the truth about Russia
and that the current "war of nerves" is not in the interests of either the American People or
national security, Professor Cohen in this book has in fact done a revolutionary act.
Like a denizen of Plato's cave, or being in the film the Matrix, most people have no idea
what the truth is. And the questions raised by Professor Cohen are a great service in the
cause of the truth. As Professor Cohen writes in his introduction To His Readers:
"My scholarly work -- my biography of Nikolai Bukharin and essays collected in Rethinking
the Soviet Experience and Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives, for example -- has always been
controversial because it has been what scholars term "revisionist" -- reconsiderations, based
on new research and perspectives, of prevailing interpretations of Soviet and post-Soviet
Russian history. But the "controversy" surrounding me since 2014, mostly in reaction to the
contents of this book, has been different -- inspired by usually vacuous, defamatory assaults
on me as "Putin's No. 1 American Apologist," "Best Friend," and the like. I never respond
specifically to these slurs because they offer no truly substantive criticism of my
arguments, only ad hominem attacks. Instead, I argue, as readers will see in the first
section, that I am a patriot of American national security, that the orthodox policies my
assailants promote are gravely endangering our security, and that therefore we -- I and
others they assail -- are patriotic heretics. Here too readers can judge."
Cohen, Stephen F.. War with Russia (Kindle Locations 131-139). Hot Books. Kindle
Edition.
Professor Cohen is indeed a patriot of the highest order. The American and "Globalists"
elites, particularly the dysfunctional United Kingdom, are engaging in a war of nerves with
Russia. This war, which could turn nuclear for reasons discussed in this important book, is
of no benefit to any person or nation.
Indeed, with the hysteria on "climate change" isn't it odd that other than Professor
Cohen's voice, there are no prominent figures warning of the devastation that nuclear war
would bring?
If you are a viewer of one of the legacy media outlets, be it Cable Television networks,
with the exception of Tucker Carlson on Fox who has Professor Cohen as a frequent guest, or
newspapers such as The New York Times, you have been exposed to falsehoods by remarkably
ignorant individuals; ignorant of history, of the true nature of Russia (which defeated the
Nazis in Europe at a loss of millions of lives) and most important, of actual military
experience. America is neither an invincible or exceptional nation. And for those familiar
with terminology of ancient history, it appears the so-called elites are suffering from
hubris.
I cannot recommend Professor Cohen's work with sufficient superlatives; his arguments are
erudite, clearly stated, supported by the facts and ultimately irrefutable. If enough people
find Professor Cohen's work and raise their voices to their oblivious politicians and
profiteers from war to stop further confrontation between Russia and America, then this book
has served a noble purpose.
If nothing else, educate yourself by reading this work to discover what the *truth* is.
And the truth is something sacred.
America and the world owe Professor Cohen a great debt. "Blessed are the peace
makers..."
I have followed Stephen Cohen for a while and read all his books. This is undoubtedly my
favorite, it has a good balance between history and current events. If you are interested in
current events and want to get informed about Russia, which seems to be on the mind of
everyone right now, buy this book. Read more
Stephen Cohen is a well respected scholar who has studied Russia and the Soviet Union for
over 50 years. He provides facts often neglected in today's agenda driven media.
An interesting quote found in the book from a surprising source, Henry Kissinger: "The
demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy. It is an alibi for not having one." And then
notes Cohen, "But Kissinger was also wrong. Washington has made many policies strongly
influenced by the demonizing of Putin -- a personal vilification far exceeding any ever
applied to Soviet Russia's latter-day Communist leaders."
Cohen's calm reasoned analysis regarding Russia is sadly all too uncommon. It is difficult to
overstate the importance of his work
On the planet I live on, detente was a tactical strategy adopted by Nixon and Kissinger in
a moment of weakness after the US defeat in the Vietnam War. With two equally powerful
superpowers on the globe capable of mutually-assured destruction, detente was based on the
idea that the USSR wasn't inherently evil and worthy of active opposition. Detente was
abandoned by Carter after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
On Mr. Cohen's planet, detente is as appropriate a strategy today as it was in the 1970s.
Only the situation is now vastly different: The former Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern
Europe have switched sides and joined NATO Half of the former USSR is now independent from
Russia. Cohen believes that detente remains the appropriate strategy for the last 50 years no
matter what Russian has done. Abandoning detente in the wake of Afghanistan and Crimea is the
wrong strategy, even though the former led to the US's greatest foreign policy success since
WWII.
On Mr. Cohen's planet, an aggressive trade pact offered by the EU prompted Mr.
Yanukovich's downfall. On my planet, Mr. Yanukovich backed out of a highly popular trade deal
negotiated over five years with two Ukrainian administrations. He backed out three days
before signing. Since much of the public believed the deal offered a route to greater
economic prosperity and less corruption, peaceful occupation of the Euromaidan began
immediately. The situation was initially very similar to the peaceful Orange Revolution of
2004-5, that began after Yanukovich was declared a winner (by 3%) despite exit polling
showing him losing by 11%. Only in 2013-2014, the government's efforts to remove the
demonstrators turned violent. Mr Putin claims the demonstrators (500,000 on Dec 8) were
merely hirelings of the CIA and Mr. Cohen doesn't challenge this claim. As the violence grew
worse, the US and EU negotiated a settlement between Mr. Yanukovich and his political
opponents, but by then it was too late. When publicly informed of the agreement by opposition
leaders, the demonstrators (a coalition of many groups who had seen 50 killed the previous
day) unanimously rejected the settlement and warned Yanukovich they would be coming for him
tomorrow. The police had melted away, many officials had resigned and no one left was willing
to protect Yanukovich. He fled to Russia that night. The next day Parliament voted 338-0 to
declare the Presidency vacant (17 votes short of the constitutional 3/4), appointed an
interim government and scheduled elections. Ignoring Yanukowich's complete lack of internal
support and his flight, Cohen calls this a "coup" (p17). The same night Yanukovich fled,
Putin launched the operation to seize Crimea and annexed it less than 1 month later. The US
has recently undertaken questionable military operations in a number of countries beginning
with Kosovo, but never without first taking the time to attempt to negotiate a peaceful
settlement.
In my world, Ukraine, Russia, the US and the UK signed the Budapest Memorandum pledging to
respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in return for decommission Ukraine's nuclear
forces. This agreement isn't found in the index of Cohen's book.
On my planet, the evidence linking Putin to the assassination of Litvinecko, Nemtsov, and
Politkovskaya and the attempt on the Skripals is strong and consistent with spending his
formative years in the KGB. The naive view from Cohen's planet is presented on p 6 and
170.
The worst sins in this book arise from its structure. The first 10 pages of the book
comprise an overview, and the remaining 200 pages are paste ups of talks, articles and blog
posts since 2014, and mostly since 2016. In most cases, these articles consist of Cohen
defending Putin's position in response to breaking news. For example, we get Cohen's initial
12/15/16 response to reports that Russia hacked the DNC on p74-75, but we aren't told about
the large amount of information collected since then, including reports that the Dutch had
hacked into the Russian operation that hacked the DNC. Mueller has indicted several dozens
Russians in connection with the break in. Cohen is supposed to be an important scholar and
historian. He knows that biased first impressions from breaking news do not constitute
history.
This "scholarly work" was published to some organization called Hot Books, whose website
was non-functional at the time of this review. The book covers contain only one ambiguous
comment from a reviewer I don't recognize. The remaining comments are refer to Cohen's
previous books. Praise from that Russia scholar Tucker Carlson is mentioned at Amazon.
Cohen's previous books were publisher by major publishers. Apparently they agree with me that
Cohen is the one living on a different planet.
I bought this book hoping to hear a different perspective on our deteriorating
relationship with Russia. I had doubts about the expansion of NATO into countries with large
numbers of ethnic Russians - countries that need to reach compromises with their powerful
neighbor. The Ukraine is a classic example. It has maintained a marginally separate national
identity and language, but the east is predominantly Russian. Western Ukraine contains the
Polish territory Hitler gave to Stalin and is anti-Russian. The Ukrainians twice drove the
Red Army from Kiev during the civil war that followed the overthrow of the tsar. Millions of
Ukrainians saw Hitler as a potential liberator of the Ukrainian people and Nazism is a
powerful force in some areas. I was hoping to hear some nuanced and realistic information
about these issues, not an apologist for Putin.
This is the same domino theory that led to Vietnam war.
Notable quotes:
"... The same company and Ukrainians that refused the FBI access and from whom the FBI has failed to obtain a warrant for that system to investigate threats to the nation's national security -- excuse me but that strangely like "obstruction of justice" yet according to some commenters here -- the FBI is just too incompetent to conduct such a technically difficult task. ..."
"... And for more than three years the democrats have been leading the country down a road of impeachment for imagined --- nonexistent crimes based on nonexistent evidence. ..."
"... Only thing more astonishing than the democratic investigations is that half of the population actually thinks there's merit. But when Vice President Biden brazenly boasts about coercing the the Ukrainian government to stop a criminal investigation and that boast is on tale for all to hear --- it's not a fact -- it's a made up conspiracy theory ..."
"... That sounds like the kind of delusional remark one might here from somebody with a severe mental illness. Frightening to think that the person who said it is a mover and shaker in the foreign policy world. ..."
"... I agree with the other posters that this impeachment is a textbook play by play narrative of entrenched interests lobbying to maintain the status quo as well as foreign lobbyists pursuing their own interest I personally find the comment of fighting Russia in Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russia here a sign of imbecility if they weren't speaking seriously. ..."
| One-time U.S. presidential advisor on Russia and Europe to the White House National Security Council Timothy Morrison testified
in his opening
statement
to the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon that "the United States aids Ukraine and her people so they can fight Russia
over there and we don't have to fight Russia over here."
This is another example of what I have been saying about this, that while the impeachment stuff is boring the geopolitical takes
from these neocons in the government are telling. They show exactly why nothing changes on foreign policy no matter who gets elected
President. They have an agenda, such as the anti-Russian agenda, and they see their job to pursue this no matter what happens.
This is what the opposition to Trump from the establishment is largely about, that he is going against their foreign policy interests,
such as the current US-Russia proxy war.
They want to spread globalism/liberalism to the entire world, including Russia. Russia does not accept this and is defending
itself. The current crisis was caused entirely by the US, everything Russia has done has been in a defensive and very restrained
response.
The impeachment is about . . . Uuuhhh, hmmmm . . let's see how to take on Russia.
I suspect that the shift here is the direct result of all the evidence concerning how the US was involved in a violent revolution
that has brought Ukraine or "the Ukraine" to the brink if not actual civil war.
That in the wake of that violence Sec Clinton's bid for the WH failed and that in turn has upended the push for a forceful
confrontation with Russia in which a women would be seen as tough and capable --- utterly missing the point of how and why we
select our government leaders.
Notwithstanding this same leader gas a history of failed foreign policy prescriptions:
Now certainly she was not alone in these endeavors. But I find it interesting that the democrats are besides themselves over
her loss given the record. Nevermind how all of that now suggests that she underminded the president she served whose policies
were to tamp down against aggressive foreign policy that created needless tensions. Her tenure was anything but realistic and
tempered.
Her domestic policy was comprised of two agendas: healthcare, supporting WS, using the Clinton Foundation as a pay to play
gatekeeping operation to influence and power , protecting her uranium Russia deal, and calling her fellow citizens names as well
as importing as many foreigners to fill the coffers of big tech companies and democratic party numbers . . .
That name calling included accusations that the president was acting in accord with the Russians to overthrow US elections
and at the enter of these allegations is a company responsible for securing the Sec's computer system who just happens to be owned
by ----
a Ukrainian.
The same company and Ukrainians that refused the FBI access and from whom the FBI has failed to obtain a warrant for that system
to investigate threats to the nation's national security -- excuse me but that strangely like "obstruction of justice" yet according
to some commenters here -- the FBI is just too incompetent to conduct such a technically difficult task.
And for more than three years the democrats have been leading the country down a road of impeachment for imagined --- nonexistent
crimes based on nonexistent evidence.
Only thing more astonishing than the democratic investigations is that half of the population actually thinks there's merit.
But when Vice President Biden brazenly boasts about coercing the the Ukrainian government to stop a criminal investigation and
that boast is on tale for all to hear --- it's not a fact -- it's a made up conspiracy theory
If the policy geniuses that created these messes for the Ukraine and the US had an ounce of courage they simply would have
on their own accord sent US troops into the Ukraine en mass and that would include the Crimea. Given their depth of power, it
seems that they could have done rather easily. Good grief why bother with a messy revolution and all the trappings of multiple
interest groups -- just do it ourselves.
""the United States aids Ukraine and her people so they can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia over here.""
That sounds like the kind of delusional remark one might here from somebody with a severe mental illness. Frightening to
think that the person who said it is a mover and shaker in the foreign policy world.
I agree with the other posters that this impeachment is a textbook play by play narrative of entrenched interests lobbying
to maintain the status quo as well as foreign lobbyists pursuing their own interest I personally find the comment of fighting
Russia in Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russia here a sign of imbecility if they weren't speaking seriously.
1) There is more evidence of Chinese PLA buying off politicians in the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Europe, Australia, etc
2) There is more evidence of leftists whether they be Chinese communists, Israeli leftists, George Soros globalists on college
campus's than students sympathetic to Russia. China's PLA have Chinese students and Chinese Émigré communities under surveillance
for any anti-Chinese sentiment. Infact, newspapers in Chinese Émigré communities are owned by the PLA.
2a) Our college campus's have become crucibles for civil war. US college campus are rife with anti-American protests, anti-while
protests, anti-male protests, anti-Christian protests, anti-citizenship protests,....etc. Furthermore our college campus's have
become centers denying freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, etc (even though these
students stand for every pillar and foundation of our nation...no students are ever expelled even when they commit threats, harassment,
violence and property damage).
3) China takes US retirement funds (civil service and military), offers higher yields and uses the money to buy research and new
leading technology companies. moves the businesses to China where the technology can be shared between the civilian sector and
the military sector.
4) The Chinese have infiltrated our nuclear labs, our defense weapons labs, our R&D labs
5) At the same time this is going on China is militarizing the South China Sea, China is using North Korea to test fire missiles
over South Korea and Japan, as well as threaten Guam and Hawaii.
NOW I CAN UNDERSTAND IF RUSSIA WAS AMONG A GROUP OF NATIONS INFLUENCING OUR ELECTIONS AND OUR DOMESTIC AND OUR FOREIGN POLICY
BUT IT STRIKES ME AS BOTH SUSPICIOUS AND SINISTER THAT ALL THE FOCUS IS ON RUSSIA WHILE OTHER NATIONS WITH MUCH STRONGER CASES
OF INFLUENCING OUR ELECTIONS, DOMESTIC ESPIONAGE AND SUBVERSION ARE IGNORED. ACCORDING TO VOLTAIRE'S LOGIC THEY WOULD BE
EXCLUDED FROM SCRUTINY AND VISIBILITY BECAUSE THEY ARE STRONGER AND INFLUENCING US THE MOST WHILE RUSSIA WOULD BE TARGETED BECAUSE
THEY ARE INFLUENCING US THE LEAST.
"... their ground on which to impeach Trump -- and thereby to install the current Vice President Mike Pence as being America's President -- Trump's having colluded with Russia in order to win the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, but that effort failed because it was false and was based on highly questionable evidence, supplied largely through a firm, Crowdstrike, that the Democratic National Committee had hired in order to find dirt against then-candidate and now-President Trump. ..."
"... Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me. ..."
"... These matters are likelier to be publicly discussed afterward, when the case goes to the Senate, but might be too 'sensitive' to be brought up even there -- especially if they make both Democratic and Republican officials look bad, such as, for example, if both Democrats and Republicans had participated in a February 2014 coup against, and overthrowing, Ukraine's democratically elected Government, and -- if that happened, as we will show it did -- how this fact might affect Trump's relationship with Zelensky. So: a lot is to be shown here, and this will be information that the 'news'-media have been hiding from the public, not reporting to the public. ..."
"... Without understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but of different types. ..."
"... Obama had selected Yovanovitch because he knew that (just like Pyatt) she supported his polices regarding Ukraine and would adhere to his instructions. Yovanovitch was part of Obama's team, just as she had previously been part of George W. Bush's team. All three of them were staunch neoconservatives, just as Ambassador Pyatt had been, and just as Victoria Nuland had been, and just as Joe Biden had been. ..."
"... A neoconservative believes in the rightfulness of American empire over this entire planet, even over the borders of the other nuclear superpower, Russia. Obama's standard phrase arguing for it was "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation" , meaning that all other nations are "dispensable." ..."
"... Yovanovich stated her views regarding what America's policies toward Ukraine should be, and these were Obama's policies, too; these views are the neoconservative outlook [and my own comments in brackets here will indicate her most egregious distortions and lies in this key passage from her]: ..."
...the American public should have been far more skeptical about the Ukrainegate
narrative than they were, because, at first, Democrats were trying to use, as their ground on
which to impeach Trump -- and thereby to install the current Vice President Mike Pence as being
America's President -- Trump's having colluded with Russia in order to win the 2016 election
against Hillary Clinton, but that effort failed because it was false and was based on highly
questionable evidence, supplied largely through a firm, Crowdstrike, that the Democratic
National Committee had hired in order to find dirt against then-candidate and now-President
Trump. Now the Democrats' ground, for replacing President Donald Trump by his Vice President
Mike Pence, is that in Trump's 25 July 2019 phone-call to Ukraine's new President Volodmyr
Zelensky, Trump supposedly pressured Zelensky to have Joe Biden investigated.
One of the first signs of a liar is that the person switches his story -- changes to a new
and different reason for 'justifying' his actions (in this case, impeachment) -- and this
clearly is being done now by the Democrats and the 'news'-media, in order to replace President
Donald Trump by his Vice President Mike Pence. Consequently: Americans are insufficiently
suspicious against the present impeachment hearings. Americans need to examine carefully beyond
the mere surface -- much deeper. The links here are provided in order to facilitate the
reader's direct access to the highest quality (i.e., most trustworthy) evidence in the case, so
that the reader may see, on one's own , what the 'news'-media do not report.
25 September 2019 was when
a clear and copyable version of the transcript of that complete July 25th phone
conversation finally became published, online, by Rhode Island's Providence Journal; and
here is the only passage in the complete transcript where Trump mentioned Biden (three times,
in fact -- the only three times that the word "Biden" appears in the entire transcript):
Rudy [Giuliani] very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you
could speak to him, that would be great. The former ambassador [to Ukraine] from the United
States, the woman [Marie Yovanovitch] , was bad news and the people she was dealing with in
the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there's a lot
of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to
find out about that so whatever you can do with the [U.S.] Attorney General [William Barr]
would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can
look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.
What "prosecution," of whom, for what, and why? The media ignore those questions. when they
aren't simply assuming an answer to them. But no such answer ought to be assumed. Nor should
these important questions be ignored. Here, the answers to those questions will be
documented.
Furthermore, elsewhere in that conversation, Trump said:
I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and
Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole
situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people.
The server, they say Ukraine has it.
Zelensky responded by asserting that "the next prosecutor general [in Ukraine] will be 100%
my person" and that "he or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company
[Crowdstrike] that you mentioned in this issue." Nothing at all was said by Zelensky about any
Biden, at any point in the entire phone-call. It wasn't mainly about the Bidens such as the
press alleges to be the case.
In fact: the "favor" that Trump was asking about wasn't concerning the Bidens, but it
instead concerned the investigation that Trump's Attorney General (referenced here when Trump
said "whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great") is now heading, into the
question of why Obama's FBI and entire intelligence community had proceeded with the highly
suspect Christopher Steele and Crowdstrike report that the Democratic National Committee had
hired under Obama in order to come up with allegations to use against Trump, and why the Obama
Administration never demanded to inspect the DNC's own server in order to examine the key
physical evidence in the alleged Russiagate case against Trump -- much less, what testimony and
evidence Julian Assange might have in the alleged Russiagate case . What did Trump mean when he
said "The server, they say Ukraine has it"? Did Trump actually think that Zelensky could supply
that physical evidence? What did he mean? What was he asking of Zelensky when Trump said, "The
server, they say Ukraine has it"?
One can't understand the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump unless one understands
accurately what was happening in Ukraine and what the motivations were of the persons who were
involved in U.S.-Ukraine policy, first under U.S. President Barack Obama, and then under his
successor Donald Trump. Information will be presented here, about those matters, which probably
won't come up in the House impeachment hearings. These matters are likelier to be publicly
discussed afterward, when the case goes to the Senate, but might be too 'sensitive' to be
brought up even there -- especially if they make both Democratic and Republican officials look
bad, such as, for example, if both Democrats and Republicans had participated in a February
2014 coup against, and overthrowing, Ukraine's democratically elected Government, and -- if
that happened, as we will show it did -- how this fact might affect Trump's relationship with Zelensky. So: a lot is to be shown here, and this will be information that the 'news'-media
have been hiding from the public, not reporting to the public.
There are many instances of U.S. coups that the Government lied about and that afterward had
negative blowback. The 1953 U.S. coup against Iran's democratically elected Government wasn't
revealed to the American public until decades after it had happened. It had long been alleged to have been a
'democratic revolution' in Iran . Our Government and media have been lying to us for a long
time, and not only about 'WMD in Iraq'. We shall be documenting here that that 1953 coup in
Iran (and other similar instances by the U.S. Government) is being repeated (yet again) in the
case of the February 2014 U.S. coup that occurred in Ukraine. The regime is very effective at lying , at deceiving , at manipulating , its public, no less now than it was then . Without
understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of
honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic
Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but
of different types.
PART TWO: TRUMP'S PURPOSE IN THE 25 JULY
2019 CALL TO ZELENSKY
The argument to be presented here is that Trump, in this phone-call, and generally, was
trying not only to obtain help with evidence-gathering in the "Crowdstrike" matter (which A.G.
Barr is now investigating, and which also is the reason why Trump specifically mentioned
"Crowdstrike" at the only instance in the phone-call where he was requesting a "favor" from
Zelensky), but to change the policy toward Ukraine that had been established by Obama (via
Obama's coup and its aftermath). This is a fact, which will be documented here. Far more than
politics was involved here; ideology was actually very much involved. Trump was considering a
basic change in U.S. foreign policies. He was considering to replace policies that had been
established under, and personnel who had been appointed by, his immediate predecessor, Barack
Obama. Democrats are extremely opposed to any such changes. This is one of the reasons for the
renewed impeachment-effort by Democrats. They don't want to let go of Obama's worst policies.
But changing U.S. foreign policy is within a President's Constitutional authority to do.
Trump fired the flaming neoconservative John Bolton on 10 September 2019. This culminated a
growing rejection by Trump of neoconservatism -- something that he had never thought much about
but had largely continued from the Obama Administration, which invaded and destroyed Libya in
2011, Syria in 2012-, Yemen in 2015-, and more -- possibly out-doing even George W. Bush, who
likewise was a flaming neocon. Trump's gradual turn away from neoconservatism wasn't just
political; it was instead a reflection, on his part, that maybe, just maybe, he had actually
been wrong and needed to change his foreign policies, in some important ways. (He evidently
still hasn't yet figured out precisely what those changes should be.)
For example, on 15 November 2019, the impeachment focus was on the testimony of Marie
Yovanovitch, whom Trump had recently (
in May 2019 ) fired as the Ambassador to Ukraine. Democrats presented her as having been
the paradigm of professionalism and nonpartisanship in America's foreign service. She was
actually a neoconservative who had been appointed as an Ambassador first by President George W.
Bush on 20 November 2004, after her having received an M.S. from the National War College in
2001. Obama appointed her, on 18 May 2016, to replace Geoff Pyatt ( shown and heard in this video confidentially
receiving instructions from Obama's agent controlling Ukraine-policy, Victoria Nuland ) as
the Ambassador to Ukraine. Obama had selected Yovanovitch because he knew that (just like
Pyatt) she supported his polices regarding Ukraine and would adhere to his instructions.
Yovanovitch was part of Obama's team, just as she had previously been part of George W. Bush's
team. All three of them were staunch neoconservatives, just as Ambassador Pyatt had been, and
just as Victoria Nuland had been, and just as Joe Biden had been.
A neoconservative believes in the rightfulness of American empire over this entire planet,
even over the borders of the other nuclear superpower, Russia. Obama's standard phrase arguing
for it was "The United States is and remains
the one indispensable nation" , meaning that all other nations are "dispensable." This
imperialistic belief was an extension of Yale's 'pacifist' pro-Nazi America
First movement , which was supported by Wall Street's Dulles brothers in the
early 1940s , and which pro-Nazi movement Trump himself has prominently praised. Unlike the
progressive U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had planned the U.N. in order to be
the anti -imperialist emerging first-ever global world government of nations, which would
democratically set and ultimately enforce international laws of a new global federation of
nations -- a global democratic federation of sovereign republics -- neoconservatives are U.S.
imperialists, who want instead to destroy the U.N., and to extend American power over the
entire world, make America not only the policeman to the world but the lawmaker for the world,
and the judge jury and executioner of the world, the global dictator. The U.N. would be
weakened to insignificance. This has gradually been occurring. It continued even after what had
been thought to have been the 1991 end of the Cold War, and after Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize
in 2009 for his deceptive rhetoric. Yale's John
Bolton was the leading current proponent of the America First viewpoint, much more straightforward in his advocacy of
it than the far wilier Obama was; and, until recently, Trump supported that unhedged
advocacy for the neoconservative viewpoint: U.S. imperialism. Regarding the campaign to take
over Russia, however, he no longer does -- he has broken with Bolton on that central
neoconservative goal, and he is trying to reverse that policy, which had been even more extreme
than Obama's policy towards Russia was (which policy had, in fact , produced the coup in Ukraine).
When the Cold War had supposedly ended in 1991, it ended actually only on the Russian side, but secretly it continued and continues on
as policy on the American imperialists' side . The neoconservative side, which controlled
the U.S. Government by that time (FDR's vision having been destroyed when Ronald Reagan entered
the White House in 1981), has no respect whatsoever for Russia's sovereignty over its own land,
and certainly not over the land of Russia's neighbors, such as Ukraine, which has a 1,625-mile
border with Russia. Neoconservatives want U.S. missiles to be pointed at Moscow all along
Russia's border. That would be as if Russia had wanted to position Russian missiles all along
Canada's and Mexico's borders with the U.S.; it would disgust any decent person, anywhere, but
neoconservatives aren't decent people. Neoconservatives (U.S. imperialists) seek for all of
Russia's neighbors to become part of the U.S. empire, so as to isolate Russia and then become
able to gobble it up. All neoconservatives want this ultimately to happen. Their grasp for
power is truly limitless. Only in the tactical issues do they differ from one-another.
In her testimony behind closed doors to Senators, on
11 October 2019 , Yovanovich stated her views regarding what America's policies toward
Ukraine should be, and these were Obama's policies, too; these views are the neoconservative
outlook [and my own comments in brackets here will indicate her most egregious distortions and
lies in this key passage from her]:
Because of Ukraine's geostrategic position bordering Russia on its east, the warm waters
of the oil-rich Black Sea to its south, and four NATO allies to its west, it is critical to
the security of the United States [this is like saying that Mexico and Canada are crucial to
the security of Russia -- it's a lie] that Ukraine remain free and democratic [meaning, to
neoconservatives, under U.S. control] , and that it continue to resist Russian expansionism
[like Russia cares about U.S. expansionism over all of the Western Hemisphere? Really? Is
that actually what this is about? It's about extending U.S. imperialism on and across
Russia's border into Russia itself] Russia's purported annexation of Crimea [but, actually,
"Clear and
convincing evidence will be presented here that, under U.S. President Barack Obama, the U.S.
Government had a detailed plan, which was already active in June 2013, to take over Russia's
main naval base, which is in Sevastopol in Crimea, and to turn it into a U.S. naval
base." ] , its invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and its defacto control over the Sea of Azov,
make clear Russia's malign intentions towards Ukraine [not make clear Russia's determination
not to be surrounded by enemies -- by U.S.-stooge regimes. For Russia to avoid that is
'malign', she says] . If we allow Russia's actions to stand, we will set a precedent that the
United States will regret for decades to come. So, supporting Ukraine's integration into
Europe and combating Russia' s efforts to destabilize Ukraine [Oh, America didn't do that destabilization ?]
have anchored our policy since the Ukrainian people protested on the Maidan in 2014 and
demanded to be a part of Europe and live according to the rule of law [But Ukrainians before
Obama's takeover of Ukraine in February 2014 didn't actually want to be part of the EU nor of
NATO, and they considered NATO to be a threat to Ukraine. "In 2010,
Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean 'protection of your
country,' 40% said it's 'a threat to your country'." ] That was U.S. policy when I became
ambassador in August 2016 [after Obama's successful coup there took over its
media and turned Ukrainian opinion strongly against Russia] , and it was reaffirmed as that
policy as the policy of the current administration in early 2017. [Yes, that's correct,
finally a truthful assertion from her. When Trump first came into office, he was a
neoconservative, too.] The Revolution of Dignity [ you'll see here the 'dignity' of it ]
and the Ukrainian people's demand to end corruption forced the new Ukrainian Government to
take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated that country's political
and economic systems [and that still do, and perhaps more now than even before] .
That's just one example -- it's about the role of Ambassador Yovanovitch. But the focus of
Ukrainegate isn't really that. It's not Yovanovitch. It is what Trump was trying to do, and
what Joe Biden was trying to do, and what Obama had actually done. It is also about Joe Biden's
son Hunter, because this is also about contending dynasties, and not only about contending
individuals. Trump isn't certain, now, that he wants to continue being a full-fledged
neoconservative, and to continue extending Obama's neoconservative policies regarding Ukraine.
So: this is largely about what those policies actually were. And here is how Joe Biden comes
into the picture, because Democrats, in trying to replace President Donald Trump by a President
Mike Pence, are trying to restore, actually, Barack Obama's policy in Ukraine, a policy of
which the Bidens themselves were very much Obama's agents, and Mike Pence would be expected to
continue and extend those policies. Here will be necessary to document some personal and
business relationships that the U.S. news-media have consistently been hiding and even lying
about, and which might not come up even in the expected subsequent Senate hearings about
whether to replace Trump by Pence:
PART THREE: THE CENTRALITY OF UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH IHOR
KOLOMOYSKY
The real person who was the benefactor to, and the boss of, Vice President Joe Biden's son,
Hunter Biden, at the Ukrainian gas-exploration company Burisma Holdings, was not the person
that the American press says was, Mykola Zlochevsky, who had been part of the Ukrainian
Government until Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in February 2014, but it
was instead Ihor Kolomoysky, who was part of the newly installed Ukrainian Government, which
the Obama Administration itself had actually just installed in Ukraine (and that
phone-conversation appointing Ukraine's new leader is explained here ), in what the head of the "private CIA" firm Stratfor has
correctly called "the most blatant coup in
history." ( Here's more
explanation of that coup which was done by Obama. )
One cannot even begin accurately to understand the impeachment proceedings against America's
current President Donald Trump ("Ukrainegate"), unless one first knows and understands
accurately what the relationships were between Trump and the current Government of Ukraine, and
the role that the Obama Administration had played in forming that Government (installing it),
and the role that Hunter Biden had been hired to perform for his actual boss at Burisma,
Kolomoysky, soon after Obama (via Obama's agent Victoria Nuland) had installed Ukraine's new
Government.
As I had written on
28 September 2019 , "In order to understand why Ukraine's President Voldomyr Zelensky
doesn't want the dirt about Joe Biden to become public, one needs to know that Hunter Biden's
boss and benefactor at Burisma Holdings was, at least partly, Zelensky's boss and benefactor
until Zelensky became Ukraine's President, and that revealing this would open up a can of worms
which could place that former boss and benefactor of both men into prison at lots of places
."
That article, at the phrase "
dug up in 2012," discussed and linked to a careful 2012 study of Burisma which had actually
been done in Ukraine by an investigative nonprofit (Antac)
funded by America's billionaire George Soros (who was another major funder of the 2014 Ukrainian coup , as well as of Barack
Obama's political career itself) in order to help to bring down Yanukovych. However, what this
study found was not the incriminating evidence against Zlochevsky which had been hoped.
It
found instead that the person who owned the controlling interest in Burisma was not really the Yanukovych-supporter Mykola Zlochevsky; it was, in fact, the Ukrainian billionaire Ihor
Kolomoysky, who supported Yanukovych's overthrow. Kolomoysky, shortly after the coup, became
appointed as the governor in a region of Ukraine, by the Obama Administration's post-coup
Ukrainian Government. Obama's financial backer Soros knew, or should have known, that
Zlochevsky had sold almost all of his Burisma holdings to Kolomoysky in 2011, but Obama's
Administration was nonetheless trying to get the newly installed Ukrainian Government to
prosecute Zlochevsky because Zlochevsky was associated with the Ukrainian President whom Obama
had just overthrown. Hunter Biden's function was to help to protect Mr. Kolomoysky against
being targeted by the newly installed Government in the anti-corruption campaign that the Obama
Administration and the EU were pressing upon that new Ukrainian Government. Hunter Biden was to
serve as a U.S. fixer for his new boss Kolomoysky, to deflect the anti-corruption campaign away
from Kolomoysky as a target and toward Zlochevsky as a target. And Hunter's father, Joe Biden,
followed through on that, by demanding that Ukraine prosecute Zlochevsky, not Kolomoysky.
Soros isn't really against corruption; he is against corruption by countries that he wants to
take over, and that he uses the U.S. Government in order to take over. Neoconservatism is
simply imperialism, which has always been the foreign-affairs ideology of aristocrats and of
billionaires. (In America's case, that includes both Democratic and Republican billionaires.)
So, it's just imperialism in America. All billionaires who care at all about international
relations are imperialists; and, in America, that's called "neoconservative." The American
issue regarding Ukraine was never actually Ukraine's corruption. Corruption is standard and
accepted throughout the U.S.-and-allied countries; but against countries they want to take over
it becomes a PR point in order to win acceptance by the gulls, of their own country's
imperialism and its own associated corruption. "Our country's corruption is acceptable, but
yours is not," is the view. That's the standard imperialist view. Neoconservatism --
imperialism anywhere, actually -- is always based on lies. Imperialism, in fact, is part of
nationalism, but it is excluded by patriotism; and no nationalist is a patriot. No patriot is a
nationalist. Whereas a nationalist supports his country's billionaires, a patriot supports his
country's residents -- all of them, his countrymen, on a democratic basis, everyone having
equal rights, not the richest of the residents having the majority or all of the rights. A
nationalist is one-dollar-one-vote; a patriot is one resident one vote. The only people who are
intelligently nationalist are billionaires and the agents they employ. All other nationalists
are their gulls. Everyone else is a patriot. Ordinarily, there are far more gulls than
patriots.
Information hasn't yet been published regarding what Trump's agent Rudolph Giuliani has
found regarding Burisma, but the links in the present article link through to the evidence that
I am aware of, and it's evidence which contradicts what the U.S.-and-allied press have been
reporting about the Bidens' involvement in Ukraine. So: this information might be what Trump's
team intend to reveal after the Democratic-Party-controlled House of Representatives indicts
Trump (send to the Republican Senate a recommendation to replace him by Mike Pence as America's
President), if they will do that; but, regardless, this is what I have found, which
U.S.-and-allied news-media have conspicuously been not only ignoring but blatantly
contradicting -- contradicting the facts that are being documented by the evidence that is
presented here . Consequently, the links in this article prove the systematic lying by
America's press, regarding Ukrainegate.
After the Soros-funded Antac had discovered in 2012 that Kolomoysky ruled Burisma, the great
independent Australian investigative journalist who has lived for 30 years in and reported from
Moscow, John Helmer , headlined on 19
February 2015 one of his blockbuster news-reports,
"THE HUNT FOR BURISMA, PART II -- WHAT ROLE FOR IGOR KOLOMOISKY, WHAT LONDON MISSED, WHAT
WASHINGTON DOESN'T WANT TO SEE" , and he linked there not only to Ukrainian Government
records but also to UK Government records, and also to corporate records in Cyprus, Panama, and
elsewhere, to document that, indeed, Kolomoysky controlled Burisma. So, all of the
U.S.-and-allied 'news'-reporting, which merely assumes that Zlochevsky controlled this firm
when Hunter Biden became appointed to its board, are clearly false. (See
this, for example, from Britain's Guardian , two years later, on 12 April 2017, simply
ignoring both the Antac report and the even-more-detailed Helmer report, and presenting
Zlochevsky -- Kolomoysky's decoy -- as the appropriate target to be investigated for Burisma's
alleged corruption.) So: when Joe Biden demanded that Ukraine's Government prosecute
Zlochevsky, Biden was not, as he claims he was, demanding a foreign Government to act against
corruption; he was instead demanding that foreign Government (Ukraine) to carry out his own
boss, Barack Obama's, agenda, to smear as much as he could Viktor Yanukovych -- the Ukrainian
President whom Obama had overthrown. This isn't to say that Yanukovych was not corrupt; every
post-Soviet Ukrainian President, and probably Prime Minister too, has been corrupt. Ukraine is
famous for being corrupt. But, this doesn't necessarily mean that Zlochevsky was corrupt.
However, Kolomoysky is regarded, in Ukraine, as being perhaps the most corrupt of all
Ukrainians.
Perhaps Kolomoysky's major competitor has been Victor Pinchuk, who has long been famous in
Washington for donating heavily to Bill and Hillary Clintons' causes. For example, on 11 March
2018, the independent investigative journalist Jeff Carlson, bannered "Victor
Pinchuk, the Clintons & Endless Connections" and he reported that
He is the founder of Interpipe, a steel pipe manufacturer. He also owns Credit Dnipro
Bank, some ferroalloy plants and a media empire.
He is married to Elena Pinchuk, the daughter of former Ukrainian President Leonid
Kuchma.
Pinchuk's been accused of profiting immensely from the purchase of state-owned assets at
severely below-market prices through political favoritism.
Pinchuk used his media empire to deflect blame from his father-in-law, Kuchma, for the
September 16, 2000 murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze. Kuchma was never charged but is
widely believed to have ordered the murder. A series of recordings would seem to back
up this assertion.
On April 4 through April 12 2016, Ukrainian Parliamentarian Olga Bielkov had
four meetings – with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic Studies),
Liz Zentos (National Security Council), Michael Kimmage (State Dept) and David Kramer (McCain
Institute).
Doug Schoen filed FARA documents
showing that he was paid $40,000 a month by Victor Pinchuk (page 5) – in part to
arrange these meetings.
Schoen attempted to arrange another 72 meetings with Congressmen and media (page 10). It
is unknown how many meetings took place.
Schoen has worked for both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Schoen helped Pinchuk establish ties with the Clinton Foundation. The Wall Street Journal
reported
how Schoen connected Pinchuk with senior Clinton State Department staffers in order to
pressure former Ukrainian President Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko – a
political rival of Yanukovych – from jail.
The relationship between Pinchuk and the Clintons continued.
A large network of collaborators, all connected to NATO's PR agency the Atlantic Council,
were also discussed and linked to; and, in one of the video clips, Victoria Nuland headed a
panel discussion in Munich Germany at which numerous leading Democratic Party neoconservatives,
and neoconservative foreign leaders, discussed how wonderful the "Deep State" is, and praised
the Republican neocon John McCain, who had helped Victoria Nuland to install the fascist
Government of Ukraine.
Joe Biden's campaign for president, as well as his defence against charges of corrupt
influence peddling and political collusion in the Ukraine, are being promoted in Washington
by the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk through the New York lobbyist, candidate adviser and
pollster, Douglas Schoen (left).
This follows several years of attempts by Pinchuk and Schoen to buy influence with Donald
Trump, first as a candidate and then as president; with Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani; and
with John Bolton, Trump's National Security Adviser in 2018 and 2019. Their attempts
failed.
Pinchuk has been paying Schoen more than $40,000 every month for eight years. The amount
of money is substantially greater than Biden's son Hunter Biden was paid by Pinchuk's
Ukrainian rival Igor Kolomoisky through the oil company Burisma and Rosemont Seneca Bohai,
Biden's New York front company.
Pinchuk's message for the Democratic candidates and US media, according to Schoen's Fox
News [4] broadcast in August, is: "Stop killing your own, stop beating up on your own
frontrunner, Joe Biden."
On November 12th, the New York Times headlined "Ukraine's President Seeks Face-to-Face Meeting With Putin" and
reported that Zelensky is now sufficiently disturbed at the declining level of the EU's and
Trump Administration's continuing support for Ukraine's Government, so that Zelensky is
desperately trying to restore friendly relations with Russia. The next day, that newspaper
bannered "A Ukrainian Billionaire Fought
Russia. Now He's Ready to Embrace It." This report said: "Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as
Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently
elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time,
he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and
turn back toward Russia ." Kolomoysky, in other words, who had been on Obama's team in
Ukraine, no longer is on the U.S. team under Trump. A reasonable inference would be that
Kolomoysky increasingly fears the possibility of being prosecuted. Continuation of the Obama
plan for Ukraine seems increasingly unlikely.
Here are some crimes for which Kolomoysky might be prosecuted:
Allegedly, Kolomoysky, on 20 March 2015,
brought to a board meeting of Ukraine's gas-distribution company UkrTransNafta, of which
Kolomoysky was a minority shareholder, his hired thugs armed with guns , in an
unsuccessful attempt to intimidate the rest of the board to impose Kolomoysky's choice to
lead the company. Ukraine's President, Petro Poroshenko, soon thereafter, yielded to the
pressure from Ukraine's bondholders to fire
Kolomoysky as a regional governor, and then nationalized Ukraine's biggest bank,
PrivatBank, which had looted billions of dollars from depositors' accounts and secreted the
proceeds in untraceable offshore accounts, so that the bank had to be bailed out by Ukraine's
taxpayers. (Otherwise, there would have been huge riots against Poroshenko.)
Zelensky is squeezed between his funder and his public, and so dithers. For example, on 10
September 2019, the Financial Times reported
that "The IMF has warned Ukraine that backsliding on Privatbank's nationalisation would
jeopardise its $3.9bn standby programme and that officials expect Ukraine to push for recovery
of the $5.5bn spent on rescuing the bank." Stealing $5.5B is a big crime, and this was Obama's
Ukrainian Government. Will it also be Trump's?
There are others, but those could be starters.
So, both Kolomoysky and Zelensky are evidently now considering to seek Moscow's protection,
though Kolomoysky had previously been a huge backer of, and helped to fund, killing of the
Donbassers who rejected the Obama-imposed Russia-hating Ukrainian regime.
Any such prosecutions could open up, to international scrutiny, Obama's entire Ukrainian
operation. That, in turn, would expose Obama's command-complicity in the ethnic cleansing operation , which Kolomoysky's co-planner
of the 2 May 2014 massacre inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, Arsen Avakov,
euphemistically labelled the "Anti Terrorist Operation" or "ATO," to eliminate as many as possible of the residents in the former
Donbass region of Ukraine, where over 90% of the voters had voted for Yanukovych.
PART FOUR: TRUMP'S MANY POLICY-DILEMMAS REGARDING UKRAINE
If Putin offers no helping hand to Zelensky, what will happen to Ukraine, and to Ukrainians?
Might Trump finally campaign for the United States to become one of the "States Parties" to the
International Criminal Court , so that Obama, Nuland, Soros, and others who had overthrown
Ukraine's
democratically elected Government could be tried there? How would Trump be able to immunize
himself for such
crimes as his own 14 April 2018 unprovoked missile-attack against Syria ? How likely is it
that he would ever actually become a supporter of international law, instead of an imperialist
(such as he has always been) and therefore opponent of international law? He, after all, is
himself a billionaire, and no billionaire has ever fought for international law except in an
instance where he benefited from it -- never for international law itself . Trump isn't likely
to be the first. But here's how it could happen:
Donald Trump has surrounded himself with neoconservatives. There's not much distance between
his policies toward Ukraine versus Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's. However, after Trump becomes
impeached in the House (if that happens) and the impeachment trial starts in the Republican
U.S. Senate, there will then be a perfect opportunity for Trump to embarrass the Democratic
Party profoundly by exposing not only Joe Biden but Biden's boss Obama as having
caused the war in Ukraine . In order for him to do that, however, he'd also need to expose
the rot of neoconservatism. Nobody in Washington does that, except, perhaps the rebelling
Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard, and she's
rejected in the national polls now by the public within her own Party . Neoconservatism is
the uniform foreign-policy ideology of America's billionaires, both Republican and Democratic,
and this is why Washington is virtually 100% neocon. In America, wealth certainly doesn't
trickle down, but ideology apparently does -- and that's not merely neoliberalism but also its
international-affairs extension: neoconservatism. Nonetheless, if a Trump re-election ticket
were Trump for President, and Gabbard for Vice President, it might be able to beat anything
that the Democrats could put up against it, because Trump would then head a ticket which would
remain attractive to Republicans and yet draw many independents and even the perhaps 5% of
Democrats who like her. Only Sanders, if he becomes the Democratic nominee (and who is the
least-neoconservative member of the U.S. Senate), would attract some of Gabbard's supporters,
but he wouldn't be getting any money from the 607 people who mainly fund American politics. The
2020 U.S. Presidential contest could just go hog-wild. However, America's billionaires probably
won't let that happen. Though there are only 607 of therm, they have enormous powers over the
Government, far more than do all other Americans put together. The U.S. Supreme Court made it
this way, such as by the 1976 Buckley decision , and the 2010 Citizens United
decision .
So: while justice in this impeachment matter (and in the 2020 elections) is conceivable, it
is extremely unlikely. The public are too deceived -- by America's Big-Money
people.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
And you know, I'll say this to President Trump. You want to investigate Joe Biden? You
want to investigate Hunter Biden? Go at it. Do it. Do it hard. Do it dirty. Do it the way you
do, do it. Just don't do it by asking a foreign leader to help you in your campaign. That's
your job, it's not his.
My goal in these hearings is two things. One is to get an answer to Colonel Vindman's
question ["Is it improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign
government investigate a United States citizen and political opponent?"] . And the second
coming out of this is for us as a Congress to return to the Ukraine policy that Nancy Pelosi
and Kevin McCarthy both support, it's not investigations, it's the restoration of democracy
in Ukraine and the resistance of Russian aggression.
He wants a return to Obama's anti-Russian Ukraine-policy. Though Zelensky had won Ukraine's
Presidency by a record-shattering 73% because he had promised to end the war (which the U.S.
had started), America's Deep State are refusing to allow that -- they want to force him to
accept more U.S.-made weapons and more U.S. training of Ukraine's troops in how to use them
against its next-door neighbor Russia.
Furthermore, in some respects, Trump is even more neoconservative than Obama was. Trump
single-handedly nullified Obama's only effective and good achievement, the Iran nuclear deal.
Against Iran, Trump is considerably more of a neocon than was Obama. Trump has squeezed
Iranians so hard with his sanctions as to block other countries from buying from and selling to
Iran; and this blockade has greatly impoverished Iranians, who now are rioting against their
Government. Trump wants them to overthrow their Government. His plan might succeed. Trump's
biggest donor, Sheldon
Adelson , hates Iranians, and Trump is his man. On Iran, Trump remains a super-neocon.
Perhaps Adelson doesn't require him to hate Russians too.
Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran's
Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey's newspaper Yeni Safak ,
"Bolivia's Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran's Mosaddeg" , and he
presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too -- which had occurred on November
10th -- had been a U.S. operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine
when Trump's own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist
dictatorship. One criminal U.S. President won't publicly expose the crimes of another criminal
U.S. President who was his predecessor.
The next much-discussed witness that the Democrats brought forth to testify against Trump
was America's Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, on November 20th. Sondland was a hotels
and real-estate tycoon like Trump. Prior to Trump's becoming President, Sondland had had no
experience in diplomacy. At the start of 2017, "four companies registered to Sondland
donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee" ; and, then, a year later,
Trump appointed him to this Ambassadorial post. Sondland evasively responded to the aggressive
questioning by Senate Democrats trying to get him to say that Trump had been trying to "bribe"
Zelensky. Then, the Lawfare Blog of the staunchly neoconservative Brookings Institution's
Benjamin Wittes headlined "Gordon Sondland
Accuses the President of Bribery" and Wittes asserted that "today, Amb. Gordon Sondland,
testifying before the House in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, offered a crystal clear account
of how President Trump engaged in bribery." But Sondland provided no evidence except his
opinion, which can be seen online at "Opening Statement before
the United States House of Representatives" , when he said:
Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for
arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make
a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr.
Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that
these investigations were important to the President.
I asked the President, what do you want from Ukraine? The President responded, nothing.
There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro. No quid pro quo multiple times.
This was a very short call. And I recall that the President was really in a bad mood. I tried
hard to address Ambassador Taylor's concerns because he is valuable and [an] effective
diplomat, and I took very seriously the issues he raised. I did not want Ambassador Taylor to
leave his post and generate even more turnover in the Ukraine Mission."
The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and
was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on
the front line of America's war to conquer
Russia . Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy,
but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his
express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or
else America's for withdrawing America from Obama's war against Russia) suitable reason for
Congress to force Trump out of office. Given that Trump, even in Sondland's account, did say
"The President responded, nothing. There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro.
No quid pro quo multiple times," there is nothing that's even close to a "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard which is provided by their personal feelings that Trump had a quid-pro-quo
about anything regarding Ukraine -- a policy of Obama's that Trump should instead firmly have
abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies, whom
Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn't simply extended Obama's
neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable. But
right and wrong won't determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a
two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship.
This is what happens when billionaires control a
country . It produces the type of foreign policies the country's billionaires want, rather
than what the public actually need. This is America's Government, today. It's drastically
different than what America's Founders had hoped. Instead of its representing the states
equally with two Senators for each, and instead of representing the citizens equally, with
proportional per-capita representation in the U.S. House, and instead of yet a third system of
the Electoral College for choosing the Government's Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, it
has become thoroughly corrupted to being, in effect, just one-dollar-one-vote -- an aristocracy
of wealth controlling the entire Government -- exactly what the Founders had waged the
Revolution in order to overthrow and prevent from ever recurring: a dictatorial aristocracy, as
constituting our Government, today.
* * *
PS: Though I oppose almost everything that the hearings' Ranking Minority Member, the
neoconservative (and, of course, also neoliberal) Republican Devin Nunes , stands for, I close here with
his superb summary of the hearings, on November 21st , in which he validly described the
Democrats' scandalously trashy Ukrainegate case against Trump (even though he refused to look
deeper to the issues I raise in this article -- he dealt here merely with how "shoddy" the case
the Democrats had presented was):
Throughout these bizarre hearings, the Democrats have struggled to make the case that
President Trump committed some impeachable offense on his phone call with Ukrainian president
Zelensky. The offense itself changes depending on the day ranging from quid pro quo to
extortion, to bribery, to obstruction of justice, then back to quid pro quo. It's clear why
the Democrats have been forced onto this carousel of accusations. President Trump had good
reason to be wary of Ukrainian election meddling against his campaign and of widespread
corruption in that country. President Zelensky, who didn't even know aid to Ukraine had been
paused at the time of the call, has repeatedly said there was nothing wrong with the
conversation. The aid was resumed without the Ukrainians taking the actions they were
supposedly being coerced into doing.
Aid to Ukraine under President Trump has been much more robust than it was under President
Obama, thanks to the provision of Javelin anti-tank weapons. As numerous witnesses have
testified, temporary holds on foreign aid occur fairly frequently for many different reasons.
So how do we have an impeachable offense here when there's no actual misdeed and no one even
claiming to be a victim? The Democrats have tried to solve this dilemma with a simple slogan,
"he got caught." President Trump, we are to believe, was just about to do something wrong and
getting caught was the only reason he backed down from whatever nefarious thought crime the
Democrats are accusing him of almost committing.
I once again urge Americans to continue to consider the credibility of the Democrats on
this Committee, who are now hurling these charges for the last three years. It's not
president Trump who got caught, it's the Democrats who got caught. They got caught falsely
claiming they had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russians to hack
the 2016 election. They got caught orchestrating this entire farce with the whistleblower and
lying about their secret meetings with him. They got caught defending the false allegations
of the Steele dossier, which was paid for by them. They got caught breaking their promise
that impeachment would only go forward with bipartisan support because of how damaging it is
to the American people.
They got caught running a sham impeachment process between secret depositions, hidden
transcripts, and an unending flood of Democrat leaks to the media. They got caught trying to
obtain nude photos of President Trump from Russian pranksters pretending to be Ukrainians,
and they got caught covering up for Alexandra Chalupa, a Democratic National Committee
operative, who colluded with Ukrainian officials to smear the Trump campaign by improperly
redacting her name from deposition transcripts, and refusing to let Americans hear her
testimony as a witness in these proceedings. That is the Democrats pitiful legacy in recent
years. They got caught.
Meanwhile, their supposed star witness testified that he was guessing that President Trump
was tying Ukrainian aid to investigations despite no one telling him that was true, and the
president himself explicitly telling him the opposite, that he wanted nothing from Ukraine.
Ladies and gentlemen, unless the Democrats once again scramble their kangaroo court rules,
today's hearing marks the merciful end of this spectacle in the Impeachment Committee,
formerly known as the Intelligence Committee. Whether the Democrats reap the political
benefit they want from this impeachment remains to be seen, but the damage they have done to
this country will be long lasting. Will this wrenching attempt to overthrow the president?
They have pitted Americans against one another and poison the mind of fanatics who actually
believe the entire galaxy of bizarre accusations they have levelled against the president
since the day the American people elected him.
I sincerely hope the Democrats in this affair [end this] as quickly as possible so our
nation can begin to heal the many wounds it has inflicted on us. The people's faith in
government and their belief that their vote counts for something has been shaken. From the
Russia hoax to this shoddy Ukrainian sequel, the Democrats got caught. Let's hope they
finally learn a lesson, give their conspiracy theories a rest, and focus on governing for a
change. In addition, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1), the Republican
members transmit a request to convene a minority day of hearings. Today you have blocked key
witnesses that we have requested from testifying in this partisan impeachment inquiry. This
rule was not displaced by H.Res.660, and therefore under House Rule 11 clause 1(a), it
applies to the Democrats impeachment inquiry. We look forward to the chair promptly
scheduling an agreed upon time for the minority day of hearings so that we can hear from key
witnesses that you have continually blocked from testifying.
I'd also like to take a quick moment on an assertion Ms. Hill made in the statement that
she submitted to this Committee, in which she claimed that some Committee members deny that
Russia meddled in the 2016 election. As I noted in my opening statement on Wednesday, but in
March, 2018, Intelligence Committee Republicans published the results of a year long
investigation into Russian meddling. The 240 page report analyzed 2016 Russian meddling
campaign, the US government reaction to it, Russian campaigns in other countries and provided
specific recommendations to improve American election security. I would [have] asked my staff
to hand these reports to our two witnesses today just so I can have a recollection of their
memory. As America may or may not know, Democrats refused to sign on to the Republican
report. Instead, they decided to adopt minority views, filled with collusion conspiracy
theories. Needless to say, it is entirely possible for two separate nations to engage in
election meddling at the same time, and Republicans believe we should take meddling seriously
by all foreign countries regardless of which campaign is the target.
The latest (2019) Reuters international survey in which over 2,000 people in each one of 38
countries were asked whether they agree that "You
can trust most news most of the time" shows that the United States scores #32 out of the
38, at the very top of the bottom 16% of all of the 38 countries surveyed, regarding trust in
the news-media. Reuters had previously found, in their
2018 edition , that, among Americans, "those who identify on the left (49%) have almost
three times as much trust in the news as those on the right (17%). The left gave their support
to newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times while the right's alienation from
mainstream media has become ever more entrenched." In the 2019 edition, what had been 49% in
America rose now to 53%, and what had been 17% sank now to 9%: the billionaires' (i.e.,
mainstream) media are trusted almost only by liberals here. What the media report is considered
trustworthy almost only by liberals, in today's America. By 53% to only 9% -- an almost 6 to 1
ratio -- the skeptics of the billionaires' press are Republicans. Of course, if the media are
distrusted, then the nation can't be functioning as a democracy. But the media will be
distrusted if they lie as much as America's do. Untrusted 'news'-media are a sure indication
that the nation is a dictatorship (such as it is if the billionaires control the media) . In
America, only liberals think that America is a democracy and therefore might possess the basic
qualification (democracy) to decide what nations need to be regime-changed (such as America did
to Iran, Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Bolivia, and is still trying to do to Venezuela, Cuba,
Nicaragua, Iran again, Syria, and Yemen; but not to -- for examples -- Saudi Arabia, UAE, and
Israel); and which ones don't (such as America's governmentally-annointed 'allies', including
some barbaric dictatorships). Liberals trust America's dictatorship as if it were instead a democracy.
Conservatives do not; nor, of course, do progressives. FDR's vision, of a United Nations which
would set and enforce the rules for international relations (neither the U.S. nor any other
country would do that), is now even more rejected by the Democratic Party than it is by the
Republican Party. And the politically topsy-turvy result is Democrats trying to impeach the
Republican Trump for his trying to cut back on Obama's imperialistic ( anti -FDR) agenda.
Trump, after all, didn't do the coup to Ukraine; Obama did
.
The same reason they give it to most countries - there is no oversight once the funds are transferred, then have kickbacks
funnelled into private accounts that belong to the very politicians who argue for the aid. That's one way these scumbag career
pols become multimillionaires.
The "NATO crowd" (aka neocon sh*t bags, aka 'the war party') is always still fighting the last war. NATO is totally obsolete
agents irrelevant. Wars are no longer fought with arms bombs & bullets. The NATO crowd are all fascists wearing american colors.....
they don't really care about america or her values. They only care about power; their bankrupt vision. They don't care what uniform
their SS storm troopers wear as long as they can be the chess players moving the pieces
The meaning of the events in Ukraine in 2014 is very simple. In 2014, a group of Ukrainian oligarchs of Jewish nationality
(Poroshenko-Valtsman, Kolomoisky, Rabinovich, ... + the entire Rada of 2014, consisting mainly of ethnic Jews) carried out a coup
(read - treason), violated the Constitution, overthrew the democratically elected president , made a provocation in the form of
murder (with the assistance of hired Polish, Georgian, American snipers) people on the Maidan from both sides, declared Russian-speaking
Ukrainians in the east of the country as second-class people + arranged terror with the help of Nazis from Galicia and Volhynia,
hired by Kolomoisky's money and obeying him (the Nazis obey a *** - a "funny" fact), they burned 297 people alive in Odessa (3
of them children and 1 and a pregnant woman), and then ~ 300 more people were killed on the streets (in total ~ 600 people were
killed that day in Odessa).
The beautiful Jewish boy (Zelensky), who portrays the president of Ukraine, is a protege of Kolomoisky (like Obama was the
protege of Chicago bankers), Ukraine's gold reserves in New York, gas transit from Russia is lost, relations with Russians are
completely lost, the United States got into the "Ukrainian swamp like a pigs in the mud".
Bottom line: Only Zionist Jews won in the United States and the former Ukraine, all the rest lost.
People will judge the Zionists as the German National Socialists for their crimes in the international trebunal, because
now according to the methods of doing business, American Zionism is no different from German National Socialism. If our American
and Israeli Jewish friends do not like this, what can I say? These are your problems, for crimes against humanity you will be
responsible and you will not get out of this.
"The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and was therefore extremely hostile
toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on the front line of
America's war to conquer Russia ."
And THIS is exactly what its all about.
Liberals supporting this insanity are now imperialist boot lickers. When war on Russia comes, every Dem voter should be immediately
sent to Ukraine to fight on the front lines.
Democrats get away with this because for 8 years MSM and the political elite white washed or were silent on Obama war crimes.
The sheep know not what they do and if they do: **** THEM
The entire history of man has been centered around the politic class skimming money off the working class. Although the current
exposition may phrase some particular politic, the virus at large is incurable.
Eric Ciamarella has close ties with Joe Biden and obviously knows all about his corruption
and collaboration with Ukraine's Nazis. He is a registered Dem.
Ciaramella travelled with Biden to Kiev and was invited by Biden to lunch at the White
House, a very unusual event for a low level CIA "analyst" indicating Ciamarella has political
connections above his CIA rank.
Ciaramella also has close links to John Brennan - the primary pusher of the Russiagate Hoax
from within the Obama Regime in 2016.
Brennan set up a CIA Task Force in late 2015 or early 2016 to target Trump and prevent him
winning the election, in what has become known as "Spygate".
Brennan conspired with the FBI, British Intelligence (MI6/MI5) and GCHQ to illegally spy on
Trump and members of his campaign.
This also involved entrapment operations and attempted smears against General Michael Flynn,
George Papadopoulos and Trump himself using long time CIA asset Stefan Halper (who was paid $1m
by Obama), MI6/MI5 asset Joseph Mifsud and long term FBI/CIA informer (since ~1999) and loose
Trump associate Felix Sater.
There was also of course MI6 agent Christopher Steele's Fake "Dossier". Nothing in the
Steele dossier is true, except for Carter Page's visit to an oil investment conference in
Moscow in mid 2016, as part of his job as an Oil Investment Consultant. This information has
always been freely available on the net and was known to the CIA and the FBI at the time.
Carter Page was regular debriefed by, and freely cooperated with, U.S. Intelligence after each
of his regular visits to Russia
The above is the REAL Foreign Meddling in the 2016 election.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever of any Russian government meddling in the 2016 US
election (see below).
The CFR is the leading Globalist organization funded by Big Banks, large Multinationals and
Oligarchs and works directly against the best interests of the 99% of ordinary Americans (and
everyone else on the planet).
Ciaramella also has close links with Dem Operative Alexandra Chalupa who went to the Ukraine
Embassy in DC in early 2016, asking for them to dig up any dirt they could find on Manafort or
Trump.
This is another remnant for Bush neocon team, a protégé of Bolton. Trump probably voluntarily appointed this rabid neocon, a
chickenhawk who would shine in Hillary State Department.
Interestingly she came from working class background. So much about Marx theory of class struggle. Brown, David (March 4, 2017).
"Miner's daughter
tipped as Trump adviser on Russia" . The Times.
She also illustrate level pf corruption of academic science, because she got
PhD in history from Harvard in 1998 under Richard
Pipes, Akira Iriye, and
Roman Szporluk. But at least this was history, not
languages like in case of Ciaramella.
Such appointment by Trump is difficult to describe with normal words as he understood what he is buying. So he is himself to blame for his current troubles and his inability
to behave in a diplomatic way when there was important to him question about role of CrowdStrike in 2016 election and creation of Russiagate
witch hunt.
There is something in the USA that creates conditions for producing rabid female neocons, some elevator that brings ruthless female
careerists with sharp elbows them to the establishment. She sounds like a person to the right of Madeline Albright, which is an achievement
With such books It is unclear whether she is different from Max Boot. She buys official Skripal story like hook and sinker. The
list of her book looks like produced in UK by Luke Harding
Being miner daughter raised in poverty we can also talk about betrayal of her class and upbringing.
This also rises wisdom of appointing emigrants to the Administration and the extent they pursue policies beneficial for their
native countries.
She testified in public before the same body on November 21, 2019. [12] While being
questioned by Steve Castor , the counsel for the House Intelligence
Committee's Republican minority, Hill commented on Gordon
Sondland 's involvement in the Ukraine matter: "It struck me when (Wednesday), when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland's
emails, and who was on these emails, and he said these are the people who need to know, that he was absolutely right," she said.
"Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And
those two things had just diverged." [13] In response
to a question from that committee's chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff
, Hill stated: "The Russians' interests are frankly to delegitimize our entire presidency. The goal of the Russians [in 2016]
was really to put whoever became the president -- by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale -- under a cloud."
[
Ukraine became a geopolitical pawn. In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
Notable quotes:
"... This unique situation gave Zelenskiy and his team the opportunity to kick-start an ambitious programme of policy and law-making in both domestic and foreign affairs. But rather than sustaining popular enthusiasm for his new approach to politics, the so-called turbo-regime of rapid policy and legislative change has already had a sobering effect on the Ukrainian public and triggered the first public protests against Zelenskiy. ..."
"... Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in light of this domestic opposition. ..."
"... Since then, Zelenskiy has reiterated his commitment to achieving a deal, visiting the disengagement zone and ordering those war veterans who actively oppose the agreed withdrawal to disarm. In another sign of progress, government and rebel forces have also started withdrawing from the village of Petrivske. If this direction of travel continues, a meeting of Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany in the so-called Normandy format of negotiations could be back on the agenda and Donbas could be set for elections. However, a recent survey in the east indicates a deep divide remains on what people want for the region's future. ..."
"... The high public trust that Zelenskiy still enjoys as president and the hopes that a majority of Ukrainians still have for positive changes under his administration have so far prevented more and growing mass protests. However, the government's program of domestic reform for 2020 could change this. ..."
"... At the same time, "de-oligarchisation" is proceeding slowly. The return from self-imposed exile of Igor Kolomoyskiy, Zelenskiy's principal backer in the presidential campaign, has intensified oligarchic turf wars, pitting Kolomoyskiy against another businessman Rinat Akhmetov, and his increasing power base in the east. This power struggle further contributes to continuing instability in Ukraine and decreases the near-term prospects of the political clean up and economic recovery that Zelenskiy had promised. ..."
"... A deteriorating socio-economic situation and lack of visible and tangible progress on "de-oligarchisation" will not only affect already radicalised veterans but could also galvanise a much larger cross-section of Ukraine's population into yet another mass protest movement. ..."
"... Ukraine's continuing domestic instability is, in part, driven by the larger geopolitical game of competitive influence seeking between Russia and the West in the contested post-Soviet neighbourhood. ..."
"... For the time being, Zelenskiy still enjoys very high levels of public support of around 70 percent of respondents in one survey published in early October. Worryingly, however, only 42 percent of these respondents trust his government and 47 percent trust his parliamentary faction. ..."
"... Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests, like those which drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's continuing instability: Russia. ..."
"... The Maidan coup was staged and orchestrated largely by the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, and the U.S. Department of State with the likely assistance of the British Secret Service. The staged Maidan Revolution and coup against a democratically-elected president was the real aggression in Ukraine; the Russians naturally reacted to this aggression by protecting their self-interest and their defensively strategic warm-water flank, Crimea. ..."
"... But Gabbard has been dumped on daily since she announced she was running, by who? Hillary the Billionaire (yes! billionaire!) and the NYT that she controls policy-wise via a little clutch of her billionaire intimates and NYT stockholders and power brokers from Ariadne Getty to Barry Diller. They are super-rich militants from NY and Hollywood and Wall Street, primarily backing Buttigeig. ..."
"... Eventually, there is going to have to be a negotiated settlement between the breakaway republics and whichever puppet is the president in Kiev. The longer the wait till such negotiations start, the worse conditions will get in rump Ukraine. Russia has no advantage in whether negotiations start this year, next year or some distant point in the future. ..."
"... How does Russia win with an unstable Ukraine on it's western border? ..."
"... His western partners the cia and soros ngos are his problem, I do hope he can succeed but the powers to be are against him and the Ukraine citizens. ..."
The country's new president faces a series of domestic and foreign policy challenges reminiscent, though not identical, to the
events that preceded the 2013 Euromaidan, write Stefan Wolff and Tatyana Malyarenko.
It's been six years since the start of the Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine, which led to the
ousting of then-President Viktor Yanukovych. By the time his successor Petro Poroshenko
was elected in May 2014, the domestic political scene in Ukraine and the geopolitical dynamics in the contested EU-Russia neighbourhood
surrounding it had fundamentally altered
.
Today, the country's new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who
replaced Poroshenko in April 2019, is now facing a series of domestic and foreign policy challenges reminiscent, though not identical,
to the events that preceded the 2013 Euromaidan.
Presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine in April and July 2019 created a political situation in Ukraine with an unprecedented
concentration of political power. Zelenskiy and his Servant of the People party have a majority in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's
parliament, and so complete control over
the appointment of the government . The president also
separately
appointed the prosecutor general, the minister of foreign affairs and the minister of defence.
This unique situation gave Zelenskiy and his team the opportunity to kick-start an ambitious programme of policy and law-making
in both domestic and foreign affairs. But rather than sustaining popular enthusiasm for his new approach to politics, the so-called
turbo-regime of rapid policy and legislative change has already had a sobering effect on the Ukrainian public and triggered the first
public protests against Zelenskiy.
Foreign Policy Controversy
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to
accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern Ukraine
resulted in an outcry
from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively
short-lived, but prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became
more remote
in light of this domestic opposition.
Ukraine, Russia, and the separatists
also disagreed over who needed to fulfill which preconditions for negotiations, when and in what sequence.
Since then, Zelenskiy has reiterated his commitment to achieving a deal, visiting the disengagement zone and
ordering those war veterans who actively oppose the
agreed withdrawal to disarm. In another sign of progress, government and rebel forces
have also started withdrawing from the village of Petrivske. If this direction of travel continues, a meeting of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany in the so-called Normandy format of negotiations
could be back on the agenda and Donbas could be set for elections. However, a
recent survey in the east indicates a deep divide remains on what people want for the region's future.
Opinion polls from September show that 23 percent of Ukrainians support military confrontation in eastern Ukraine, up from 17
percent a few months previously. As the prospects of reintegration increase under Zelenskiy's administration, so does domestic opposition
to it.
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary factions, European Solidarity and Voice,
whose supporters are predominantly located in western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary
groups composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
The initial motivation of these veterans to protest may have been what they saw as Zelenskiy's
alleged surrender by entering into direct talks with Russia. Zelenskiy has directly confronted them now by ordering them to withdraw
from the disengagement zone, but their opposition to the president's plans
continues .
Domestic Dissatisfaction
What might prove particularly dangerous for Zelenskiy is a possible convergence of so far distinct political camps that oppose
different policies of the new government. If the veterans who are at odds with Zelenskiy over his foreign policy choices were to
join forces with those who oppose him over a number of controversial domestic policies, the potential for destabilisation would significantly
increase.
The high public trust that Zelenskiy still enjoys as president and the hopes that a majority of Ukrainians still have for
positive changes under his administration have so far prevented more and growing mass protests. However, the
government's program of domestic reform
for 2020 could change this.
Proposed budget cuts will particularly
affect public spending on healthcare, education, social security, and local governance.
New labor laws will curtail the rights of employees. A land
privatization bill, also planned for 2020, has proved
highly
unpopular as people fear a repeat of the highly corrupt post-Soviet privatization process in the 1990s when criminal groups (some
of them linked to current oligarchs) managed to capture the main Soviet industrial assets at the expense of the population at large.
In our view, these measures may, in the long term, contribute to turning Ukraine into a more stable and better functioning state.
However, their short-term consequences include decreasing social standards, higher unemployment, and a
continuation of Ukraine's brain and skills drain.
About 1m people leave Ukraine every year.
At the same time, "de-oligarchisation" is proceeding slowly. The
return from self-imposed
exile of Igor Kolomoyskiy, Zelenskiy's principal backer in the presidential campaign, has intensified oligarchic turf wars, pitting
Kolomoyskiy against another businessman Rinat Akhmetov, and his increasing power base in the east. This
power struggle
further contributes to continuing instability in Ukraine and decreases the near-term prospects of the political clean up and
economic recovery that Zelenskiy had promised.
A deteriorating socio-economic situation and lack of visible and tangible progress on "de-oligarchisation" will not only
affect already radicalised veterans but could also galvanise a much larger cross-section of Ukraine's population into yet another
mass protest movement.
Geopolitical Reset?
Ukraine's continuing domestic instability is, in part, driven by the larger geopolitical game of
competitive influence seeking between
Russia and the West in the contested post-Soviet neighbourhood.
By being drawn
into the domestic politics of the U.S. and the ongoing impeachment
inquiry of Donald Trump , Zelenskiy has exposed Ukraine's vulnerability to external pressure, including from its Western partners.
Add to this Trump's personal antipathy to Ukraine (allegedly
describing it
as a "corrupt country full of terrible people") and the willingness of European leaders
to reset relations with Russia, and Ukraine's room for manoeuvre
appears even more diminished.
If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West on whose support it continues
to depend heavily, including for
the implementation of much-needed domestic reforms.
For the time being, Zelenskiy still enjoys very high levels of public support of around 70 percent of respondents in
one survey published in early October. Worryingly, however, only 42 percent of these respondents trust his government and 47
percent trust his parliamentary faction.
Zelenskiy's own approval ratings also dropped from their previous high of around 80 percent by 10 percent in early September after
he secured a prisoner exchange with Russia. This indicates
that political capital may be ebbing away from the reform project with which he is identified because
popular expectations of fast and painless change cannot be met by Ukraine's new political class.
Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests,
like those which
drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's continuing instability:
Russia.
The views expressed are solely those of the authors and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Before commenting please read Robert Parry's Comment Policy . Allegations unsupported by
facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers
will be removed. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security reasons,
please refrain from inserting links in your comments.
The U.S.A. and the D.O.D. should not have American military trainers and advisors stationed in Ukraine nor should our government
be providing war material (some of it lethal) to the government of Ukraine. This military aid threatens the stability of the entire
region. The flagrant aggression of the U.S. A., Great Britain, and NATO into Ukraine's domestic affairs is a textbook example
of blatant balance-of-power geopolitics. As usual, this aggression is being directed and driven by such think tanks as the Atlantic
Council, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and its junior American partner, the Council on Foreign relations. This
is a dangerous game that these two leading NATO countries are playing.
The Maidan coup was staged and orchestrated largely by the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, and
the U.S. Department of State with the likely assistance of the British Secret Service. The staged Maidan Revolution and coup against
a democratically-elected president was the real aggression in Ukraine; the Russians naturally reacted to this aggression by protecting
their self-interest and their defensively strategic warm-water flank, Crimea.
Ukraine has an extremely diverse set of cultures and ethnicities within its borders. It has never been a truly independent
and unified nation. Throughout is long history that stretches back into antiquity it has been a battleground and a highway for
invading armies in both directions. NATO's gradual buildup in Ukraine follows in the footsteps of Napoleon and Hitler. Stephen
F. Cohen's new edition of "War with Russia?" is coming out in January 2020. Whether you agree with Professor Cohen's premises
for his argument it is worth taking a look at this gentleman's argument.
The U.S. military should depart immediately from Ukraine and the USG should stop funding Ukraine's government with any military
aid and assistance. Ukraine is looking a lot like the early pre-war stages in Vietnam. Nevertheless, Ukraine's governing system
is far more corrupt than the governing system of South Vietnam ever was.
Eugenie Basile , November 21, 2019 at 05:20
It is true that the only winner of the first Maidan was Russia. It got rid of a totally corrupt and financially broke snake
pit called Ukraine, while managing to secure Crimea and the strategic military port of Sevastopol. Now it is up to the EU and
US revolution organisers to keep on distributing cookies in order to prevent a total collapse of what is left of a divided country.
If a second Maidan occurs that would be a way for the West to get out of there in a hurry. The West has more to win than Russia,
this time.
Jimmy gates , November 21, 2019 at 01:19
CN live coverage of this, coupled with Oliver Stones two films "Ukraine on Fire " and "Revealing Ukraine " should help clear
up the confusion and crap that has been ladled on the public for over five years.
What we are seeing is not only a coup in Ukraine, but the destabilization of both the US and Russia in the stages of coup.
Crazily, the possibles for peace might be the collapse of the impeachment hoax and exposure of the plot that went haywire: that
two game show hosts were elected, in the US and Ukraine. The gods must be crazy.
Bob , November 22, 2019 at 03:20
Question; What happens now with Gazprom's offer to extend for another year the present contract due to lapse soon? Will the
new Prez be allowed to accept or even negotiate the offer?
Anonymot , November 20, 2019 at 22:16
The very small, but vigorous group who object loudly and the small, but vicious group that want to go to war over the Russian
province are probably the same crowd who were paid by our corrupt and one-eyed backers of the coup in the first place. Permanent
war is not desired by any citizenry anywhere, just those who sit in offices and decide by hocus pocus that it's a good idea. Our
one-eyed people (yes, there are some blood thirsty women at the top, too) need a pair of one-eye-correcting glasses. One-eyedness
causes a loss, not of vision so much as perspective.
Either they have made a brainless mess and lost everywhere they have initiated war since Korea or else endless wars and permanent
conflict are their policies. The latter is as stupid as the former. In each case, there is nothing realistically to be done to
stop it. It is ingrained into the way our entire political parties think as well as into the entire class of decision-makers in
each and every one of Washington's agencies. It's a mindset, not a few people. It was just as much both Clintons and Obama as
it was the Bush and Cheney gang. Trump is a wee bit special, because he has that mindset, but he's also foul and intellectually
retarded.
Note that those we prefer, Sanders, Warren, have not even whispered beyond a platitude here and there about foreign policy,
foreign affairs or foreign wars. The sole person who is running with a presidential mindset is strangely enough, a woman warrior,
Tulsi Gabbard! And her platform is to break up that mindset and deal with competitors with all of the strength this country has
left via diplomacy – and with peace as a goal. She also has her own progressive, but realistic domestic platform.
But Gabbard has been dumped on daily since she announced she was running, by who? Hillary the Billionaire (yes! billionaire!)
and the NYT that she controls policy-wise via a little clutch of her billionaire intimates and NYT stockholders and power brokers
from Ariadne Getty to Barry Diller. They are super-rich militants from NY and Hollywood and Wall Street, primarily backing Buttigeig.
The kind of intelligence, thoughtfulness, and independence that Gabbard has is anathema to The Bushes and Clintons, the Deep
State folks.
Otherwise there will be and endless supply of think tankers and one-eyed profs to stir up pots like Kiev and Zelenskis ad infinitum.
Robert Carl Miller , November 20, 2019 at 20:29
The US orchestrated the coup of 2014 using the fascists already in Ukraine and Ukrainian Americans (and children and grandchildren)
who were OUN-B and were brought to the US under the Crusade For Freedom. The first generation were stone-cold fascists who fought
alongside the Nazis during their invasion of the USSR. The current DNC/CIA alliance has planned for Ukraine to heat up the cold
war with Russia.
The problem is that the Ukrainian army is broken and aside from the fascist units most average Ukrainians don't want to fight
the Russians or their brothers in Donbas. The US is calculating that its military aid and some unmentioned US troops will be able
to overcome the Donbas by force. If the US and Ukraine somehow draw Russia into this fight, which is exactly what the US militarists
want, there will be one of two outcomes: Either Ukraine will be wiped out quickly by Russian forces or there will be a nuclear
war.
As Russia finishes its Nord Stream 2 and with multiple other gas pipelines in the works to feed Europe's energy needs the US
energy industry, which constructed LNG terminals along the Atlantic Coast, has seen its dreams dashed. No longer does selling
LNG to Europe make any economic sense for.
Wait! We spent 5 Billion on regime change, a color revolution that succeeded only because we hired neo-Nazi shock troops to
spearhead the ouster of Yanukovych, a duly elected oligarch. Months later, after Ukraine's public sector had crumbled, in came
Biden with Burisma and Cargill with its GMO, which highlighted the neoliberal intentions behind the Western coup sponsorship.
Fortunes were made in the energy and agricultural sector, during the same winter that many Ukrainians were without enough heat
and food. But, that 's neoliberalism for you. Their suffering was just what we intended.
The civil unrest began only when Yanukovych rejected the EU-IMF austerity package in the November preceding the February coup
d'etat. That package required that Ukraine assist NATO militarily, buy weapons from US defense contractors, cut pensions, cut
social services, and slash the already tattered safety net while privatizing commonly held state assets. But, interestingly enough,
it required Ukraine to increase its military spending
The world bankers were intent upon squeezing the last bit of juice left in the Ukrainian turnip, In other words, we wanted
Yanukovych to become as pliant as the drunken Yeltsin was in the hands of Bill Clinton in 1993, which marked the beginning of
a disastrous and deadly decade for the Russian Federation.
Instead, Yanukovych, sounding the death knell for his own regime, rejected the EU -IMF austerity package, compounding this
mortal sin by signing an energy deal with the Russian Federation, which agreed to finance Ukrainian debt at 5% when international
bankers were charging 12% to finance this crippled country's loan. Putin was actually nicer to this basket case than we were,
though his motives are not altruistic, though perhaps not as draped in pretext as our own.
All the above is true and verifiable, but no one in the Lamestream Corporate Media, which includes MSNBC as well as FOX, will
report the current Ukrainian crisis in the context of the above facts. Those who master the world economy, having already mastered
the politicians and the media, can dominate and set the parameters of the debate without notice or without drawing attention to
themselves and their agendas.
vinnieoh , November 21, 2019 at 12:28
John: Very good to remind us of these facts. I too remember that as Ukraine floundered in bankruptcy both Russia and the EU/US
proffered competing $15b rescue packages. Thanks for revealing the contrasting details of those offerings, which I wasn't fully
aware of.
As many here have already noted, how does it favor Russia to have a broken, unstable neighbor on its border? Even before these
authors served up that closing bon motte, their claim that the usual austerity cruelty measures of the IMF, WB, etc. will "in
the end" help Ukraine, was a dead giveaway.
And I am head-scratchingly curious why CN would post a piece such as this. To give us some light entertainment, like shooting
ducks in a barrel? I do agree with one of the authors' assertions though, that Zelenskiy's situation is precarious, as is anyone,
anywhere the US is intent on spreading its tentacles.
So Zelenskiy wins an election by 70% on a platform to normalize relations with Russia and in addition his Servant of the People
party have a majority in the Verkhovna Rada. What is the threat he faces? What "challenge"? Is the writer thinking of the extremists
from western Ukraine rising again to produce a new anti-Russia hate-fest on Maidan, supported by the usual western meddlers? Not
many of the comments seem very convinced.
Mark Thomason , November 20, 2019 at 15:48
The Maidan events were protest against specific problems. None of those problems have changed. They have not even been addressed.
It has just been revolving abusers, "new boss same as the old boss."
Overlaid on that has been war, and all that entails, draining what remained of Ukraine's hopes.
The West has seen in that only what it wanted to see, which has little to do with what motivated the Maidan events. Those were
used, manipulated by the West, not addressed or helped.
The new guy could do better, perhaps only because he could hardly do worse. However, to say it might all blow up on him is
only to say that pressure has been building since failure of the last effort, and someday it is likely to blow.
Anna , November 20, 2019 at 12:34
"Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well there will only be one winner
from Ukraine's continuing instability: Russia." By Stefan Wolff, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham
and Tatyana Malyarenko, a professor of international relations at the National University Odesa Law Academy.
Why does the tenor of this article bring to mind the Integrity Initiative? See: mintpressnews.com/the-integrity-initiative-and-the-uks-scandalous-information-war/253014/
"The Integrity Initiative claims that it is "counter[ing] Russian disinformation and malign influence," and indeed, the main players
behind it appear intent on hyping the Russian threat to justify ramped up military budgets and a long-term war footing."
Guy , November 20, 2019 at 12:31
The deep state will continue to milk this Ukraine nightmare for their continuous mfg.of weapons and creating animosities between
the West and Russia. The deep divisions within Ukraine will play into the hands of the nefarious ones that crave chaos, the destroyers
of nations.
TimN , November 20, 2019 at 08:20
I see I'm not the person who was flummoxed by the conclusion of the article. The biggest outside obstacle to peace and stability
is the "West," of course. The "West?" You mean the US. Say that, not the euphemism.
Guy , November 20, 2019 at 13:11
I know what you mean and I hear you, as I am just as guilty of using the term "West" .It is the US which is driving this nightmare
and not the total of Western nations either .Both the Democrats and the Republicans are really not in control of the governance
of the United States .That control of the corrupted system as I see it ,is politically and judicially .The recently disclosed
Epstein pedophilia affair which is now clear that it had/has CIA and Mossad connections leads me to believe most of the politicians
and the legal system apparatus is deeply compromised and therefore have lost all control of good and fair governance if ever there
was such a thing .
Good point though ,it has become a habit to blame the West when in reality just certain factors of the West .I would certainly
include the UK in with the US as both being very compromised .
Donald Duck , November 20, 2019 at 05:45
The present situation in Ukraine is just how the US/EU wanted it. A permanent irritant on Russia's western borders. Unfortunately
this means that Ukraine is a malfunctioning state – the poorest in Europe – which is literally bleeding people at the rate described.
As a failed state Ukraine is going deeper into a hole of poverty and misery which will eventually lead to a national disintegration
as the various oblasts decided to go their own way.
Hans Zandvliet , November 19, 2019 at 21:49
It sounds to me like a rather russophobic article, like very many Ukranians are. I find it quite srtiking that the authors
are still using the term Maidan Revolution, while Stratfor's CEO George Friedman called it "the most blatant coup in history".
Anyone who still has doubts that it was a coup should watch Oliver Stone's documentary "Ukraine on Fire"
Russia is not even a signatory of the Minsk Agreements. Russia, just like France and Germany were only mediators in the negotiations
between the ethnic Russians of the Donbas region and the fascist regime in Kiev. Russia has absolutely nothing to "win" from a
divided and failed Ukrainian state on its borders. To Russia it's just a pain in the arse, which is what the military industrial
complex in Washington has gained by their Ukrainian coup.
John A , November 20, 2019 at 10:37
Exactly. As a rule of thumb, if an article uses 'Kyiv', a recent Ukrainianisation of the long accepted 'Kiev' in English, it
is going to be anti-Russia.
Eventually, there is going to have to be a negotiated settlement between the breakaway republics and whichever puppet is
the president in Kiev. The longer the wait till such negotiations start, the worse conditions will get in rump Ukraine. Russia
has no advantage in whether negotiations start this year, next year or some distant point in the future.
Alan MacDonald , November 19, 2019 at 21:47
Promising situation for new alignment of interests
DavidH , November 19, 2019 at 20:58
Something doesn't seem right.
If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West on whose support it continues to depend heavily, including for the implementation of
much-needed domestic reforms.
If the majority elected him to end the war, why would it play well domestically? There seems to be a wave of this, and then
a wave of that. Sort of same picture in Bolivia too.
Thanks to CN and the writers for news we never hear (though we certainly should). Great embeds too. How's the new prosecutor
doing? And how is the war in the east presently being fought? I think I heard remarks on these things on Loud&Clear. But
I switched to a "hotspot" in August. Was thinking then that all Loud&Clear shows were "saveable" and also that "CN Live!" was
saveable the former aren't, the latter only a few. And turns out I don't always feel like going out after work seeking free YiFi
to stream all this stuff while I'm sit'n in a joint like I imagined I would. So, for me for the most part it's gotta be in "print."
It would be nice if yall could do like Nader's Radio Hour, and make all the old CN Lives saveable.
Consortiumnews.com , November 19, 2019 at 22:05
Every minute of every episode of CN Live! can be found on our YouTube page.
Personanongrata , November 19, 2019 at 19:27
Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests,
like those which drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's
continuing instability: Russia.
How does Russia win with an unstable Ukraine on it's western border?
AnneR , November 20, 2019 at 08:17
You have pointed out to me – thank you – another crystal clear indicator that these two authors are anti-Russian, profoundly
so.
It absolutely does not favor Russia to have an unstable, chaotic, fascist and US supported, instigated, militarized Ukraine
on its border. That is utter baloney, and they have to know that.
After all, that was one of the reasons for Soviet Russia spreading beyond its national borders after WWII – to create a buffer
zone against any more invasions from the west, to stop western nations killing Russians by the millions, to stop any attempt by
the west to grab Russian resources (still on NATO's cards).
Russia wants a peaceful, friendly neighbor, borderland country – not a virulent, dangerous chaotic mess one.
jo6pac , November 19, 2019 at 19:07
"Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well"
His western partners the cia and soros ngos are his problem, I do hope he can succeed but the powers to be are against
him and the Ukraine citizens.
RJB , November 19, 2019 at 18:01
What does Russia gain by Ukraine's continued instability?
luke , November 19, 2019 at 16:35
Poor analysis. Am I as a working class lad seriously that much more informed than a professor whos life should be dedicated
to studying this?
No mention of the US involvement in the coup. No mention of the word coup. No mention of fascists, the term used to describe
US armed autonomous fascist battalions was 'right wing militias'. Top it off with the opinion that neoliberal budget cuts will
eventually help things, because a quick look at the history books tells us no such thing.
Makes me think of a professor I know who told me how proud he was that the US has the freedom to make a film documenting Cheney's
war crimes.
I responded that it made me sick that he could watch such films and still be a pathetic apologist.
He shrugged it off and went back to his overpaid position poisoning the youth. If he had the opinions I have, he wouldn't be
a professor though would he?
vinnieoh , November 21, 2019 at 11:54
luke: You are my father.
Remember all the hokum and "experts" paraded on the MSM during W's assault on Iraq? There was one ever-present talking head
from the ME (I've forgotten his name) that was so obviously a US boot-licker that he made me nauseous each time I saw him.
Very good observations and comment.
Martin - Swedish citizen , November 19, 2019 at 15:59
Thank you for this overview. It is good that the corruption and economic disaster are pointed out – as they have been in polls
as the biggest problem in the minds of the citizens. 1 million emigrants per year is a catastrophe.
You write:
"If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West "
As you explain, this would please the far right (fascist) paramilitary groups and extreme nationalists from Galicia and Volhynia,
quite a small minority.
How about the Russian-speaking half or more of Ukrainians and the Russian ethnic group, making up a majority? Those who share
most of their culture with citizens of Russia? That have lots of ties there?
Because of this and also common sense, wouldn't many think that peace and stability with Russia would benefit Ukraine?
What do you see that Russia stands to gain from continued problems in Ukraine? Surely, Russia (and Ukraine) would be much better
off with peace, safety, stability and close ties and trade between these very close sibling nations.
This concluding remark lacks argument, is reasonably unfounded and quite simply silly.
Martin - Swedish citizen , November 19, 2019 at 16:02
To clarify: with "This concluding remark", I mean the concluding remark in the article, that only Russia stands to win.
Jeff Harrison , November 19, 2019 at 15:43
In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
The most interesting part of testimony is that CrowdStrike machinations in case of DNC leak which was artificially turns into
Russian hack (and probably not without Crowdstyle server located in Ukraine). As this is connected to Steel which is a hot
spot for the UK government was swiped under the carpet.
She actually met with Steele. She was shown Steele dossier before it was published.
CrowdStrike was mentioned only is passing and was instantly dismissed by rabid neocon Hill.
While this was the central issue with Zelensky administration.
All questioning was about semi-senile Biden, who is probably the most favorable contender on
Democratic side for Trump.
What Levin outlines is not only a poorly manufactured impeachment inquisition, it is a
grossly incompetent seditious coup attempt! God bless Pelosi, Schiff, Clinton, DNC, and
Mainstream/Big Tech Media's boundless hubris. ROTFL... They have given President Donald J.
Trump and Conservatives a contribution and gift that is priceless. #WINNING #TRUMP2020 #KAG
"> Make no mistake about it, House Democrats in their TDS hatred for Trump and his
successful policies, employing not just the Obama DOJ-FBI, CIA weaponized govt power for the
past 2-3 years, but their entire DC Deep State cabal of bureaucratic apparatchik ideologue
zealots and their MSMedia propagandists, are waging an all out open war against Pres Trump,
We the American People, our US Constitutional Republic. Here's a point of fact which you
radical anti-American Democrat Leftists do not realize and cannot comprehend about Pres Trump
- he does not care 1 iota about your personal attacks against him, and why, because he is not
working for himself, he is working for America, for the hard working men and women across the
country. Unlike you radical politically criminally corrupt Democrats, Pres Trump's service to
and for the country as President is selfless, thus any personal attacks and attempts to
destroy him, or politcally stain his record and presidency is thus a mute point, a useless
endeavor. Not only will Pres Trump be victorious in defeating Pelosi and Schiff's Stalinist
Tribunal Impeachment sham in the House, he will be vindicated in the US Senate, and most
assuredly come Nov 2020, We the American working voting people across the country will not
only re-elect Pres Trump in a massive landslide victory, but we will be handing down our
electoral verdict on House Democrats - In the words of Donald Trump: You're FIRED ! While
Democrats have spent their entire 2019 year in Congress trying to investigate and
destroy-impeach Pres Trump, Pres Trump in less than 3 years created the greatest massive
growing economy in US history - Economic Financial Prosperity Growth for the working men and
women across the country from Mainstreet to Wall Street, with massive Tax Reform-Across the
board Corporate and Individual Taxes Cuts, doubling family deductibles.. Massively slashing
Obama's suffocating Regulatory State.. Renegotiated International Trade Deals with Canada,
Mexico, India, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China - imposing tariffs.. Resurrected US
Steel and Aluminium Manufacturing industry in the Rust Belt States from the brink of death.
Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal Energy Production at record breaking all time levels, becoming
Energy Independent, all of which has reduced unemployment to lowest levels for Blacks,
Hispanics, Asians, and Women post WW2. See you at Pres Donald J. Trump's massive landslide
re-election victory party and your complete ignominious political destruction and defeat
!
"... Trump also said that he wants Schiff to testify more than Hunter Biden , and repeated his claim that former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "not an angel" and that she was speaking poorly of him to others. ..."
"... Trump repeated the claim that the hacked DNC server was given to Crowdstrike, "a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian." ..."
Bring It On! Trump Wants Senate Trial 'Of Some Length' If House Impeaches by Tyler Durden Fri, 11/22/2019 -
10:40 0 SHARES
After two weeks of public testimony revealed that Democrats' impeachment case against
President Donald Trump is largely made up of hurt feelings and foreign policy disagreements ,
the White House and allies say Trump is looking forward to a 'trial of some length' in the
Senate if the House votes to impeach so he can expose what a flimsy case has been built against
him.
"He wants to be able to bring up witnesses like Adam Schiff, like the whistleblower, like
Hunter Biden, like Joe Biden, " said Hogan Gidley, principal deputy press secretary for the
White House.
Trump spent much of Thursday and Friday tweeting highlights from recent impeachment
testimony:
On Thursday morning, a group of Republican senators met with White House counsel Pat
Cipollone, Kellyanne Conway, Jared Kushner and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to discuss
strategy for a potential Senate trial which would likely take place in January, according to
Politico .
Two attendees said that the White House wants the Senate to hold a trial of some length
and not immediately dismiss any articles of impeachment with the GOP's majority, as some
Republicans have suggested.
The White House and Trump's GOP allies decided instead "they want some kind of factual
affirmative defense on the merits , " said one attendee.
One attendee noted that the White House wants to show a commitment to due process,
particularly since Republicans have criticized House Democrats for how they've conducted
their impeachment proceedings.
... ... ...
A White House official said the meeting "wasn't so much about the details, it was about
the Democrats' weak case and we want to show just how weak it is ." -
Politico
President Trump, meanwhile, has been tweeting and retweeting highlights from the last week -
and spent nearly an hour with Fox and Friends on Friday where he said he knows "exactly" who
the
Ukraine whistleblower is . Trump also said that he wants Schiff to testify more than
Hunter Biden , and repeated his claim that former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "not
an angel" and that she was speaking poorly of him to others.
Trump also praised Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) for her performance during the public
impeachment hearings (23:40 in video above), as well as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) - tweeting and
retweeting clips related to Schiff's hearings.
After weeks of impeachment testimony by angry ambassadors and opinionated bureaucrats who
decided to take US foreign policy into their own hands, House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Adam Schiff (D-CA) failed to produce a single 'smoking gun' to use against President Trump.
Instead, the paper-tiger charade has fired up the Republican base and awakened a "sleeping
giant" of support for Trump - whose request that Ukraine
Instead, the paper-tiger charade has fired up the Republican base and awakened a "sleeping giant" of support for Trump -
whose request that Ukraine investigate seemingly obvious corruption by Joe and Hunter Biden set off a hornet's nest of triggered
Democrats which Nancy Pelosi warned against (before caving to her party), predicting this exact outcome.
Perhaps the Democrats don't realize that voters care more about finding out if Biden is corrupt than whether Trump would have
weaponized a negative outcome. That's called politics, and the American public hasn't forgotten that the Obama / Biden DOJ sent
spies into the Trump campaign based on a fabricated dossier assembled by a former UK spy.
And by failing to find impeachable evidence while shielding Biden from scrutiny in light of the failed Russiagate narrative,
Schiff may have turned Trump into a billionaire martyr.
To that end, The Hill's Joe Concha highlights poignant commentary by Fox News host Mark Levin, who says that Schiff has
awakened a "sleeping giant" of Republican support for Trump - comparing the Democratic lawmaker to WWII Japanese Admiral Isoruku
Yamamoto.
After we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto of Japan said, 'I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping
giant and fill him with a terrible resolve'," Levin told host Sean Hannity. "You know, Adam Schiff, you are in some ways Admiral
Yamamoto: You just awakened a sleeping giant. You threw everything you had at the president, at the Republicans, at 63 million
voters who voted for this president."
"This is the best you have? You have nothing," added Levin. "You are the Democratic Party's Yamamoto." "This was the weakest
conga line of hand-picked witnesses I've ever seen in any hearing at any time ... There's no smoking gun."
"... Ukraine is the largest nation in Europe, with a 1400 mile land border with Russia. The U.S. government under administrations since Bill Clinton's has sought to integrate Ukraine into the anti-Russian NATO military alliance. ..."
"... NATO forces were never deployed against Soviet or Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War. But Clinton (prompted by bellicose Hillary) used them to pound Serbian positions in Bosnia in the 1990s and to bomb Belgrade during the 1999 war to sever Kosovo from Serbia and convert it into a NATO base. ..."
"... For NATO strategists and supporters, Ukraine is the ultimate prize. ..."
"... After the coup of February 18-21, 2014, Aseniy Yatsenyuk, handpicked by Nuland, became prime minister ..."
"... After the February 2014 coup (depicted in the western press as a "revolution" toppling a "pro-Russian" leader), Ukraine informally joined the U.S. imperialist camp ..."
"... There is, in fact, no formal alliance, but Ukraine is now depicted as an ally, indeed one in desperate need of U.S. arms to resist the Russian invasion. ..."
Ukraine is the largest nation in Europe, with a 1400 mile land border with Russia. The U.S. government under administrations
since Bill Clinton's has sought to integrate Ukraine into the anti-Russian NATO military alliance.
NATO is an artifact of the early Cold War and the Truman Doctrine, vowing any means necessary to stop the spread of Communism.
Founded in 1949, when the U.S. ruled most of the world, it included most of the countries of Europe except for those liberated
from Nazism by the Soviets, including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, and Yugoslavia and Albania where
anti-fascist partisans seized power.
After the dissolution of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact (a defense alliance formed in 1956 after West Germany was included in
NATO) in 1990, and the full restoration of capitalism to the countries of the former Soviet Union, there was no ideological east-west
conflict or another rationale to maintain the NATO alliance. It gradually redefined its mission as "maintaining stability" in
the post-Soviet era, in the wake of ethnic conflicts across Eurasia, and "counter-terrorism." Later "humanitarian" missions were
added.
In 1989 President George W. Bush promised Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev that, following the reunification of
Germany with Moscow's assent, NATO would not "move one inch" eastwards. But while Bill Clinton was president in 1999, Poland,
Hungary and Czechoslovakia joined the alliance. Under Bush's son, in 2004, the list grew: Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia all joined. NATO now bordered Russia itself. Obama added Albania and Croatia. Under Trump, Montenegro
joined and North Macedonian entry is in the cards. The U.S. is obviously trying to incorporate every European nation possible
into an anti-Russian coalition for future deployment.
NATO forces were never deployed against Soviet or Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War. But Clinton (prompted by bellicose
Hillary) used them to pound Serbian positions in Bosnia in the 1990s and to bomb Belgrade during the 1999 war to sever Kosovo
from Serbia and convert it into a NATO base. (In both instances Clinton claimed "humanitarian" motives.) They were used too
in Afghanistan and Libya, far away from the North Atlantic, at U.S. direction to topple the Taliban, thereby producing an ongoing
insurgency, and to destroy Gadhafi's modern state of Libya. They are not a force of good in the world.
Russia has responded, angrily but cautiously, to NATO's incessant, inexplicable expansion. The three crucial moments have
been in 1999, when Russian troops rushed to Pristina Airport in Kosovo to preserve some national pride following the expansion
of NATO and the U.S. humiliation of the Serbs; in 2008 when Russia briefly invaded Georgia to punish it for attacks on South Ossetia
(and its just announced pursuit of NATO membership); and in 2014 when in response to the U.S.-backed Kiev putsch Moscow moved
to secure ongoing control of the Crimean Peninsula. These were obviously moves to discourage NATO expansion.
For NATO strategists and supporters, Ukraine is the ultimate prize. (Thereafter only Belarus and Georgia need absorption.)
It is still slated for NATO membership; this year its Secretary General Jens Soltenberg reiterated this commitment in Kiev. It
remains the position of the U.S. that both Ukraine and Georgia should join NATO. The German government on the other hand, far
more sensitive to the historical issues involved, notes that Ukrainian or Georgian membership would "cross a red line" with Russia.
The Ukrainian people are divided on the issue. It is good if the Germans and others can block bloc expansion.
From February 2010 to February 2014, Ukraine was headed by a democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, who opposed
NATO membership . He had been elected despite routine U.S. election meddling. He has been depicted in the U.S. press as "pro-Russian"
and opposed to Ukraine's membership in the European Union. In fact, he sought entry into the EU, using his U.S. aide Paul Manafort
towards that end, and backed out of an agreement after realizing the political costs of the austerity program required. He was
"pro-Russian" in that he is ethnic Russian in a multi-ethnic country, and was while in power inclined to maintain good relations
with the northern neighbor. He was targeted by Hillary Clinton appointee Victoria Nuland (wife of neocon warmonger Robert Kagan)
for removal. He was charged with denying the Ukrainian people's "European aspirations" -- meaning, he was resisting an association
with the EU (and NATO).
He was indeed overthrown, succeeded by an new regime that provoked revolt among the ethnic Russians in the east from the outset.
The U.S. attempt to install a regime that could quickly align with the west, joining the EU and NATO as the usual package, resulted
in civil conflict and the Russian re-annexation of Crimea. Finally, the NATO effort to dominate Eurasia met a snag when the Russians
said: No way we'll concede to you the base port of the Black Sea Fleet since Empress Catherine's time, in 1785.
After the coup of February 18-21, 2014, Aseniy Yatsenyuk, handpicked by Nuland, became prime minister. Russia refused
to recognize the government he headed, stacked with NATO supporters. Only when Ukraine held a presidential election, and a candidate
acceptable to Moscow, Petro Poroshenko, was elected, did the Russians actively engage in diplomacy with Kiev. The result is the
Minsk Accords and an ongoing process of negotiations between Kiev, the Donbas separatists, Moscow, Germany and France. The key
issue of Donbas autonomy as a precondition for peace has met with opposition in the parliament but since the election of Volodomir
Zelensky, there have been concrete moves towards peace. Not that there has been much heavy fighting since 2015. Russia and Ukraine
are working with Europe to find a solution. It would be good for the U.S. to avoid interfering.
After the February 2014 coup (depicted in the western press as a "revolution" toppling a "pro-Russian" leader), Ukraine
informally joined the U.S. imperialist camp. There is, in fact, no formal alliance, but Ukraine is now depicted as an
ally, indeed one in desperate need of U.S. arms to resist the Russian invasion. But there has been no real Russian invasion,
just lots of hype; nowadays the talking heads refer to "Russian-backed" forces in Ukraine, referring to ethnic Russian-Ukrainians;
they exploit the general ignorance of people in this country about history and geography and fudge Russians with Russian-Ukrainians
(or sometimes any Slavs). And the annexation of Crimea was bloodless and popularly supported. The provision of $ 380 million in
Javelin anti-tank missiles and other weaponry to the Kiev government is unlikely to contribute to a settlement of the Donbas problem.
***
Amidst all the attention to detail, to phone calls and transcripts and secret visits, those pressing for Trump's impeachment (on
bribery grounds) never discuss the context of this little scandal.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please enter a valid
email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again.
The fact that Ukraine has been hopelessly corrupt since it became independent with the dissolution of the USSR in 1991;
the fact that the U.S. underwrote the 2014 coup;
the fact that Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma Holdings two months after the coup (while his father was the Obama team's
point man on Ukrainian corruption) and served to April 2019;
and most of all, the fact that the U.S. wants to get Ukraine into NATO, surrounding European Russia and grabbing Crimea for
itself.
Trying to acquire dirt on the Bidens by strong-arming a foreign leader, threatening an arms supply cut-off, is bad I suppose,
by definition. But providing arms to stoke a conflict ignited by U.S. interference in Ukraine is worse. Had the U.S. not spent $
5 billion (Nuland's figure) to "support the Ukrainian people's European aspirations;" had John McCain and Lesley Graham not passed
out cookies with Nuland in Maidan; had NATO not declared its intention to include Kiev in the alliance, the east would be quiet as
usual. The coup and immediate rescinding of the law respecting Russian speakers' linguistic rights provoked rebellion.
The Ukraine scandal could be a teaching opportunity: this is where U.S. aggression leads. You provoke Russia again and again,
with each new admission into NATO. At some point, Russia has to take action. It cannot let a Texas-size country on its southern flank
join a military alliance directed at itself. Especially it cannot accept loss of control of the Crimean Peninsula.
That Nuland in the days before the planned coup did not anticipate this Russian reaction is puzzling. Did she really think the
conquest of Ukraine would be so easy? Or did she expect the Russian counter-moves, thinking that once Ukraine was in NATO Russia
would have to back off? Is that still the dominant assumption in the State Department?
Now a president with zero concern about Ukraine and its people is accused of a shocking reluctance to deliver weapons to a country
invaded by Russia, "our greatest adversary" according to cable anchors.
May he be impeached, of course! But if he falls, replaced by leadership more bent on provoking Russia by NATO expansion, the world
will be more dangerous than it is now under Trump.
When wall in Berlin felt down in 1989 some regions in USSR took step ahead and asked Highest soviet to be recognized as autonomous
region (oblast) of USSR instead of being homogenous part of Soviet Republics: Crimea, Karabakh, S Osetia, Podnestria. Reason for
it was that in those regions lived mostly Russians as USSR was developing since 1917. For example Poroshenko's dady was head of
steel mill in Podnestria.
Everything went smooth even thru transformation of USSR to CIS. Belovezha accord was dealing with this issue and all agreed
that they will recognize current status of those regions as Autono omous oblast of USSR until referendum in those regions about
selfdeclaration where they want to be.
But all this were just sweet words that later turned into conflicts because those guys did not keep their words.
As A US citizen who spends about half his time in Ukraine (and I was there during the fictitious "Russian Invasion" of Lugansk
in April 2014) I can attest that every point made in this article is true.
"Massive Pay-For-Play" Soros-Ukraine Scheme Facilitated By US Diplomats
They took all the corruption cases away from the prosecutor general, they gave it to the anti-corruption bureau, and they got
rid of all the cases that offended Soros, and they included all the cases against Soros' enemies
All plans were cooked under obama and continue under hillary. Never thought The Donald will win and nothing but troubles to
the easy massive wealth coming.
This impeachment is becoming a blessing to expose the mob corruption.
7. Ukraine is the ultimate prize...because it allows the spoiled children of Pelosi and Biden and Kerry to redirect US "Aid"
back into the financial interests of their families.
Otherwise, Ukraine is of negative value. Hence, Macron has ruled out Ukraine being brought into the EU until such time as the
EU has solved all of its many issues (ie never).
When actually seeing the historical crime line of the giant octopus absorbtion of countries into NATO..... The conspricy "
theory is fact.
Proof positive of the restructuring of a one world military not ruled by souverign countries but a conglomerate of " untied
Nations" run by ..... Ummmm hold, hold, hold ... Drum roll....
INTERNATIONAL BANKERS:
Who are the ONLY ones who profit from war or "maintaining stabilizers" who stir the pot on both sides for perpetual arms deals
( while urging individual non gun legislatiin for citizens) and weapons manufacturing and of course cyber internet control by
Google search engines.
Author glosses over the UKR Separatists' Declarations of Independence as LNR, DNR, and the Republic of Crimea; and the 3 Breakaway
States' requests to Join the Russian Federation.
Author also forgets to mention Crimea being of Russia until Kruschev's Reassignment; and Clarifying Sevastopolis always being
a Naval Base and City for Moscow.
RUS Annexation of Crimea occured AFTER the Secession and Reunification Votes by Resident Crimeans.
*****Conclusion:
**** Troll Article written by an USA/NATO/EU/UKR Apologist.
The provision of $ 380 million in Javelin anti-tank missiles and other weaponry to the Kiev government is
..likely to lead to Javelin atms and other ending up enriching corrupt Ukrainians and their partners Stateside and in the hands
of 3rd world dictators and or America's Muslim Jihadist legions anywhere there's an uncooperative government.
Trying to acquire dirt on the Bidens by strong-arming a foreign leader, threatening an arms supply cut-off, is bad I suppose,
by definition.
I stopped reading right there.
Biden admitted to threatening Ukraine with his own damn mouth. Four (4) DNC hacks have kids getting insane paychecks from Ukraine
for basically nothing more than a skim/bribery flowchart.
Hunter Biden is a crackhead, his father is useless but thinks he will be the next President. What a joke..
No mention, because it has now become irrelevant. Nordstream 2 and Turkstream will deprive the Ukranian government of the several
billion dollars per year in revenue. Of course, the American taxpayer will be asked to make that money up. Dead weight.
And by the way, if they had any gas reserves, they wouldn't be depending on the Russian Federation to pay them transit fees.
They've got that black, productive soil. I'll give them that. But France has pretty productive soil too. No mention of the French
farmer's protest on not being able to sell their crops to the Russian Federation, either.
On November 6, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted a link to a
Breitbart article about Ciaramella and wrote, "Because of course he did!!! Alleged
'Whistleblower' Eric Ciaramella Worked Closely with Anti-Trump Dossier Hoaxer." The tweet led
to anger and the president's son responded, "The entire media is #Triggered that I (a private
citizen) tweeted out a story naming the alleged whistleblower. Are they going to pretend that
his name hasn't been in the public domain for weeks now? Numerous people & news outlets
including Real Clear Politics already ID'd him."
Ciaramella could not be reached for comment by Heavy. The whistleblower's attorneys issued a
statement saying they neither confirm nor deny Ciarmella is the whistleblower. Ciaramella's
father told Real Clear Investigations he doubts his son is the whistleblower, saying, "He
didn't have that kind of access to that kind of information. He's just a guy going to work
every day."
The whistleblower's attorneys and Democrats have fought to keep his identity concealed,
while Trump and his Republican allies have called for him to be identified publicly, saying he
should be questioned about why he came forward and possible political bias because of his
background. The existence of whistleblower complaint regarding Trump's conduct with Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky was first revealed in September.
After Real Clear Investigation's report, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, whose
nationally syndicated show reaches millions of listeners, named Ciaramella on air.
While Fox News has banned its hosts and contributors from mentioning Ciaramella's name,
according to CNN,
one of the network's guests, syndicated radio host Lars Larson, said the name during a segment
on November 7 on "Outnumbered Overtime" with Harris Faulkner. She did not respond or mention
his use of Ciaramella's name.
Mark Zaid and
Andrew Bakaj , the
attorneys who are representing the whistleblower, issued a statement about Ciaramella being
identified as possibly being their client, "Our client is legally entitled to anonymity.
Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that
individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and/or
their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications
reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is at the pinnacle
of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless."
Zaid and Bakaj issued an additional statement after Trump Jr.'s tweet, saying, "We will
note, however, that publication or promotion of a name shows the desperation to deflect from
the substance of the whistleblower complaint. It will not relieve the president of the need to
address the substantive allegations, all of which have been substantially proven to be
true."
According to the Washington Examiner , Ciaramella is currently detailed by the CIA to the
National Intelligence Committee, where he works as a deputy national intelligence officer for
Russia and Eurasia. He reports to Trump's acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire . He likely
works closely with Alexander Vindman, the impeachment inquiry witness who is now Ukraine
director for the NSC, Ciaramella's former role.
A former Trump official told the Examiner, "It is close to a mathematical certainty that
(Vindman and the whistleblower) know one another and that (the whistleblower) is being used to
provide analytical support to the National Security Council on the topics of Russia and
Ukraine. And that is where they would have crossed paths. They would know who one another are."
Another former Trump official said Vindman and Ciaramella both spent time at the U.S. Embassy
in Ukraine during the Obama administration. And they have both been working on Ukraine issues
for several years.
Vindman said during his Congressional deposition, "I want the committee to know I am not the
whistleblower who brought this issue to the CIA and the committee's attention. I do not know
who the whistleblower is, and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of
the whistleblower." Vindman testified that he listened in on the July 25 call at question in
the impeachment inquiry and was concerned. ""I was concerned by the call. I did not think it
was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried
about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine," he testified.
Here's what you need to know about Eric Ciaramella:
1. Ciaramella Is a Ukraine Expert for the CIA Whose Background Matches Details About the
Whistleblower Previously Reported by The New York Times
Eric Ciaramella, 33, is a Ukraine expert and his background matches the biographical details
reported
by The New York Times and other media outlets about the whistleblower. According to The
Times, the whistleblower is a CIA officer who was detailed to work at the White House before
returning to the CIA. The Times wrote, "His complaint suggested he was an analyst by training
and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe,
demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge
of the law."
The whistleblower raised concerns that Trump had asked Zelensky during a July 2019 phone
call to investigate former Vice President and current Democratic presidential candidate
Joe Biden , and his son,
Hunter Biden . Trump
is accused of forcing a quid pro quo in which aid to Ukraine would only be released if an
investigation was launched.
In September, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment, a redacted
version of the whistleblower's complaint and a summary of Trump's call with Zelensky were made
public. The complaint revealed that the whistleblower was not on the call, but learned of
concerning information from others with direct knowledge about it.
"The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had
transpired in the phone call. They told me that there was already a 'discussion ongoing' with
White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials'
retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain," the
whistleblower wrote.
In the weeks since, several current and former State Department and other government
officials have testified behind closed doors before House committees, with many providing
verification of the whistleblower's claims, according to multiple reports. Sources told Real
Clear Investigations that Ciaramella's name has been mentioned as the whistleblower during the
closed-door testimony.
Ciaramella has worked for the Central Intelligence Agency for several years and was assigned
to the White House during the end of the Obama administration. He worked closely with Biden in
his role as an expert on Ukraine. Ciaramella also has ties to Sean Misko, a former NSC
co-worker who now works for Representative Adam Schiff and the Intelligence Committee.
According to
The New York Times , the whistleblower first went to a CIA lawyer and then to an unnamed
Schiff aide before filing the whistleblower complaint. The aide told the whistleblower to
follow the formal process, but conveyed some of the information he learned from him to Schiff,
without revealing his name, The Times reported.
"Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and
Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on
how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community," said
Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Schiff, told The Times.
The whistleblower's ties to Democrats, including Biden, Schiff, former CIA Director John
Brennan, former Director of Intelligence James Clapper and former National Security Adviser
Susan Rice, have created controversy, with Trump and Republicans using his past work with them
in an attempt to discredit him. Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert told a local radio station in his
home state of Texas that many in Washington D.C. knew the whistleblower's identity, calling him
a "staunch Democrat," and former "point person on Ukraine," who never called out corruption in
the Eastern European country.
Ciaramella has been in the crosshairs of Republicans previously, after some on the far right
tied him to the Obama-associated "deep state" in 2017, accusing him of undermining Trump while
he was working in the White House.
The whistleblower's attorneys have received more than $220,000 in donations to a
GoFundMe campaign set up by the group Whistleblower Aid in support of his attorneys, Mark
Zaid and Andrew Bakaj.
"A U.S. intelligence officer who filed an urgent report of government misconduct needs your
help. This brave individual took an oath to protect and defend our Constitution. We're working
with the whistleblower and launched a crowdfunding effort to support the whistleblower's
lawyers," the GoFundMe states. "These whistleblowers took great personal risks, not for
politics or personal gain, but to defend our democracy. We need to have their backs."
The GoFundMe adds, "If we raise more than we need, Whistleblower Aid will use the money to
help more brave whistleblowers stand up to executive overreach."
2. Eric Ciaramella Grew Up in Connecticut,
Eric Ciaramella.
Eric Ciaramella grew up in Prospect, Connecticut, as one of three children. He spent time
attending Woodland Regional High School in Beacon Falls, Connecticut, and then graduated from
Chase Collegiate School, in Waterbury, Connecticut, in 2004, according to the prep school's
alumni magazine.
After high school, Ciaramella attended Yale University, graduating in 2008 as a Russian and
East European studies major. In 2007, he was awarded a grant by the Yale Macmillan Center
for European Union Studies to "research on the perceptions of the EU among rural Italian
residents."
While at Yale, Ciaramella, who speaks Russian, Ukrainian and Arabic, led a protest over the
departure of an Arabic department professor, according
to the Yale Daily News. The student newspaper wrote, "Students convened outside Silliman at
9 a.m., all dressed in white to symbolize their future goal of bridging the gap between the
United States and the Middle East through the use of the Arab language, said Eric Ciaramella
'08, one of the students who led the protest."
Ciaramella also studied at Harvard University, focusing on Russia, Eastern Europe, Central
Asia, according to the school's website. He
received a grant in 2009 for research on "Language in the Public Sphere in Three
Post-Soviet Capital Cities," Tbilisi, Georgia; Yerevan, Armenia; Baku, Azerbaijan. Ciaramella
was additionally a corresponding author for Harvard's Department of Linguistics and wrote a
paper in 2015 titled, "Structural ambiguity in the Georgian verbal noun."
Ciaramella worked at the World Bank after college,
according to a 2011 publication by the international financial institution. In the World
Bank report, "Russia: Reshaping Economic Geography," published in June 2011, Ciaramella is
listed in the acknowledgments for making "important contributions" to the research. On a
now-deleted Linkedin profile, he described himself as being a "Consultant, Poverty
Reduction/Economic Management" at World Bank. Ciaramella also deleted his Facebook profile page
and does not appear to have any other social media.
Public records show that Ciaramella was a registered Democrat while he lived in Connecticut.
According
to CNN , the inspector general for the intelligence committee mentioned and dismissed
concerns about political bias because the whistleblower is registered as a Democrat.
Inspector General Michael Atkinson wrote, "Further although the ICIG's preliminary reviewed
identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in
favor of a rival political candidate, such evidence did not change my determination that the
complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible' particularly given the other
information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review."
Mark Zaid, an attorney for the whistleblower tweeted in response to the story, "We won't
comment on identifying info but if true, give me a break! Bias? Seriously? Most (people) are."
Another attorney for the whistleblower, Andrew Bakaj, told CNN that the whistleblower had
"contact with presidential candidates from both parties in their roles as elected officials --
not as candidates," and said the whistleblower "has never worked for or advised a political
candidate, campaign or party.
3. Ciaramella Was Detailed to the National Security Council at the White House in 2015 After
Joining the CIA as an Analyst Focusing on Ukraine & Russia
Eric Ciaramella joined the Central Intelligence Agency at some point during President
Obama's second term. According to reports by The Washington Post and The New York Times about
the whistleblower, prior to Ciaramella being named, and online records, Ciaramella was detailed
to the White House to serve as a Ukraine expert with the National Security Council in 2015. He
worked under National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The NSC is made up of analysts and staffers
from various intelligence agencies, including the CIA, who are detailed to the White House for
a period of time, before eventually returning to their parent agencies.
During his time with the National Security Council, Ciaramella also worked with then-Vice
President Biden, who was working closely on Ukraine issues at the end of Obama's time in
office. Ciaramella is also
listed as a guest at a 2016 luncheon to honor the prime minister of Italy, along with
Biden.
In November 2015, Ciaramella is named as one of
the officials who attended a White House meeting with Ukrainian religious leaders, along
with his boss, Charles Kupchan . The Ukrainian religious
leaders delivered a letter appealing to President Obama for aid for their country. Ciaramella
is listed as the "NSC Director for Ukraine." That position is now held by Alexander Vindman , a key witness
in the impeachment inquiry, who listened to the call between President Trump and President
Zelensky.
Ciaramella also has ties to former Democratic National Committee operative and opposition
researcher Alexandra Chalupa , a
Ukrainian-American who has been targeted by some conservatives as being behind an effort to
accuse the Trump campaign of Russian collusion. Chalupa, then with the National Democratic
Ethnic Coordinating Committee, was also in attendance at the November 2015 meeting with
Ukrainian religious leaders, according to public records.
While Republicans have accused Chalupa of being a leader of a conspiracy to bring down Trump
with false accusations of collusion with Russia, Democrats have said Chalupa was among the
first to bring forward credible information about wrongdoing by Paul Manafort and the Trump
campaign and say she has been smeared because of that.
4. Ciaramella Remained at the NSC During the Earlier Months of the Trump Administration
& an Email Ciaramella Sent While He Was Still Assigned to NSC Was Cited in the
Getty National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster speaks during a briefing at the White House
on May 16, 2017.
Eric Ciaramella did not leave the National Security Council at the end of the Obama
administration. He remained in place during the first few months of the Trump White House. The
NSC staff was at a barebones level at the time after the resignation of Lt. General Michael
Flynn, who had been Trump's first National Security Adviser. Ciaramella worked on Eastern
European issues along with another Obama administration holdover, Fiona Hil l.
When Lt. General
H.R. McMaster was named Trump's new national security adviser, Ciaramella served as
McMaster's personal aide. In the summer of 2017, Ciaramella returned to the CIA, where he is
still an active employee.
An email sent by Ciaramella while he was still assigned to the NSC was cited as a footnote in
Robert Mueller's report on the Trump investigation. The email was titled "(5/10/17 Email,
Ciaramella to Kelly et al.)," but details of the email are not included in the redacted
report.
Officials who worked with Ciaramella told Foreign Policy he is known for his professionalism
and taking a nonpartisan stance, telling Foreign Policy he is a "seasoned pro" and "one of the
best that the civil service has." His former boss, Charles Kupchan,
told Foreign Policy , Ciaramella is one of the, "worker bees of the federal government.
They want to serve the nation, and they care deeply about the issues they're working on."
Kupchan said Ciaramella was brought in to work on Ukraine, but, "He did such an impressive
job, I asked him to help share the burden on the counter-ISIL portfolio."
Trump administration officials also praised Ciaramella, telling Foreign Policy,""H.R.
thought he did a good job. Everybody was happy with his performance. He wouldn't have been
there if he weren't trusted."
Ciaramella is no stranger to drawing the ire of Trump supporters. He was named by the
far-right as a supposed member of the "deep state" in 2017 and was the subject of baseless
accusations accusing him of leaking information to the media, simply because of his ties to
former members of the Obama administration, including ex-National Security Adviser Susan Rice,
who has often been accused of trying to undermine Trump.
His ties to Rice, Brennan, Clapper and Obama made him an easy target for the right. He was
accused of leaking information to the media about Michael Flynn's conversations with Russian
Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, without any evidence.
Ciaramella was also accused of being a major leaker while working with McMaster. Several
far-right personalities waged an open war on social media and on pro-Trump websites
against McMaster during his time as national security adviser, constantly claiming he was
undermining Trump and had too many former Obama aides on his team. McMaster also worked with
Abigail Grace and Sean Misko, both also Obama holdovers. Grace and Misko are now aides to Rep.
Schiff. McMaster's staffers were frequently accused of being behind
leaks of embarrassing details about Trump's calls to foreign leaders. None of those
accusations were ever proven.
According to a March 2019 article in Politico:
Trump political appointees were believed to frequently talk to journalists who worked for
conservative media outlets. For months, those outlets published names of career Civil and
Foreign Service officers in the NSC and other government agencies whose loyalties they deemed
suspect. Career staffers who had joined the U.S. government many years, sometimes decades,
earlier were suddenly cast as Obama loyalists determined to derail Trump's agenda as part of
a "deep state." The people targeted included a State Department civil servant of Iranian
descent who'd joined the government under the George W. Bush administration; a highly
respected Foreign Service officer who dealt with Israeli issues; and an NSC staffer who dealt
with European and Russian issues. The latter, Eric Ciaramella, reportedly left the NSC after
receiving death threats.
Ciaramella was outed in a Medium article by the far-right figure Mike Cernovich in June
2017, claiming that the former Obama aide wanted to "sabotage" Trump. Foreign Policy
wrote in 2017 , "The piece described Eric Ciaramella as 'pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia' and
alleged, with no evidence, that he was possibly responsible for high-level leaks. Cernovich
wrote, "Nothing in his résumé indicates that Ciaramella will put America First.
His entire life arc indicates he will sabotage Trump and leak information to the press whenever
possible."
The response to the piece included online threats of violence against Ciaramella, which
contributed to his decision to leave his job at the National Security Council a few weeks
early, according to two sources familiar with the situation."
Charles Kupchan, who was the senior director for European Affairs on the NSC, was
Ciaramella's boss for two years during the Obama administration. Kupchan, a key Obama adviser,
told Foreign Policy the alt-right led an "unprecedented" attack on civil servants, calling the
"systematic hostility" against the "deep state" as "misplaced" and "dangerous."
As speculation about whether Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower spreads online and in
conservative media and circles, elected Republican officials are calling for his identity to be
revealed.
"Well, as far as that particular person, regardless of whether or not he's a whistleblower,
he apparently worked for [former CIA Director John] Brennan. He worked for H.R. McMaster. He
worked for Biden. He was tasked to the National Security Council on Ukraine," Texas Republican
Rep. Louie Gohmert
told the Washington Examiner . "And, gee, sounds like he's got bigger problems than being a
whistleblower, regardless of whether he is or not."
Gohmert mentioned Ciaramella's name, out of the blue, during an open House hearing on
unrelated issues on October 22.
Gohmert was questioning Natalie Jaresko, who is the executive director of a fiscal board
that oversees Puerto Rico's debt, during a House Natural Resources Committee hearing. Jaresko
was previously Ukraine's finance minister. Gohmert asked Jaresko, if, in her previous role, she
was, aware of "Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko dispatching Olga Bielkova or any other
Ukrainian official to the U.S. in order to conduct an influence campaign on the 2016 election
here in the United States?" He then asked, "Are you aware of Ukrainian parliamentarian
Bielkova's April 12 meetings with Liz Zentos and Eric Ciaramella of the Obama National Security
Council?"
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows told reporters, "I can't tell you what happens in the
depositions, but I can tell you there's one person in one's group of staff members who know who
the whistleblower is and that is Adam Schiff, and so you need to ask him whether this guy is
the real deal."
Senator Rand Paul tweeted, "It is being reported that the whistleblower was Joe Biden's
point man on Ukraine. It is imperative the whistleblower is subpoenaed and asked under oath
about Hunter Biden and corruption."
Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and the former chief of staff for the National Security
Council, told Real Clear Investigations, "Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington
Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president
knows who he is. They're hiding him. They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Democrats have sought to keep the name concealed and have criticized efforts by Republicans
to name the whistleblower. Democratic Rep. David Cicilline, of Rhode Island, tweeted, "If you
spent part of today Tweeting the name of a person you think is the whistleblower, you probably
need to re-evaluate your life."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters it would be "unpatriotic" to reveal the
whistleblower's identity:
Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor turned CNN legal analyst, tweeted, "Today
Trump's allies spread the name of a man they believe is the whistleblower. Some call for his
prosecution. They're ruining the life of a public servant who may not be the right guy. Plus
there's no evidence he did anything wrong. This is so desperate and irresponsible."
This is ******* brilliant. Trump is daring the loser Democrats to impeach him so the
Republicans in charge of the senate can hold their own propaganda filled media campaign.
This one will have 2 huge differences from the senate.
This is ******* brilliant. Trump is daring the loser Democrats to impeach him so the
Republicans in charge of the senate can hold their own propaganda filled media campaign.
This one will have 2 huge differences from the senate.
Trump knows more about politics than all of the Democrats and Republicans combined. Who
else could have
Won the presidency while being outspent over 2 to 1
Prospered while the Deep State and Democrats throw a myriad of smears against him.
Prospered while MSM has 90% coverage against him.
It's the Democrats who know nothing about politics. Otherwise they would have never
started the impeachment nonsense which has only energized Trumps base and ensured his
landslide victory in 2020.
Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade, and Tuesday's testimony before Adam's Schiff
Show by former NSC official Tim Morrison is just such an occasion. In spades!
In his opening statement, this paranoid moron uttered the following lunacy, and it's all you
need to know about what is really going on down in the Imperial City.
"I continue to believe Ukraine is on the
front lines
of a strategic
competition between the West and Vladimir Putin's
revanchist Russia
. Russia is
a failing power, but it is still a dangerous one.
The United States aids Ukraine and her
people so they can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here.
Folks, that just plain whacko.
The Trump-hating Dems are so feverishly set on a
POTUS kill that they have enlisted a veritable posse of Russophobic, right-wing neocon cretins –
Morrison, Taylor, Kent, Vindman, among others – to finish off the Donald.
But in so doing they have made official Washington's real beef against Trump crystal clear; and
it's not about the rule of law or abuse of presidential power or an impeachable dereliction of
duty.
To be sure, foolish politicians like Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the Clintonista
apparatus at the center of the Dem party are so overcome with inconsolable grief and anger about
losing the 2016 election to Trump that their sole purpose in life is to drive the Donald from
office. But that just makes them "useful idiots" or compliant handmaids of the Deep State, which
has a far more encompassing and consequential motivation.
To wit, whether out of naiveté, contrariness or just plain common sense, the Donald has declined
to embrace the War Party's Russian bogeyman and demonization of Putin. He thereby threatens the
Empire's raison d'être to the very core.
Indeed, that's the real reason for the whole concerted attack on Trump from the Russian
Collusion hoax, through the Mueller Investigation farce to the present UkraineGate and impeachment
inquisition. The Deep State deeply and profoundly fears that if Trump remains in office – and
especially if he is elected with a new mandate in 2020 – he might actually make peace with Russia
and Putin.
So in Part 1 we advert to the basics. Without the demonization of Russia, Ukraine
would be the no count failed state and cesspool of corruption it actually is, and not a purported
"front line" buffer against Russian aggression.
Likewise, it would not have been a recipient of vast US and western military and economic aid –
a condition that turned it into a honeypot for the kind of Washington influence peddling which
ensnared the Bidens, induced its officials to meddle in the 2016 US election, and, in return,
incited Trump's justifiable quest to get to the bottom of the malignancy that has ensued.
So the starting point is to identify Russia for what it actually is: Namely, a kleptocratic
state sitting atop an aging, Vodka-chugging population and third-rate economy with virtually zero
capacity to project 21st century offensive military power beyond its own borders.
That truth, of course, shatters the whole foundation of the Warfare State. It renders
NATO an obsolete relic and eviscerates the case for America's absurd $900 billion defense and
national security budget. And with the latter's demise, the fairest part of Washington's imperial
self-importance and unseemly national security spending-based prosperity would also crumble.
But in their frenzied pursuit of the Donald's political scalp, the Dems may be inadvertently
sabotaging their Deep State masters. That's because the neocon knuckleheads they are dragging out
of the NSC and State Department woodwork are such bellicose simpletons – just maybe their utterly
preposterous testimony about the Russkie threat and Ukrainian "front line" will wake up the
somnolent American public to the absurdity of the entire Cold War 2.0 campaign.
Indeed, you almost have to ask whether the bit about fighting the Russkies in the Donbas rather
than on the shores of New Jersey from Morrison's opening statement quoted above was reprinted in
the
New York Times
or
The
Onion
?
The fact is, the fearsome Russian bogeyman cited by Morrison yesterday – and Ambassador
Taylor, George Kent and Lt. Colonel Vindman previously – is a complete chimera;
and the
notion that the cesspool of corruption in Ukraine is a strategic buffer against Russian aggression
is just plain idiocy.
Russia is actually an economic and industrial midget transformed beyond recognition by
relentless Warfare State propaganda. It is actually no more threatening to America's homeland
security than the Siberian land mass that Sarah Palin once espied from her front porch in Alaska a
decade ago.
After all, how could it be? The the GDP of the New York City metro area alone is about $1.8
trillion, which is well more than Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion. And that, in turn, is just
8% of America's total GDP of $21.5 trillion.
Moreover, Russia' dwarf economy is composed largely of a vast oil and gas patch; a multitude of
nickel, copper, bauxite and vanadium mines; and some very large swatches of wheat fields. That's
not exactly the kind of high tech industrial platform on which a war machine capable of threatening
the good folks in Lincoln NE or Worchester MA is likely to be erected.
And especially not when the Russian economy has been heading sharply south in dollar purchasing
terms for several years running.
GDP of Russia In Millions of USD
Indeed, in terms of manufacturing output, the comparison is just as stark. Russia's annual
manufacturing value added is currently about
$200 billion
compared to
$2.2
trillion
for the US economy.
And that's not the half of it. Not only are Russia's vast hydrocarbon deposits and mines likely
to give out in the years ahead, but so are the livers of its Vodka-chugging work force. That's a
problem because according to a recent Brookings study, Russia's working age population – even
supplemented by substantial in-migration and guest worker programs – is heading south as far into
the future as the eye can see.
Even in the Brookings medium case projection shown below, Russia's working age population will
be nearly 20% smaller than today by 2050. Yet today's figure of about 85 million is already just a
fraction of the US working age population of 255 million.
Russia's Shrinking Work Force
Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military establishment anywhere
near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its
$61 billion
of military
outlays in 2018 amounted to less than
32 days
of Washington's current
$750 billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland security in America
short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a continuation of
mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got through 45-years of cold war when the
Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy committed to a hostile ideology; and during which time
it had been armed to the teeth via a forced-draft allocation of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the
Soviet empire to the military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the country's
anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and populations of Belarus, Ukraine,
Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian "stans" among others. Yet given those realities
we are supposed to believe that the self-evidently calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs
the Kremlin is going to go mad, defy MAD and trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is laughable. Not
only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is the extent of what he's got.
That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force to the North American continent is
nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere between nichts and nothing.
For example, in today's world you do not invade any foreign continent without massive sea power
projection capacity in the form of aircraft carrier strike groups. These units consist of an armada
of lethal escort ships, a fleet of aircraft, massive suites of electronics warfare capability and
the ability to launch hundreds of cruise missiles and other smart weapons.
Each US aircraft carrier based strike group, in fact, is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, at
least one cruiser, a squadron of destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70
aircraft. A carrier strike group also sometimes includes submarines and attached logistics ships.
The US has
eleven
such carrier strike groups. Russia has
zero
modern
carrier strike groups and one beat-up, smoky old (diesel) aircraft carrier that the Israeli paper,
Haaretz, described as follows when it recently entered the Mediterranean:
Russia's only aircraft carrier, a leftover from the days of Soviet power, carries a long
history of mishaps, at sea and in port, and diesel engines which were built for Russia's cold
waters – as shown by the column of black smoke raising above it. It needs frequent refueling and
resupplies and has never been operationally tested.
Indeed, from our 19th floor apartment on the East River in NYC, even we could see this smoke
belcher coming up Long Island Sound with an unaided eye – with no help needed at all from the high
tech spyware of the nation's $80 billion intelligence apparatus.
Yet Morrison had the audacity to say before a committee of the U.S. House that we are
aiding Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russians on the banks of the East River or the Potomac!
For want of doubt, just compare the above image of the Admiral Kuznetsov belching smoke in the
Mediterranean with that of the Gerald R. Ford CVN 48 next below.
The latter is the US Navy's new $13 billion aircraft carrier and is the most technologically
advanced warship ever built.
The contrast shown below serves as a proxy for the vastly inferior capability of the
limited number of ships and planes in Russia's conventional force. What it does have numerical
superiority in is tanks – but alas they are not amphibious nor ocean-capable!
Likewise, nobody invades anybody without massive airpower and the ability to project it across
thousands of miles of oceans via vast logistics and air-refueling capabilities.
On that score, the US has 6,100 helicopters to Russia's 1,200 and 6,000 fixed wing fighter and
attack aircraft versus Russia's 2,100. More importantly, the US has 5,700 transport and airlift
aircraft compared to just 1,100 for Russia.
In short, the idea that Russia is a military threat to the US homeland is ludicrous. Russia is
essentially a landlocked military shadow of the former Soviet war machine. Indeed, for the world's
only globe-spanning imperial power to remonstrate about an aggressive threat from Moscow is a prime
facie case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Moreover, the canard that Washington's massive conventional armada is needed to defend
Europe is risible nonsense. Europe can and should take care of its own security and relationship
with its neighbor on the Eurasian continent.
After all, the GDP of NATO Europe is $18 trillion or 12X greater than that of Russia, and the
current military budgets of European NATO members total about $280 billion or 4X more than that of
Russia.
More importantly, the European nations and people really do not have any quarrel with Putin's
Russia, nor is their security and safety threatened by the latter. All of the tensions that do
exist and have come to a head since the illegal coup in Kiev in February 2014 were fomented by
Imperial Washington and its European subalterns in the NATO machinery.
Then again, the latter is absolutely the most useless, obsolete, wasteful and dangerous
multilateral institution in the present world. But like the proverbial clothes-less emperor, NATO
doesn't dare risk having the purportedly "uninformed" amateur in the Oval Office pointing out its
buck naked behind.
So the NATO subservient think tanks and establishment policy apparatchiks are harrumphing up a
storm, but for crying out loud most of Europe's elected politicians are in on the joke. They are
fiscally swamped paying for their Welfare States and are not about to squeeze their budgets or
taxpayers to fund military muscle against a nonexistent threat.
Finally an American president has woken up to the fact that World War II, not to
mention the cold war, is over: there's no need for US troops to occupy Germany.
Vladimir Putin isn't going to march into Berlin in a reenactment of the Red Army
taking the Fuehrer-bunker – but even if he were so inclined, why won't Germany defend itself?
Exactly. If their history proves anything, Germans are not a nation of pacifists, meekly willing
to bend-over in the face of real aggressors. Yet they spent the paltry sum of
$43
billion
on defense during 2018, or barely 1.1% of Germany's $4.0 trillion GDP, which
happens to be roughly three times bigger than Russia's.
In short, the policy action of the German government tells you they don't think Putin is
about to invade the Rhineland or retake the Brandenburg Gate.
And this live action testimonial also trumps, as it were, all of the risible alarms that have
emanated from the beltway think tanks and the 4,000 NATO bureaucrats talking their own book in
behalf of their plush Brussels sinecures.
And as we will outline in Part 2, that's what Washington's Ukraine intervention is all
about, and why the Donald's efforts to get to the bottom of that cesspool has brought on the final
Deep State assault against his presidency.
Part 2 -
Democrats Empower a Pack of Paranoid Neocon Morons
Yet his related claim that Ukraine is a victim of Russian aggression is even more ludicrous. The
actual aggression in that godforsaken corner of the planet came from Washington when it instigated,
funded, engineered and recognized the putsch on the streets of Kiev during February 2014, which
illegally overthrew the duly elected President of Ukraine on the grounds that he was too friendly
with Moscow.
Thus, Morrison risibly asserted that,
Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan
objective since
Russia's military invasion in 2014
. It must continue to be.
The fact is, when the Maidan uprising occurred in February that year there were no
uninvited Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine.
Putin was actually sitting in his box on the
viewing stand, presiding over the Winter Olympics in Sochi and basking in the limelight of global
attention that they commanded.
It was only weeks later – when the Washington-installed ultra-nationalist government
with its neo-Nazi vanguard threatened the Russian-speaking populations of Crimea and the Donbas –
that Putin moved to defend Russian interests on his own doorstep.
And those interests
included Russia's primary national security asset – the naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea which
had been the homeport of the Russian Black Sea Fleet for centuries under czars and commissars
alike, and on which Russia had a long-term lease.
We untangle the truth of the crucial events which surrounded the Kiev putsch in greater detail
below, but suffice it here to note the whole gang of neocon apparatchiks which have been paraded
before the Schiff Show have proffered the same Big Lie as did Morrison in the "invasion" quote
cited above.
As the ever perspicacious Robert Merry observed regarding the previous testimony of Ambassador
Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, the Washington rendition of the
Maidan coup and its aftermath amounts to a blatant falsehood:
The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that dominates
thinking within elite circles. Taylor's rendition of recent events in Ukraine was so one-sided
and
selective as to amount to a falsehood.
As he had it, Ukraine's turn to the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his
first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an extent that he tried
to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence, whereupon protests
emerged in Kyiv that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country in 2014. Then Putin
invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point of Russian army rifles." Putin sent
military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed formations and puppet
governments." And so the West extended military assistance to Ukraine.
"It is this security assistance," he said, "that is at the heart of the [impeachment]
controversy that we are discussing today."
Taylor's right that this narrative is at the center of UkraineGate, but there is not a shred of
truth to it. Nevertheless, defense of this false narrative, and the inappropriate military and
economic aid to Ukraine which flowed from it, is the real reason this posse of neocon stooges took
exception to the Donald's legitimate interest in investigating the Bidens and the events of 2016.
As Morrison put it Tuesday and Vindman said last week, their interest was in protecting not the
constitution and the rule of law, but the
bipartisan political consensus
on
Capitol Hill in favor of their proxy war on Putin and the Ukraine aid package through which it was
being prosecuted.
As I stated during my deposition, I feared at the time of the call on July 25 how its
disclosure would play in Washington's political climate. My fears have been realized.
Not surprisingly, the entire Washington establishment has been sucked into this scam. For
instance, the insufferably sanctimonious Peggy Noonan used her
Wall Street Journal
platform
to idolize these liars.
As she portrayed it, bow-tie bedecked George P. Kent appeared to be the very picture of
the old-school American foreign service official. And West Pointer Bill Taylor – with a military
career going back to (dubious) Vietnam heroism – was redolent of the blunt-spoken American military
men who won WW II and the cold war which followed.
As Robert Merry further noted,
She saw them as "the old America reasserting itself." They demonstrated "stature and
command of their subject matter."
They evinced "capability and integrity."
Oh, puleeze!
What they evinced was nothing more than the self-serving groupthink that has turned Ukraine into
a beltway goldmine. That is, a cornucopia of funding for all the think tanks, NGOs, foreign policy
experts, national security contractors and Warfare State agencies – from DOD through the State
Department, AID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Board for International Broadcasting and
countless more – which ply their trade in the Imperial City.
But Robert Merry got it right. These cats are not noble public servants and heroes; they're
apparatchiks and payrollers aggrandizing their own power and pelf – even as they lead the nation to
the brink of disaster:
But these men embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous.
Perhaps no serious blame should accrue to them, since it is the same
geopolitical outlook embraced and enforced by pretty much the entire foreign policy
establishment, of which these men are mere loyal apparatchiks. And yet they are playing their
part in pushing a foreign policy that is directing America towards a very possible disaster.
Neither man manifested even an inkling of an understanding of what kind of game the
United States in playing with Ukraine. Neither gave even a nod to the long, complex relationship
between Ukraine and Russia. Neither seemed to understand either the substance or the intensity
of Russia's geopolitical interests along its own borders or the likely consequences of
increasing U.S. meddling in what for centuries has been part of Russia's sphere of influence.
They obviously didn't get it, but we must. So let us summarize the true Ukraine story, starting
with the utterly stupid and historically ignorant reason for Washington's February 2014 coup.
Namely, it objected to the decision of Ukraine's prior government in late 2013 to align itself
economically and politically with its historic hegemon in Moscow rather than the European Union and
NATO. Yet the fairly elected and constitutionally legitimate government of Ukraine then led by
Viktor Yanukovych had gone that route mainly because it got a better deal from Moscow than was
being demanded by the fiscal torture artists of the IMF.
Needless to say, the ensuing US sponsored putsch arising from the mobs on the street of Kiev
reopened deep national wounds. Ukraine's bitter divide between Russian-speakers in the east and
Ukrainian nationalists elsewhere dates back to Stalin's brutal rein in Ukraine during the 1930s and
Ukrainian collusion with Hitler's Wehrmacht on its way to Stalingrad and back during the 1940s.
It was the memory of the latter nightmare, in fact, which triggered the fear-driven outbreak of
Russian separatism in the Donbas and the 96% referendum vote in Crimea in March 2014 to formally
re-affiliate
with Mother Russia.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of
must-read stories.
Please enter a valid email
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try
again.
In this context, even a passing familiarity with Russian history and geography would remind that
Ukraine and Crimea are Moscow's business, not Washington's.
In the first place, there is nothing at stake in the Ukraine that matters. During the
last 800 years it has been a meandering set of borders in search of a country.
In fact, the intervals in which the Ukraine existed as an independent nation have been few and
far between. Invariably, its rulers, petty potentates and corrupt politicians made deals with or
surrendered to every outside power that came along.
These included the Lithuanians, Poles, Ruthenians (eastern Slavs), Tartars, Turks, Muscovites,
Austrians and Czars, among manifold others.
At the beginning of the 16th century, for instance, the territory of today's Ukraine was
scattered largely among the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia (light brown area), the Kingdom
of Poland (dark brown area), Muscovy (bright yellow area) the Crimean Khanate (light yellow area).
The latter was the entity which emerged when some clans of the Golden Horde (Tartars) ceased
their nomadic life on the Asian steppes and occupied the light yellow stripped areas of the map
north of the Black Sea as their Yurt (homeland).
From that cold start, the tiny Cossack principality of Ukraine (blue area below), which had
emerged by 1654, grew significantly over the subsequent three centuries. But as the map also makes
clear, this did not reflect the organic congealment of a nation of kindred volk sharing common
linguistic and ethnic roots, but the machinations of Czars and Commissars for the administrative
convenience of efficiently ruling their conquests and vassals.
Thus, much of modern Ukraine was incorporated by the Russian Czars between 1654 and 1917 per the
yellow area of the map and functioned as vassal states. These territories were amalgamated by
absolute monarchs who ruled by the mandate of God and the often brutal sword of their own armies.
In particular, much of the purple area was known as "Novo Russia" (Novorossiya) during the 18th
and 19th century owing to the Czarist policy of relocating
Russian populations
to
the north of the Black Sea as a bulwark against the Ottomans. But after Lenin seized power in St.
Petersburg in November 1917 amidst the wreckage of Czarist Russia, an ensuing civil war between the
so-called White Russians and the Red Bolsheviks raged for several years in these territories and
elsewhere in the chaotic regions of the former western Russian Empire.
At length, Lenin won the civil war as the French, British, Polish and American contingents
vacated the postwar struggle for power in Russia. Accordingly, in 1922 the new Communist rulers
proclaimed the Union of Soviet Social Republics (USSR) and incorporated Novo Russia into one of its
four constituent units as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) – along with the Russian,
Belarus and Transcaucasian SSRs.
Thereafter the border and political status of Ukraine remained unchanged until the infamous
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Pursuant thereto the Red Army
and Nazi Germany invaded and dismembered Poland, with Stalin getting the blue areas (Volhynia and
parts of Galicia) as consolation prizes, which where then incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR.
Finally, when Uncle Joe Stalin died and Nikita Khrushchev won the bloody succession struggle in
1954, he transferred Crimea (red area) to the Ukraine SSR as a reward to his supporters in Kiev.
That, of course, was the arbitrary writ of the Soviet Presidium, given that precious few Ukrainians
actually lived in what had been a integral part of Czarist Russia after it was purchased by
Catherine the Great from the Turks in 1783.
In a word, the borders of modern Ukraine are the handiwork of Czarist emperors and
Communist butchers.
The so-called international rule of law had absolutely nothing to
do with its gestation and upbringing.
It's a pity, therefore, that none of the so-called conservative Republicans attending Adam's
Schiff Show saw fit to ask young Tim Morrison the obvious question.
To wit, exactly why is he (and most of the Washington foreign policy establishment) so
keen on expending American treasure, weapons and even blood in behalf of the "territorial integrity
and sovereignty" of this happenstance amalgamation of people subdued by some of history's most
despicable tyrants?
Needless to say, owing to this very history, the linguistic/ethnic composition of today's
Ukraine does not reflect the congealment of a "nation" in the historic sense.
To the contrary, central and western Ukraine is populated by ethnic Ukrainians who speak
Ukrainian (dark red area), whereas the two parts of the country allegedly the victim of Russian
aggression and occupation – Crimea (brown area) and the eastern Donbas region (yellow area with
brown strips) – are comprised of ethnic Russians who speak Russian and ethnic Ukrainians who
predominately speak-Russian, respectively.
And much of the rest of the territory consists of admixtures and various Romanian, Moldovan,
Hungarian and Bulgarian minorities.
Did the Washington neocons – led by Senator McCain and Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland – who triggered the Ukrainian civil war with their coup on the streets of Kiev in February
2014 consider the implications of the map below and its embedded, and often bloody, history?
Quite surely, they did not.
Nor did they consider the rest of the map. That is, the enveloping Russian state all around to
which the parts and pieces of Ukraine – especially the Donbas and Crimea – have been intimately
connected for centuries. Robert Merry thus further noted,
As Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the US Naval War College has written, Russia and Ukraine share a
1,500-mile border where Ukraine "nestles up against the soft underbelly of the Russian
Federation." Gvosdev elaborates: "The worst nightmare of the Russian General Staff would be NATO
forces deployed all along this frontier, which would put the core of Russia's population and
industrial capacity at risk of being quickly and suddenly overrun in the event of any conflict."
Beyond that crucial strategic concern, the two countries share strong economic, trade, cultural,
ethnic, and language ties going back centuries. No Russian leader of any stripe would survive as
leader if he or she were to allow Ukraine to be wrested fully from Russia's sphere of influence.
And yet America, in furtherance of the ultimate aim of pulling Ukraine away from Russia,
spent some $5 billion in a campaign to gin up pro-Western sentiment there, according to former
assistant secretary of state for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who spearheaded much of this
effort during the Obama administration. It was clearly a blatant effort to interfere in the
domestic politics of a foreign nation – and a nation residing in a delicate and easily inflamed
part of the world.
Indeed, Ukraine is a tragically divided country and fissured simulacrum of a nation.
Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard called Ukraine "a cleft country, with two distinct cultures"
causing Robert Merry to rightly observe that,
Contrary to Taylor's false portrayal of an aggressive Russia trampling on eastern
Ukrainians by setting up puppet governments and manufacturing a bogus referendum in Crimea, the
reality is that large numbers of Ukrainians there favor Russia and feel loyalty to what they
consider their Russian heritage. The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its Parliament in
1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear that the national leadership
would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded to avoid a violent
national confrontation.) In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had campaigned on a platform of
"unity with Russia."
In short, in modern times Ukraine largely functioned as an integral part of Mother Russia,
serving as its breadbasket and iron and steel crucible under czars and commissars alike.
Given this history, the idea that Ukraine should be actively and aggressively induced to join NATO
was just plain nuts,
as we will amplify further in Part 3 (to come).
Tags
"In short, in modern times Ukraine largely functioned as an
integral part of Mother Russia, serving as its breadbasket and
iron and steel crucible under czars and commissars alike.
Given
this history, the idea that Ukraine should be actively and
aggressively induced to join NATO was just plain nuts,
as we
will amplify further in Part 3 (to come)."
This seemed like a sensible column until I got to this:
"... identify Russia for what it actually is: Namely, a
kleptocratic state sitting atop an aging, Vodka-chugging
population and third-rate economy with virtually zero capacity to
project 21st century offensive military power beyond its own
borders."
So the starting point is to identify Russia for what it
actually is: Namely, a kleptocratic state sitting atop an
aging, Vodka-chugging population and third-rate economy
Maybe the Russians are normal, intelligent people just trying
to improve themselves and their country. And are interested in
commerce not conquest no matter what their GDP.
Agree with Stockman that the Russian "threat" is a red herring.
But it's not because Russia is the pathological, bankrupt society
that he claims it to be.
Stockman is leftover reaganomics and we all know what that ****
turned out along with Thatcherite **** and Pinochet ****.
Trickle down economics.....but blood and not oligarch's piss
for the thirsting masses that clowns like Stockman and co.
despises..
Deluded as ever imaginging that USSA isn't burned
to the bone.
Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in "business as usual"
is lost.
Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that "the market shall
provide" is lost.
Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that "the government will
take care of you" is lost.
Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that "your people will take
care of you" is lost.
Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in "the goodness of humanity"
is lost.
Stockman writes the Russia has "virtually zero capacity to project
21st century offensive military power beyond its own borders."
Tell that to the tens of thousands of dead and defeated head
choppers in Syria.
Tell that to the tens of thousands of dead and defeated
head choppers in Syria.
The "head choppers" in Syria were Sunni jihadist lunatics
funded by the United States. The U.S. shoveled thousands of
tons of weapons to those cutthroats. For Washington, regime
change trumped the "collateral damage" slaughter of the Shia,
Alawite, Christian, Druze and Kurdish populations in Syria by
the U.S. proxy Sunni goons.
Here are some Christian communities in Syria celebrating
their holy days after they had been liberated from the U.S.
backed terrorists by the Syrian Army and the Russians:
The Russians are accustomed to survive, they went through too
many wars, their weapons are created for war and to kill. They
are nationalists (although not like the Chinese - without
extremes) and are very attached to their country. Mother Russia
- says a lot. The Americans suffered the last time in
1861-1865, in United States now clan-corporate "capitalism"
with the suppression of free markets and the dominance of
lobbyists whose interests do not coincide with the national
interests of the United States. That's why I stopped respecting
Americans. The irony of fate is that Russians are capitalists
now, and the Americans are now ******* USSR version 2.0.
To which the hunt for the bogeyman will bankrupt us whether it
be Putin, Xi, Kim, Assad buying all these toys many of which
haven't proven to be as reliable as the Russian stuff. Looking
at the Russian GDP cart you see the big fall after the seizure
of Crimea and the subsequent sanctions. Russian as now turned
inward and produces a lot of what was imported from Europe and
those markets will never return to the Europeans. Merkel's
business people are SCREAMING to lift the sanctions as their
economy flounders. Same with many other countries. The trade
war with China has irrevocably hurt our farmers. Russia and
their Jon Deere look-a like combines are now cranking out food
for the world.
The don't have to be huge, they have to be
within budget. Trust me, Russia hasn't found half the minerals
in their lands.
Israel's Secret Plan for a
Second Israel in Ukraine
A secret report provided to the Israeli government by a select
panel of scholars of Jewish history drawn from academia and other
research centers, concluded that that European Jews are in fact
descended from Khazars - Datelined Jerusalem and Zhitomir,
Ukraine, March 16, 2014
One of the main reasons why Ukrainian Jewish billionaire tycoon
Ihor
Kolomoisky
[Zelenskiy's main sponsor], the governor of
Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk province and citizen of Ukraine, Israel,
and Cyprus, is spending tens of millions of dollars on the
recruitment of right-wing Ukrainian nationalists and neo-Nazis
from other parts of Europe to fight against the Russian-speaking
majority in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine, is a fear that
plans to turn Ukraine into a second Israel
will be
derailed.
Russia's protective measures for the Donbass, as well as its
incorporation by referendum of Crimea, the latter prized by the
resurgent Khazarian Jewish nationalists, threaten the
transformation of Ukraine into a second homeland for Ashkenazi
Jews who are finding their hold on Israel prime tenuous, at best."
The Russian economy is based on the ruble, not the dollar.
Therefore, at purchasing power parity, IMF data, 2017 USD
1 PRC 23208
2 USA 19485
3 India 9474
4 Japan 5443
5 Germany 4199
6 Russia 4016
7 Indonesia 3250
8 Brazil 3247
9 United Kingdom 2925 As a result, the growth of the US economy
by 3% is 600 mln. dollars., and debt 1,2trl. dale so what is
growing in an economy like the US?
When I am in Australia, my weekly shopping for food costs me
US$150. In Ukraine or Russia, it is more like US$40. That suggests
that the GDP figures above should be multiplied by 3-5.
I want to remind you of Bill Barr's speech to the Federalist Society a week ago. He made a
specific point about the plot to sabotage
Donald Trump's Presidency :
Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The
Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver
available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, "resistance" is the language
used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously
connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed
incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means
is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done
in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means
necessary, a duly elected government.
I believe that Bill Barr intentionally signaled that the sedition by the intelligence
community, the FBI and the Department of Justice will not be allowed to slide. But he is going
to do everything to punish them according to the law. He is committed to a rule of law and
enforcing the laws of this country.
In the late 1990s, Durham was tapped by Bill Clinton's justice department to investigate
Boston police and FBI agents' connections with infamous gangster James "Whitey" Bulger. That
investigation ultimately identified corrupt law enforcement officials who had given the killer
information he then used to kill informants and eventually became a part of the case that led
to Bulger's conviction.
Durham's investigation implicated Robert Mueller. According to knowledgeable sources, the
Clinton Justice Department would not allow Durham to
bring charges against Mueller :
In the 1980's, while Mr. Connolly was working with Whitey Bulger, Mr. Mueller was assistant
United States attorney in Boston in charge of the criminal division and for a period was the
acting United States attorney here, presiding over Mr. Connolly and Mr. Bulger as a
''top-echelon informant.'' Officials of the Massachusetts state police and the Boston Police
Department had long wondered why their investigations of Mr. Bulger were always compromised
before they could gather evidence against him, and they suspected that the F.B.I. was
protecting him.
Law enforcement officials also have said they wondered why the United States attorney's
office seemed to give Mr. Bulger impunity. But hearings by United States District Judge Mark
Wolf in 1998 found that Mr. Connolly had not told his bosses in the United States attorney's
office about his work with Mr. Bulger. In general, Judge Wolf found what he described as a
culture of secrecy in the F.B.I.'s handling of its informants that sometimes subverted the
purpose of the program.
I do not believe that Bill Barr is going to prevent John Durham from following the evidence
and charging those culpable with crimes. I suspect that this fact is weighing heavily on Jim
Comey, Andrew McCabe, John Brennab, Jim Clapper and others in the FBI, DOJ and intelligence
community. We will know more in a month.
The most important outcome is transparency, where the public gets to see the breadth &
depth of the activities including the collusion with the media to shape the narrative and the
use of Congressional committees to further the narrative.
The public needs to be able to read about the entire plot and all the sub-plots and the
cast of characters with the roles each played.
We need this to be able to comprehend the extent of violence to the rule of law by those
entrusted with enforcement of the law and the operation of the nations' intelligence
agencies.
We can judge when Durham is done if Barr's speech to the Federalist Society was just
rhetorical or if he really meant it.
Yes. Agree. Informing the public about the true scale of the operation would be very helpful.
That's the acid question: What will Barr deliver?
Of course if he does that the propaganda organs will unleash their vitriol on him and
claim he is Trump's bag carrier. It's not gonna change the minds of any NeverTrumper. It's
value will be a record for posterity.
It is worth pondering, what about Trump has got so many of the elites so riled up? After
all he is one of them. Bill & Hillary attended his wedding to Melania. He has been
photographed at parties with Epstein and moved in celebrity social circles. He's been more
zionist than others before him and he's fed the MIC handsomely. He's not reformed the
surveillance state one iota. It remains at least as secretive and powerful as before. He's
allowed multinational US corporations to repatriate overseas profits to buyback stock that
financially rewards the managerial class. He's done nothing that attacks elite interests. Is
it just that he beat them at their own game and their egos are bruised? In his first run for
public office he wins the biggest prize by defeating the Bush dynasty and Senators and
Governors long in Republican Party leadership and then the Most sure thing, the so entitled
Clinton machine.
You see similar smear operations on Tulsi too. At least with her one can argue that she
has never been a club member.
"what about Trump has got so many of the elites so riled up?"
I don't think it's that hard to figure out: he's too orange, he's too much of an outsider,
he broke Hillary's dream.
But the real crime was saying that the US should try to get along with Russia.
If he had never said the word "Russia" or "Putin" they'd still hate him but we'd be on the
level of psychiatrists speculating that Twitter makes you crazy or something. And it would
the the dims and their tame presstitutes saying that without the (powerful) back up of the
deepstate/borg/blob
You can't run much of an impeachment circus on POTUS's choice of hair product, but Russia
Russia Russia, that keeps going. He colluded with Putin; OK we can't prove that but he wasn't
exonerated; he weakened brave little Ukraine in its fight against Putin. That's all they've
got.
I did hear Barr's definition of "The Resistance" and was so happy that someone finally
explained how evil that idea is in our Democratic Republic. I was so sick of those smug
people I have met who proudly proclaim their allegiance to "The Resistance," as if they count
themselves equal to the French Resistance in WWII against the Nazis.
My wish is that any of the "Resistance" who have made their living on tax-funded salaries
are ripped out of those positions and placed in tax-funded prison cells. And this time, I
would like it if they would be properly guarded so that they can't escape their shame and
punishment through what will be judged as suicide.
In fact, I might enjoy it if the Smithsonian's National Zoo would add displays of the
Resistors right next to any sort of display of venomous snakes.
(There, I've vented my frustration about how long this process for justice has taken and
for the hours and hours of Adam Schiff on television screens. I am not usually a bitter
person, but this whole episode has taken its toll on many of us who are just mere citizens
and tax payers.)
Among the questions that Larry's contribution begs here, is whether branches of this
investigative trail lead back to Mueller himself. If we believe Durham will follow it to
Whitey Bulger and Mueller's potential involvement in enabling murder, then why not to Uranium
One, and his role in the approval of the sale, the (non)investigation of the bags of cash
changing hands, the contributions to the Clinton Foundation and the Bill Clinton speech in
Moscow for $500,000.
And if there, then why not to Mueller's role in the lead up, and follow up to 911?
"... She looked to be a most convincing and dignified victim but it was difficult to work out quite what she'd been a victim of. ..."
"... I think our closest equivalent over here would be Lady Ashton, who headed up the pre-coup European negotiations with the Ukraine. It was Lady Ashton who gave the most famous diplomatic response in modern history, when she was told that the snipers might be provocateurs. "Gosh." ..."
"... And Chairman Schiff looked as scary as usual. If I could open my eyes that wide I'd make a fortune in horror movies. Which I suppose is more or less what he does. ..."
"... Colonel, your description of Ambassador Yovanovitch as "a secular nun" is spot on. Congratulations ! On the other hand, why is a nun continuing a civil war with 1% predatory oligarchs and Bandera thugs on our side, versus 99% of un-armed local nobodies who want a return to normalcy? ..."
"... Lastly, note that Representative Stefanik caught Ambassador Marie in a lie about Hunter Biden and Burisma. Marie claimed under oath that she had never encountered the issue pre-arrival in the Ukraine, while she had admitted earlier that Obama staff coached her about Hunter / Burisma responses for her Senate Confirmation Hearings. ..."
... She seems to live alone, alone with her work. She tried living with her 88 year old mother
three years ago but that did not last. What would the old girl have done with herself in Kiev
with her daughter working all the time?
So, the maman went home to the States. Marie is still employed as a Career Ambassador
(a high rank) in the Foreign Service of of the United States She is currently assigned at
Georgetown U.
That's the first time I've seen "winsome" used with an edge.
I watched her for some time and didn't know what on earth to make of her. She looked to
be a most convincing and dignified victim but it was difficult to work out quite what she'd
been a victim of.
I think our closest equivalent over here would be Lady Ashton, who headed up the
pre-coup European negotiations with the Ukraine. It was Lady Ashton who gave the most famous
diplomatic response in modern history, when she was told that the snipers might be
provocateurs. "Gosh."
A very safe pair of hands, is what would be said of both and almost certainly often
is.
I did know what to make of the histrionics just before the recess. They looked false. That
man wasn't really crying. And Chairman Schiff looked as scary as usual. If I could open my
eyes that wide I'd make a fortune in horror movies. Which I suppose is more or less what he
does.
EO,
Zelensky did not like her and suggested that she was involved with corrupt people and
undermining the President. I don't understand how Trump gets all of the blame for her being
relieved of her position.
Marie IMO was always the second best looking girl in the class but maybe teacher's pet,
and has never had anyone take anything away from her before. "Gosh." She doesn't look like
someone you could safely make a pass at unless you had an awful lot of rank.
Colonel, your description of Ambassador Yovanovitch as "a secular nun" is spot on.
Congratulations ! On the other hand, why is a nun continuing a civil war with 1% predatory
oligarchs and Bandera thugs on our side, versus 99% of un-armed local nobodies who want a
return to normalcy?
Then again, since when does a Presidential emissary not only criticize him and the
President of her host country, but also instruct local law enforcement on which oligarchs he
may investigate and which oligarch's (admittedly ours) he may not.
Lastly, note that Representative Stefanik caught Ambassador Marie in a lie about Hunter
Biden and Burisma. Marie claimed under oath that she had never encountered the issue
pre-arrival in the Ukraine, while she had admitted earlier that Obama staff coached her about
Hunter / Burisma responses for her Senate Confirmation Hearings.
To take your cue, Ambassador Marie is a secular nun with very bad ideas, who wandered to a
profession she is not at all suited.
"... Senator Rand Paul has urged President Trump to shut out neoconservative war hawks from the State Department, as it has emerged that Elliott Abrams , a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, could be appointed to serve in the number two spot. ..."
"... "Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a neocon agenda," Paul writes in an opinion piece for the libertarian website Rare . ..."
"... "Congress has good reason not to trust him -- he was convicted of lying to Congress in his previous job," Paul notes in his piece. ..."
"... Abrams is also believed to have been involved in approving the attempted Venezuelan coup against Hugo Chávez in 2002 while serving as Special Assistant to the President and holding office in the National Security Council. ..."
"... It is believed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the one pushing for Abrams to join him at the State Department. ..."
Senator
Rand Paul has urged President Trump to shut out neoconservative war hawks from the State
Department, as it has emerged that Elliott Abrams , a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations, could be appointed to serve in the number two spot.
"Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the
president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a
neocon agenda," Paul writes in an opinion piece for the libertarian website
Rare .
Abrams was intimately tied in with the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, and was even
convicted of withholding information from Congress about covert government activities in
Nicaragua and El Salvador. He was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.
"Congress has good reason not to trust him -- he was convicted of lying to Congress in his
previous job," Paul notes in his piece.
Abrams is also believed to have been involved in approving the attempted Venezuelan coup
against Hugo Chávez in 2002 while serving as Special Assistant to the President and
holding office in the National Security Council.
Senator Paul urges Trump not to appoint Abrams, adding that his "neocon agenda trumps his
fidelity to the rule of law."
Paul points out that during the election, Abrams publicly spoke out against Trump's
intention to withdraw from policing the world.
"He is a loud voice for nation building and when asked about the president's opposition to
nation building, Abrams said that Trump was absolutely wrong; and during the election he was
unequivocal in his opposition to Donald Trump, going so far as to say, 'the chair in which
Washington and Lincoln sat, he is not fit to sit,'" Paul writes.
It is believed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the one pushing for Abrams to join
him at the State Department.
Paul, a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, hopes Tillerson "will continue the
search for expert assistance from experienced, non-convicted diplomats who understand the
mistakes of the past and the challenges ahead."
The State (War) Department is really the neocons viper nest
Notable quotes:
"... Listening to our "world's best diplomats" convinced me that the deep state is real. These people think they, not elected officials, make policy. Plus, they are sneaky and conniving in trying to establish and protect their own little fiefdoms. They have never seen a foreign aid budget that in their humble yet expert opinion shouldn't be increased tenfold. They are political but pretend otherwise. And, their sanctimony is unbearable. Let's just say that I don't think that Foggy Bottom made a good impression with the general public this week. ..."
"... Oh, please. Every time it looks like we might actually pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, the generals pop up on the TV talk shows and in the Op-Ed pages warning of the dire consequences and pleading for more time. The neo-cons used to pull this "OMG, the military is the most competent part of the federal government" stuff back in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, and TAC is not the only publication that has blown up that myth. ..."
Listening to our "world's best diplomats" convinced me that the deep state is real. These
people think they, not elected officials, make policy. Plus, they are sneaky and conniving
in trying to establish and protect their own little fiefdoms. They have never seen a
foreign aid budget that in their humble yet expert opinion shouldn't be increased tenfold.
They are political but pretend otherwise. And, their sanctimony is unbearable. Let's just
say that I don't think that Foggy Bottom made a good impression with the general public
this week.
Straight fire out of Peter Van Buren. The State is the "The Blob." They're the ones who
want to promote a policy of interventionism and nation-building. The military actually
prefers to stay out of wars and don't want to pursue nation-building.
Oh, please. Every time it looks like we might actually pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan or
Syria, the generals pop up on the TV talk shows and in the Op-Ed pages warning of the dire
consequences and pleading for more time. The neo-cons used to pull this "OMG, the military
is the most competent part of the federal government" stuff back in the build-up to the
invasion of Iraq, and TAC is not the only publication that has blown up that myth.
Just as important, where is the proof the Russians hacked the DNC computers (hat tip always
to LJ) - since Roger Stone was banned from getting this information by the judge who just
sent him away for life.
CROWDSTRIKE's role in the Democrat impeachment smokescreen needs to keep moving forward
because, it is not going away. Democrats refusal to even mention it, let alone their
obsession trying to relentless label nameless CROWDSTRIKE as a loony, right wing conspiracy
theory simply does not pass the smell test.
Particularly since Schiff does his very best to deep six even mention of Trump's requested
Ukraine CROWDSTRIKE investigation. https://illicitinfo.com/?p=13576
Deep state CROWDSTRIKE collusion is starting to walk like a duck, quack like a duck and
look like a duck.
My bet is that the impeachment circus was started by those Dems who want to get rid of Biden.
So they start a circus where Biden's corruption case is a major issue. Moreover, this forces
Trump to open the evidence against Biden already during the impeachment process, and not only
after Biden winning the primaries.
Great analysis as usual. My comment is on your last line:
"It is beyond me why the Democrats think they can bring Trump down over this."
This is not necessarily about bringing Trump down via impeachment because though almost
certain to be impeached, he is almost as certain to be acquited in the Senate where a 2/3
majority is needed and even if some GOP Senators vote for conviction joining all Dem
Senators, reaching 67 is a tall order.
What then is all this about? It's obviously about the 2020 election and not just the
Presidency but the House and the 35 Senate seats (23 GOP and 12 Dem) up for grabs. This is
for all the marbles. The Dems/anti-Trump GOP have a formidable base made up of the powerful
coastal elites, establishment media and as importantly the so-called deep state in DC, the
bureaucrats in the State Dept/CIA/FBI/DOJ and the courts to back them. The Dems are
struggling to unify against a theme but the impeachment is one thing that's a clear litmus
test and what they will rally around in 2020.
That Trump will be impeached is a near certainty as much as that his conviction in the
Senate will fail. Look for:
- How many Dem Reps vote for impeachment or if those in GOP states flip.
- If any GOP Reps flip to impeachment.
- If any GOP Senators support conviction (almost certainly there are 4 including Mitt
Romney)
Meanwhile the GOP has tricks of its own and the upcoming FISA report due Dec 9 which
apparently will in-effect accuse the Obama admin of 2016 election meddling will be taken up
in the GOP controlled Senate.
Both these dramas will serve as the backdrop for the countdown to the 2020 election in
less than 12 months on Nov 3, 2020.
"... Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is to advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $ flowing. ..."
Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is
to advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the
US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $
flowing.
Confrontation is much more profitable than peace...
I included the following to make clear what is the above link is about..
@ Circe It would be a fair assumption that nothing on the internet is what it appears. When
it matters, it is controlled. Internet like media is source of information and manipulation.
One cannot rely on any single source. Everyone is lying much of the time. by: jared @ 55
Weapons of mass deception (WMDs)
Wireless weapons of mind control (WWMC_.
You will know when your government has begun to move in response to those that it governs
when it:==>
1. quits spying on you
2. makes infecting UR computer with spyware, malware, and viri not only criminally illegal
with 10 years automatic no early time release jail time but also makes actionable as a tort,
victim recovery from the perpetrator Jury trials to establish damages.
3. amends the constitution to make it a life time in jail offence to conduct the affairs of
government in secret or to classify any document as secret from anyone who is a citizen of
America and is also a citizen of the Untied States of America.
4. has a budget for domestic needs at least 4x the size of the armament budget.
5. transitions power generation from grid to place of use and transitions from fossil fuel,
nuclear fuel to solar and wind energy
6. gives free education and medical services at the highest level to all comers without
regard to prior qualification.
7. recognizes all people of all race and all religion as one in the same person
8. puts news fakers and propagandist under the jail
9. admits pearl harbor, 9/11 and
10. allows the masses to determine not only the candidates for offices in the USA but also
allows the masses to determine which candidate will serve the USA
11. allows any member of the governed masses to indite any sitting member of a government at
any level, in the independent of the civil government, court of human rights, and allows that
court of human rights to immediately remove the accused person from his or her position in
government until a verdict can be rendered, and if that verdict is guilty, allows to and
assist with enforcing the penalty assessed by the the human rights court for the human rights
violation while in office or as a result of the power of the office.
12. makes it illegal to be a member of government at any level if that persons holds any
citizenship but American and USA.
Just watching "the hate Russia circus" on MSM. If DJT wasn't such a greedy MF, this circus
wouldn't be going on.
Let's be clear, Russia, and every other nation on earth, has the absolute right to defend
itself, and it's people,
from being exploited by the U$A's corporate empire. The empire's record over time is
clear, if it wants something you have, they'll take it.
DJT has no problem following the empire's dictates, but when he deviates and pursues his
own personal enrichment at the expense of the empire's overall goals, things like the D.C.
circus ensues.
I'll say this again, Russia, and all countries on earth have the RIGHT to defend
themselves from our latest empires attacks, no matter in what form they appear..
Great parallel to Dems saying that the Ukrainian border is of vital importance for our
national security, yet they also say that our own border is not.
"... According to Deep State Bill Nye, the "Territorial integrity of Ukraine including Crimea and Donbas has been the goal of US foreign policy for 75 years" Crimea didn't begin that period as part of Ukraine though...are you saying the State Department convinced Stalin to transfer it to the Ukrainian SSR? ..."
You know that saying, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world
he didn't exist." The Democratic Party have been doing their best to keep his existence from
the American people. But they can only hold him back for so long before he shows his face and
only a face a mother can love. And that face is Adam Schiff or I like to call him Mr. Mackey,
m'kay!
According to Deep State Bill Nye, the "Territorial integrity of Ukraine including Crimea
and Donbas has been the goal of US foreign policy for 75 years" Crimea didn't begin that
period as part of Ukraine though...are you saying the State Department convinced Stalin to
transfer it to the Ukrainian SSR?
The farting dems pretend to be scared of Russia, so how many of the illegal people that
they bring into our nation from the southern border that are murderers, rapists, drug
dealers, thieves, etc. are Russians ? Christians love Russian people, dems are filled with
hatred, they are Russiaphobes !
enderer-text" role="article"> When you take the red envelope from the fed and the
globalists, you must dance to their tunes. Schiff dances as if his and the lives of his loved
ones is at stake!! Russia has borders with China, the middle east etc. How many lost lives
from that war, a war that has always lit up the eyes of the white house and the EU until
Trump Governments no longer care about the lives of citizens, its all about the benjamins
people but NOT YOURS!
Both sides of my family came here from Russia in the early 1900's. My entire life Russia
has been the big scary enemy (which was difficult going to school and putting up with fear
and hatred for Russia). Anyway...I'm tired of it..
Great parallel to Dems saying that the Ukrainian border is of vital importance for our
national security, yet they also say that our own border is not.
The aristocratic morons in the Sate Department are totally appalled that Trump wants to
actually scrutinize problems and fix them using common sense, thereby disrupting their cushy,
do-nothing diplomatic corps jobs and lives.
The impeachment circus continued today with a refreshingly candid
opening statement from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU. Sondland was
involved in diplomatic efforts in Ukraine. Instead of stonewalling Sondland just let
it all out :
Gordon D. Sondland testified that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on the pressure
campaign, and that he told Vice President Mike Pence about an apparent link between
military aid for Ukraine and investigations of Democrats. Mr. Sondland confirmed there was
a "clear quid pro quo" for a White House meeting between President Trump and Ukraine's
president.
The anti-Trump media see
this as another "bombshell" that will hurt him.
But it is more likely that Sondland's testimony will help President Trump and those
involved on his side.
The President of the United States thought it to be in the interest of the United States
to press Ukraine's government into publicly announcing investigations into two issues:
The
evident intervention by then Vice President Biden into Ukrainian politics to the
benefit of the owner of a company that paid his son more than $50,000 per month.
Sondland and other U.S. officials were negotiating with the Ukrainians about these
demands. There were two potential points that they could use to pressure the Ukrainians into
announcing investigations:
The Ukrainian request for a visit by President Zelensky to the White House.
The Ukrainian desire to receive military aid that Congress had allocated for that
purpose.
It is not clear at all that Trump wanted those issues to be used to pressure Ukraine.
Trump never told Sondland that these issues were connected:
Posted by b at 20:08
UTC |
Comments (105) b- I suspect the reason the Dems have thrown themselves into this
impeachment circus is because they knew this investigation was in the works and possibly
others as well:www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukrainian
I shortened the link, if anyone has a problem with it please refer to zerohedge.com
This Ukraine investigation will take down Biden, Hunter, Kerry, Kerry's stepson and probably
Pelosi and her son. Although their scam is via a different Ukraine energy company. The link
mentions several other people from the Obama admin, Obama himself may be at the bottom of
this well.
From Jim Stone:
"The CEO of Burisma in Ukraine was arrested. He started talking. As it turns out, Biden's
kid, Hunter, was not getting paid $50, 000 a month, his base salary was closer to $200, 000 a
month, and now that someone is talking, Hunter received several payments "in the millions"
totaling $16.5million OUTSIDE of his regular pay.
Here is a quote from the original source at CD media
"In our extensive discussions with Onyshchenko, CD Media can report that he confirmed
Hunter Biden took 'off the books' payments totally millions from Burisma.
"There were 'official' and 'unofficial' payments to the Biden family, " Onyshchenko
stated.
Onyshchenko also confirmed that former FBI agent Karen Greenaway, who oversaw the Obama
administration's anti-corruption efforts in Eastern Europe, directed the coverup of the Biden
scandal at the time, in concert with the U.S. embassy in Kyiv, and other Deep State American
government assets 'in-country'.
In Onyshchenko's former oversight role over Ukrainian energy security, he was in a unique
position to acquire information on Burisma and their dealings with the Biden family.
My comment: The impeachment hearing is not going well. They keep chugging along with
absolute blowouts that should end their trip down the road to lunacy, but keep on going like
criminal nut cases that have nothing to lose, hoping the cops never catch up despite all the
flat tires, among which this report was a serious one. It is shocking that this report
relates directly to one of their guys they have in the race against Trump. It does not seem
to matter to them at all if they get revealed time after time after time for what they are,
it is becoming evident that the only thing that will stop them in their impeachment efforts
is a long overdue arrest."
And recall Guliani said that Romania and China pay to play deals are far worse than what
happened in Ukraine
In a riff on the D's line of questioning, they're trying to carry out their end of a quid pro
quo with their sponsors in the MIC. That idea came as a result of comments made during the
Keiser
Report I linked to on the open thread, that the D-Party is the War Party doing the
MIC's bidding against Trump's move from being militantly Geopolitical to wanting to resume
being the dominant Geoeconomic power the Evil Outlaw US Empire was once. As I suggested
earlier, listen twice to the entire show.
IMO, the change in direction/emphasis on what needs to be the basis of the Evil Outlaw US
Empire's power is what's driving the schism between the factions in the Current Oligarchy and
thus the Duopoly. One can also see the rationale for Gabbard and Sanders's political-economic
positions in
the materials I've linked to that justify my line of reasoning.
Why has Trump done the stupid things that have contributed to Russiagate and
Ukrainegate?
Russiagate
'America First' Trump hired Manafort as campaign manager of his 2016 Presidential election -
despite Manafort having been working in Ukraine for many years (thus having little, if
any, recent experience with US politics) , and despite Manafort's having been warned (by
people that were likely connected to CIA) that Manafort's political work for pro-Russia
parties was not appreciated.
Aside: IMO Deep State wanted to settle scores with Manafort, Flynn, and
Assange.
Ukrainegate
Trump made an issue of Biden on the phone call with Zelinsky. The fact that Trump sought no
quid pro quo is irrelevant. It's Trump's inadvisable mentioning of Biden that got
Ukrainegate started.
Lastly, in the Spring, Pelosi and Hillary had both come out strongly against impeachment
hearings, saying that an election was near and impeachment would be counter-productive. But
they both support impeachment hearings now - over the nonsensical Ukrainegate allegations
that lead nowhere except to a Democratic loss in 2020 after these 'witch hunt' hearings.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Kayfabe
It's Deep State orchestrated kayfabe. USA hates whistle-blowers. They don't get the benefit
of the doubt, like this one has.
Trump - Biden conflict helps Biden to get elected, just as Hillary's attack on Tulsi has
helped to keep Tulsi in the race. This "meddling" is consistent with previous political
manipulations:
In December 2018, Trump invites Pelosi to the White House to discuss his "Wall" - which
helps her to get elected Speaker of the House.
In 2016 Sanders is Hillary's sheep-dog and Hillary makes crucial mistakes that lead to
Trump's election (and the start of Russiagate's neo-McCarthyism).
"... I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a potential/inevitable Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as accurately described here, will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a master at giving his enemies enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show appears to me to be a classic example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are still busying themselves atop the fagot pile. ..."
You don't get it. IMO the present impeachment inquiry is illegal because the
whistleblower's complaint should not have bben allowed under the statute. If an impeachment
arrives in the senate it can be thrown out on that basis.
I do get your point, and agree, however the the legislation is deficient in that while the
whistle-blower can, and should, highlight questionable behaviour in his/her department it
does not seem to offer adequate cover against retribution from said department.
viz.
"ICWPA doesn't prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as
access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a
result of having made a disclosure"
In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act.
If your, or my, government is breaking its own laws I would like to see a clear route for
those in the know to report same to some body with the authority to act. They should be
independent of the department, have the power to investigate and protect the source. Better
that then dump it on Wikileaks and hope to stay anonymous.
On a separate point, is or should there be any restrictions on IGIC's authority to change the
scope of evidence to include hearsay, given the evidently limited intent of the whistleblower
legislation / directives?
You are referring to the change in the complaint form where the prior form required the
whistleblower to have direct knowledge of the issue complained about while the latest version
allows the whistleblower to blow the whistle using information obtained from someone else
(hearsay). The statute itself neither allowed not disallowed hearsay information. I believe
that the prior form should not have excluded hearsay. For example, if a foreign agent said
"I'm a foreign agent and taking photos of this top secret information" to a DNI employee,
that is a hearsay statement and could not be reported to the IG using the prior form. To me,
that's wrong.
Exactly right. Here is a link to the statute, 50 USC section 3033. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033
The statute allows for the appointment of an Inspector General who reports to and has the
authority to investigate any activity that falls under the authority of the Director of
National Intelligence.
While I agree that Trump's phone call does not fall under the definition of an urgent
matter that can be reported to Congress, what's worse is that because the President's
activities cannot be investigated under this statute because the President is not under the
authority of nor supervised by the DNI. Thus, the intelligence Inspector General has no
authority to consider the complaint against Trump. Congress created the IG statute and placed
the IG under the supervision of the DNI because under the law the IG is to investigate only
problems that the DNI has the ability to rectify.
As the President of the United States is not supervised by the DNI, the IG has no
authority under this law to investigate the President's activities under this statute. The
complaint and the involvement of the IG in this matter was illegal from the start.
Never forget this particular "whistleblower" statute was changed at the 11th hour to suddenly
allow 2nd hand reports instead of the prior first hand report requirement.
It stunk from day one. Throw the book at the whole pack because they did not take out the
penalty part of the statute for filing false reports. Go get 'em FBI.
Right. The entire purpose of the phony and improper IG complaint was to manufacture an excuse
to have the matter reported to Congress where it would then be leaked to the public. It never
was a proper IG complaint, but the bell cannot be unrung.
Only way out is to call for the impeachment, have a vote and either lick their wounds if
they lose (mainly Schiff and Nadler get sacrificed - Fancy Nancy has been dancing on a tight
rope so she gets a pass); or vote to pass articles of impeachment and finally send this
turkey on to the senate.
Wild card, how many Democrats not engaged in this blatant publicity stunt also want no
part in it. What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for filing
false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the
whistle-blower law.
Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint. Only
if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant.
Otherwise, all you have are the opening opinion statements in tonights DNC debate, sneered
out by Rachael Maddow, picked up with even more sneers by Kamala Harris and echoed by every
single DNC candidate as already a fait accompli.
The unocntested party line tonight is this "whistle blower" busted Trump wide open as a
crook and a self-confessed crook at that.
That political message flowing from this "irrelevant complaint "is hard to overcome as the
DNC debate crowd cheered, unless the perpetrator is brought to justice under the relevance of
this law. We shall wait patiently for that moment. As the Democrats all stated tonight - 2020
election is all about JUSTICE AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I do, which is what I meant by
"In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act."
The point I was making is that, as drafted, there is in adequate redress/protection for
those who witness acts which are clearly covered. This is not conducive to keeping government
on the straight and narrow. The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been
massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and
saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job
isn't it?
The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal destruction.
While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint of irony)
to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump alone has torn
it asunder.
Exactly right. If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower
complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence
activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires.
Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating complaints
about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect luggage at the
airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an
intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of
a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
It seems to me that if Trump is serious about taking on the swamp, now might be a good time
to strike. Surely in this whole mess, there has to be one clear cut case that he could use an
excuse for strong action. Something so egregious, so requiring, dare I say, a righteous
response- one involving a highly public perp walk or something similar.
It is time to put the fear of a jury finding followed by a certain and just punishment,
perhaps a stay at Epstein's prison as a starter while awaiting a no bail trial.
I believe we are talking about the "Fruit of the poisonous tree" objection. That evidence
obtained illegally cannot be used and anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as
well.
Two questions: Was the whistle blower action illegal or just "improper"?
And if illegal, does the "attenuation doctrine" apply here?
"For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent
intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's
illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself. (United States
v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))"
Most likely, if this case were being heard in a court of law, it would be thrown out as fruit
of the poisoned tree doctrine. However, the problem here is there are no judges with the
authority to issue a ruling ordering Congress to stop these hearings.
However, it is certain that if Congress votes for impeachment, the Senate, same as the
House, can also do what it wants and the GOP majority may vote to throw the case out on the
grounds of fruit of the poisoned tree. However, I believe a full trial with witnesses
favorable to the president testifying and focusing on Biden corruption would show the
American people the impeachment process was bogus from the beginning and thus be more
favorable to Trump. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the GOP majority Senate will
provide the 67 votes necessary for impeachment.. So, at then end of the day, this is one big
show trial where the end result will be Trump serving out his elected term or terms.
I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a potential/inevitable
Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as accurately described here,
will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a master at giving his enemies
enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show appears to me to be a classic
example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are still busying themselves atop
the fagot pile.
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI
investigation, was tied very closely to the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste
of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far
too much.
what exactly, to the extend I recall, could the Ukraine contribute the the DNC's server/"fake
malware" troubles? Beyond, that I seem to vaguely recall, the supposed malware was
distributed via an Ukrainan address.
On the other hand, there seems to be the (consensus here?) argument there was no malware
breach at all, simply an insider copying files on a USB stick.
If people discovered there had been a leak, it would perfectly natural that in order to
give 'resilience' to their cover-up strategies, they could have organised a planting of
evidence on the servers, in conjunction with elements in Ukraine.
So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an
actual 'false flag' hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it
easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious questions about
the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility.
The issues involved become all the more important, in the light of the progress of Ty
Clevenger's attempts to exploit the clear contradiction between the claims by the FBI, in
response to FOIA requests, to have no evidence relating to Seth Rich, and the remarks by Ms.
Deborah Sines quoted by Michael Isikoff.
What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of
Rich's laptop, designed as part of a 'false flag' operation.
On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental
Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant
'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48.
Both are short, and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory
reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about 'Russiagate.'
It is eminently possible that Ms. Hines has simply made an 'unforced error.'
However, I do not – yet – feel able totally to discount the possibility that
what is actually at issue is a 'ruse', produced as a contingency plan to ensure that if it
becomes impossible to maintain the cover-up over Rich's involvement in its original form, his
laptop shows 'evidence' compatible with the 'Russiagate' narrative.
And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard
drives' can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout
the former Soviet Union is very high.
Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims'
site is back up online.
Looking at it from the perspective of an old television current affairs hack, I do think
that, while it is very helpful to have some key material available in a single place, it
would useful if more attention was paid to presentation.
In particular, it would be a most helpful 'teaching aid', if a full and accurate
transcript was made of the conversation with Seymour Hersh which Ed Butowsky covertly
recorded.
What seems clear is that both these figures ended up in very difficult positions, and that
the latter clearly engaged in 'sleight of hand' in relation to his dealings with the
former.
That said, the fact that Butowsky's claims about his grounds for believing that Hersh's
FBI informant was Andrew McCabe are clearly disingenuous does not justify the conclusion that
he is wrong.
It is absolutely clear to me – despite what 'TTG', following that 'Grub Street' hack
Folkenflik, claimed – that when Hersh talked to Butowsky, he believed he had been given
accurate information.
Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how anyone whose eyes were not hopelessly blinded by
prejudice, a\nd possibly fear of where a quest for the truth might lead, could not see that,
in this conversation, both men were telling the truth, as they saw it.
However, all of us, including the finest and most honourable of journalists can, from time
to time, fall for disinformation. (If anyone says they can always spot when they are being
played, all I can say is, if you're right, you're clearly Superman, but it is more likely
that you are a fool or knave, if not both.)
The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or
a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's
involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified
as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.'
1. Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show
it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the
"Russian" conclusion instead.Why has that methodology been sealed?
2. Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or
independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his
Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and
harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and
unavailable computers.
3. What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Meuller team that
conspired to reach this Russian conclusion.
4. Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's
evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking
conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link.
5. Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -Crowsdtrike player links and
loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more
information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question when you don't
already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth.
Isn't the ICIG another swamp careerist?
These swamp creatures are of one ilk (NOT a big deer):
They live in the same neighborhoods, their kids go to the same schools, they go to the same
Delaware beaches.
They will NEVER seriously investigate, much less bring down, a fellow swamp creature.
At the same time it was probably pre-emptive strike against Barr investigation (especially
Crowstryke portion of it) and newly acquired election strategy.
'UkraineGate' is potentially deathly to the Dems, so all / any issues are brandished..
I posted long ago. 2009. Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz (John Kerry's son) form an
International Private Equity firm, Rosemont Seneca. Devon Archer was the 'managing
partner.'
I wrote it was perhaps ? money laundering (as gas. cos don't have those kinds of sums on
hand .. to bribe .. for what?) I didn't know about Paul Pelosi at the time.
This is pure speculation, but it is beginning to look like the Obama Régime
was engaged in financial transfers a coy way of putting it - ex. Aid to Ukraine
(Russia 3x!) which was partly kicked back, through fronts like Burisma, to those who
organised the aid in the first place! -- Care of the US taxpayer of course.
The IMF was involved as well (in some role.. ?) Obiman delegated all that to Joe Biden and
pretended to ignore it, imho he knew but distanced himself.
To the point. The blared MSM and social media discourse of Intl. Geo-politics was: Ukraine
to join the EU, NATO, evil enemy Russia, a new age, are cover-ups and distractions for
Mafia-style Mega-Finance World Moves, run by a narrow clique of 'Capos.'
Following on (again, speculation ++, one angle only..), Yanukovitch for ex. was not
dislodged by "Maidan," a hapless victim of illegit-agit-prop, the usual régime-change
actions instigated by the US, supposedly successful in this case, but fell foul of some
corrupt plans/ppl, as he himself was corrupt. Ex. The story about how he suddenly realised
that 'joining the EU' would be detrimental to Ukr. and he needed to keep ties with Russia was
total BS right from day one.
@76 I was just going to post a link to Solomon's Ukrainian Timeline. It's an outstanding
piece filled with supporting documents that helps to bring greater focus to Ukraine and the
Obama team. Bookmark it.
As for the line in b's post that 'Trump is a crook' is baseless innuendo. Did he swim in a
pool of crooks and sharks while cutting real estate deals in dirty NYC and NJ? Of course he
did. Only through such association can one tag him with being a 'crook' yet neither he nor
his businesses have had any criminal charges brought forward during decades of doing
business.
Also according to the Dem's own focus group data, Dem's aren't buying into their Party's
impeachment circus - "Almost nobody in the groups said they are intentionally following
impeachment news. Several are avoiding it. There was a great deal of ambivalence about
impeachment and apparently more support for dropping it than pursuing it. The proceeding is
seen [as] a dominating the Democrats' agenda. At least one person in each group could clearly
articulate the charge against Trump and Ukraine. No one thought the charges were related to
Russia...So, the question in their minds was whether the significance of this rises to the
level of impeachment and whether this process will dominate the government's work. The
inherent sense of corruption of all politicians allowed space for many to believe that what
Trump did was commonplace, and ultimately several were ready to let Trump off the proverbial
hook by characterizing the charges as "politics" without digging deeper to determine [if] of
the charges were impeachable or not. Few called it a crime although some mentioned he abused
his power."
So, if conservatives/republicans/independents and now democrats aren't buying into the
fable then what's it really all about? This new info on Templeton, the DNC and the Atlantic
Council has a lot to do with answering the why. Just like the roll out of RussiaGate, time
will tell. Then, we had no idea how abused the entirety of the FISA system was. We have some
facts at hand such as Collyer and Boasberg's reports, however, Horowitz's pending report is
said to fill in the gaps. I'm hopeful the same process will unfold around
Ukraine/Burisma/Bidens/Obama/Soros/The Atlantic Council/State and many more. The sun is only
just now rising...
Aaron
Mate's thread notes the long public acknowledgement of Ukrainian meddling:
"Ukrainian officials bragged about it in August 2016 {link at original] & then came to
regret it after Trump won [link at original] It's fine if you reject Trump's Crowdstrike
theory, but to deny Ukrainian meddling is to deny a documented fact."
Mate notes furthermore:
"What's also funny is that Ukraine's meddling is similar to what Russia is accused of:
releasing dos [sic] that expose corruption in a presidential campaign. Ukraine's docs alleged
that Manafort received secret payments. Russia is often accused of an 'act of war.' How about
Ukraine?"
As I opined upthread, this circus is all about getting Warren the POTUS nomination, but
this article notes she must be seen as radioactive despite her
continuing attempts to portray herself as a frontstage populist, using the Clinton gambit
of telling her Big Donors it's all an act behind closed doors.
Rather than being amazed an appalled at behavior of the would be empire -
we chose sides and join the fray.
Consider that in the U.S. we (pretty much) literally have only two choices to select from
for any elected position and
in many cases one of those choices is certain to fail (run as a formality). This is
"democracy".
The "nation" is now overtly criminal on the international stage and this is now accepted
behavior.
Hang on. I'm still trying to figure out how exactly the Ukraine managed to influence the US
presidential campaign.
Wasn't it Russia? That's what we've all been told, left right and centre, without a shred
of evidence. Unless you uncritically believe Adam Schiff... or Fraudbook...
Now, what, it was Zelenski? Not Porky Poroshenko? Or Arseniy Yatsenyuik? Or Igor
Koloimenski? Or Arseniy Avekov?
Whose money do you wish to believe?
pogohere , Nov 21 2019 18:42 utc |
86c1ue , Nov 21 2019 18:52 utc |
87
@Ant #84
The oligarch most known for pouring money into US politicians is Victor Pinchuk.
He's put money into the Clinton Global Initiative, paid for both Clintons' to speechify,
supports Brookings and the Atlantic Council, has a full time registered lobbyist in
Washington, etc.
"A former top White House Russia expert testified Thursday that the 'fictional narrative'
embraced by President Donald Trump that Ukraine meddled in the US elections was fabricated by
Russia to wreak havoc in US politics."
So reports one of NATO's BigLie Media outlets. FYI, as I wrote in 2016, no outside nation
needs to "wreak havoc in US politics" as there're numerous home grown domestic sources
already doing that in an ongoing manner since the 1850s. Isn't it a felony to lie to
Congress?
Hill, in advanced testimony Thursday, warned lawmakers against believing a "fictional
narrative" that it was Ukraine and not Russia that interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election.
"This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian
security services themselves," Hill said in prepared remarks.
"The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked
our democratic institutions in 2016 . This is the public conclusion of our intelligence
agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some
of the underlying details must remain classified."
Hill emphasized that she is a nonpartisan foreign policy expert, who has served under three
different Republican and Democratic presidents and that she has "no interest in advancing the
outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction, except toward the truth."
She warned that U.S. national security has been harmed by the politicization of support for
Ukraine.
"The Russian government's goal is to weaken our country -- to diminish America's global
role and to neutralize a perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests," she said.
"President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter U.S. foreign policy
objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and
economic dominance."
Hill added, "I respect the work that this Congress does in carrying out its constitutional
responsibilities, including in this inquiry, and I am here to help you to the best of my
ability. I f the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the
United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than
worthy of your attention. But we must not let domestic politics stop us from defending
ourselves against the foreign powers who truly wish us harm."
Holmes testified behind closed doors earlier this month that he heard U.S. Ambassador to the
European Union Gordon Sondland telling President Trump over a phone conversation that Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky "loves your ass."
As an open-minded, astute observer, I'd say the Dems already had their impeachment
narrative in place before the hearings, then used the hearings to build supportive evidence
of conjecture, hearsay and supposition to come to their "guilty" conclusion.
What happens when 90% of the media is controlled/owned by (6) corporations?
What happens when those same corporations are operated and controlled by a political
ideology?
What happens when the news is no longer free from bias?
What happens when the news is no longer reliable and independent?
What happens when the news is no longer trustworthy?
What happens when the news simply becomes an extension/arm of a political party?
Fact becomes fiction?
Fiction becomes fact?
When does news become propaganda?
Identity creation?
How does the average person, who is under constant financial stress (by design), find time to
research and discern fact v fiction?
Majority of people more prone to believe someone in power sitting behind a big brand 'news'
name?
Do people [human psyche] tend to follow the 'majority/mainstream viewpoint' in fear of being
isolated and/or shunned?
'Mainstream' is used for a reason [dominate trend in opinion] .
[If majority of people believe 'x' then 'x' must be validated / true]
Why do 'mainstream' media heads, within different orgs, always use the same keywords and/or
catch phrases?
Coordinated? By who? Outside entity providing instructions?
Do they count on the fact that people [human psyche] are more prone to believe something if
heard over-and-over again by different 'trusted' sources?
Do 'echo chamber' tactics provide validation / credibility to the topic/point being
discussed?
Threat to intellectual freedom?
Would control over [of] these institutions/organizations allow for the mass control of a
populations viewpoint re: a desired topic?
Read again – digest.
Would control over [of] these institutions/organizations allow for the mass control of a
populations viewpoint re: a desired topic?
Logical thinking.
Why, after the election of 2016, did [D] 's and media corps jumpstart a [coordinated &
planned] divisive blitz intended to create falsehoods re: illegitimacy of election, character
assassination of POTUS through sexism, racism, every other 'ism'?
Pre/post 2016 election?
Why were violent [masked] terror orgs such as Antifa immediately created/funded?
Why were these orgs tasked w/ immediate intimidation/shut down of any pro-POTUS rally [s]
and/or events?
Why were marches immediately organized to counter and silence pro-POTUS rally [s] and/or
events?
Why were marches immediately organized which divided people into sex/gender, race, [ism]
?
When you control the levers of news dissemination, you control the narrative.
Control of the narrative = power
When you are blind, what do you see?
They want you divided.
Divided by religion.
Divided by sex.
Divided by political affiliation.
Divided by class.
When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not
those responsible [controllers] .
Divided you are weak.
Divided you pose no threat to their control.
When 'non-dogmatic' information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those
who attempt to control the narrative and/or stable [livestock kept – sheep] .
When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable ('group-think' collective), and
have 'free thought'.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should
be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition,
revelation, or dogma.
Q
Money quote: "I am now convinced that laws, justice, truth and honor don't amount to a hill
of beans in The Swamp. It's all wanton and vicious politics and power plays all the time. Then
mountains of BS, shoveled out by an allied scurrilous media machine to try to keep the public
buying into the Machiavellian machinations of the Swamp dwellers. "
"The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 ,
[1] amending the Central Intelligence Agency
Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978
, sets forth a procedure for employees and contractors of specified federal intelligence
agencies to report complaints or information to Congress about serious problems involving
intelligence activities.
Under the ICWPA, an intelligence employee or contractor who intends to report to Congress a
complaint or information of "urgent concern" involving an intelligence activity may report the
complaint or information to their agency's inspector general or the Inspector
General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG). Within a 14-day period, the IG must determine
"whether the complaint or information appears credible," and upon finding the information to be
credible, thereafter transfer the information to the head of the agency. The law then requires
the DNI (or the relevant agency head) to forward the complaint to the congressional
intelligence committees, along with any comments he wishes to make about the complaint, within
seven days. If the IG does not deem the complaint or information to be credible or does not
transmit the information to the head of the agency, the employee may provide the information
directly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. However, the employee must first
inform the IG of his or her intention to contact the intelligence committees directly and must
follow the procedures specified in the Act.
The Act defines a matter of "urgent concern" as:
[2]
a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order , or
deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity
involving classified
information , but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy
matters;
A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of
material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence
activity; or
An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee's
reporting an urgent concern.
ICWPA doesn't prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as
access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a
result of having made a disclosure.
[3] In 2006 Thomas Gimble, Acting Inspector General, Department of Defense ,
stated before the House Committee on
Government Reform that the ICWPA is a ' misnomer ' and that more properly the Act protects
the communication of classified information to Congress .
[4] According to Michael German with the Brennan Center for Justice , the
ICWPA, "provides a right to report internally but no remedy when that right is infringed, which
means that there is no right at all."
[3]
According to the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence , from 1999-2009, 10 complaints/disclosures were filed under this
law, four of which were found to be credible by the relevant Inspector General. In three of
these ten cases the whistleblower claimed that s/he was retaliated against: two CIA cases and one
DOJ case. Subsequent
investigations by the CIA and DOJ failed to find evidence of retaliation in any of these cases.
[3]
[5]
This law provides an intelligence official with a legal means within which to report
misdeeds in the world of intelligence operation, funding, etc. It has nothing to do with
government activities that are not intelligence activities. There was nothing in the now famous
25 July call between Trump and Zelensky that was intelligence business. None. Remember - the
two presidents ARE NOT intelligence officials.
IMO the complaint was and is invalid and should not have been entertained at all by the IC
IG. The original opinion by DoJ on this matter was correct. pl
Jack ,
Sir,
The Democrats are intent on impeaching Trump. As they have shown with the vote to launch
the impeachment inquiry, they're quite happy to do it on a purely partisan party line vote.
And they have the full support of the mainstream media and many in the bureaucracy including
serving officers in the military. The only question IMO, is how many Republican senators will
either abstain or vote to convict in the Senate trial?
The Resistance as Barr has called them are so blind with hatred for Trump that they can't
see beyond their nose. They will now create a precedent where a House majority of one party
can impeach at will the President of the opposing party while using a kangaroo court inquiry.
This must lead to complete chaos for our political system that each of our adversaries would
love. IMO, only the American voter can change this by stopping to vote the lesser evil and
electing candidates outside the duopoly. Of course that ain't happening in my life time as
most Americans are consumed with partisan warfare on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
prawnik ,
The law doesn't matter. The IC and courts will interpret the laws however they wish.
This is the flip side of the fundamental problem in Sir Thomas More's famous formulation
of the law in "A Man for All Seasons". The laws of England or any other law are of no
protection to anyone if he cannot enforce them.
Similarly, even if the laws clearly condemn a action, even if the action is wrongful, that
is of no matter, if the people with power have decided that the law is to protect that action
regardless of what is written.
Moral: there is no such thing as law. There is only context.
K -> prawnik... ,
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your take (and I always appreciate a Thomas More
reference). However, I think where there is a widespread agreement amongst the population
that the law is just and that it is generally applied fairly to all--in that society you
empower leading voices to defend the law against would-be attackers (from either top or
bottom). But today we do not have that consensus in popular opinion, not all of us believe
the law is fair or evenly applied, and voices shouting for it to be abrogated are loud and
growing bolder.
Now, your moral is properly situated in its historical context.
Factotum ,
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI
investigation, was tied very closely to the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste
of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far
too much.
Isn't the ICIG another swamp careerist?
These swamp creatures are of one ilk (NOT a big deer):
They live in the same neighborhoods, their kids go to the same schools, they go to the same
Delaware beaches.
They will NEVER seriously investigate, much less bring down, a fellow swamp creature.
I am now convinced that laws, justice, truth and honor don't amount to a hill of beans in The
Swamp. It's all wanton and vicious politics and power plays all the time. Then mountains of
BS, shoveled out by an allied scurrilous media machine to try to keep the public buying into
the Machiavellian machinations of the Swamp dwellers.
Members of the "in crowd" can do whatever they want without repercussion. If any of them
ever faces consequences it's because they fell from favor for secret reasons as opposed to
the publicly announced reason, or they got sleepy and were gunned down by a newer more
ambitious usurper.
The deep state exists to perpetuate itself. When 95% of all 2016 political contributions from
the deep state went to Clinton, trump's election created and existential crisis.
Trump promised he would expose and cleag out the deep state - look at his major2016
campaign video speech. Those were his very first words.
Deep state was put on notice even before the was elected. Apoplectic can be their only
response. Frog brains were engaged and we have these three long awful years of deep state
inflicted chaos.
Deep state = Democrats = big public sector unions How can you have $800 billion tax
dollars going to teachers union members nationwide without the teachers union deep state
doing all they can to bring Trump down. Including using K-12 students as front line storm
troopers.
Is that all you got? Smearing witnesses? Witnesses who happen to be offering sworn
testimony that nobody really is contesting. (Although, you know, the three amigos, Rudi,
etc could testify if they wanted to and rebut). In the meantime Lt. Col.
Vindman is now under 24-hour protection from the Army.
Careerists there (Vindman, Yovanovitch) and folks with little-to-no experience (Sondland
-- who, btw, was praised to the high heavens by Trump last month) are all saying the same
thing. And, really, as a veteran of State, surely you must agree that Rudi Giuliani
shouldn't have been inter-meddling (did i mention he's under FBI investigation and his two
side-kick cronies were indicted?).
This is corrupt mess through and through. Anybody who cares about even moderately clean
government should be appalled.
Rep. David Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, questioned Lt.
Col. Alexander Vindman, an Army officer who works for the National Security Council, and
Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, on Nov. 19, in a public hearing as
part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
In his line of questioning, Nunes attempted to glean more information that House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff said could lead to revealing the identity of
the whistleblower. Vindman told Nunes that his counsel suggested that he not answer questions
or "provide specifics" about members of the intelligence community. Vindman's counsel spoke up
saying he was following the rules set by Schiff and the committee.
Schiff interjected during Nunes' questioning to say, "These proceedings will not be used to
out the whistleblower." Vindman and Williams both listened in on a July phone call in which
Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate former vice president and 2020 presidential
candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
They just confirmed that the other person he spoke with was the "whistleblower" and that
Schiff lied when he said he doesn't know who the "whistleblower" is. Why else would Schiff
stop the questioning when he asked who the other individual is and said that he is trying to
out the "whistleblower". Also if Schiff didn't know who the "whistleblower" is then why would
he stop the questioning claiming that it is meant to out the "whistleblower"?
I'm surprised anyone would believe this guy because he has "YES MAN" all over his face! He
would do or say anything to get ahead ! A WEASEL, ROSENBRUG IS ONE, along with SCHIFF. Easily
lead to do anything to please if they let him do what he loves to do. CAN BE LEAD BY THE NOSE
KIND OF PERSON! SICKENING!
Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. questioned Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, an Army officer who works
for the National Security Council, and Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence,
on Nov. 19, in a public hearing as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
Vindman and Williams both listened in on a July phone call in which Trump asked the president
of Ukraine to investigate former vice president
What I do not understand is what will DemoRats get if Senate starts the trial.
Notable quotes:
"... "The Democrats waited for better timing of blowing the allegations it came when Zelenskiy visited Washington and blew it in UN plus, met Trump. ..."
"... "Danilyuk was present at the Zelinskiy + Trump conversation, he told about the matters of the conversation to Alexander Vindman. Zelinskiy administration fired Danilyuk but is not able to fire Vindman." ..."
"... The article continues with info on Schiff's staffers meeting in Ukraine, it has the agenda, who attended, etc. There are other related articles too, worth review IMO. ..."
"... It was not clear to the negotiators what Trump actually wanted. Sondland said that at one point he called up Trump and asked an open questions: "What do you want from Ukraine?". ..."
"... According to Sondland Trump responded: "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing." ..."
"... That Gordon Sondland and his fellow negotiators were flabbergasted that Trump did not tie money for military weapons to the Biden revelations, and that Sondland himself made the assumption that Trump would make the aid money conditional on what Ukraine could provide, might tell us more about the huckster mindset that prevails among the Washington political and bureaucratic elite than it does about Trump's own worldview and psycholoical make-up. Trump may be obsessed with making the Deal of the Century but the people surrounding him in the White House are obsessed with extracting as much blood out of a stone as they can. ..."
"... Regarding the possibility of a Senate trail, just look at the two major papers. They are pushing impeachment with all they have, including awarding sainthood to some who do not deserve it, e.g. Vindman. If the Beltway echo chamber has the desired affect, Shiff will keep things going. ..."
"... This is from Saint Marie's statement: ..."
"... "Supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to do. If Russia prevails and Ukraine falls to Russian dominion, we can expect to see other attempts by Russia to expand its territory and influence." ..."
"... In other words, trotting out the old Dominoes Theory, first it will be Ukraine, then Belarus, Poland, the Baltics. Oh the horror! ..."
"... The impeachment hearings will never touch the basic underlying fact that Obama/Biden Administration restarted the Cold War by supporting the Maidan Coup and greenlighting the seizing of the ethnic Russian Donbass region. The trench warfare there continues to this day. ..."
"... The only conclusion is that the hatred between globalist oligarchs and nationalists is so deep and powerful that the consequences of a World War are ignored. The 2020 election is pointless. The Republic is dead. The Empire shutters from internal conflict. If the Battle of Carrhae replays once again, the war with Iran will force any survivors to retreat from the Middle East. ..."
"... Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is to advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $ flowing. ..."
This article is really helpful. https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2019/11/04
Again I have shortened the link, the article states: "Intelligence sources in Kyiv have
informed CD Media that the 'witness' narrative of LT COL Alexander Vindman was created by
corrupt U.S. State Department officials in Kyiv, Ukraine.
According to our sources, "Alexander Vindman [recent witness in favor of Trump
impeachment], Gordon Sondland [US ambassador to the EU and Trump supporter] and Oleksandr
Danilyuk [Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine from late May
until 30 September 2019 before being fired] had a meeting in July 2019. Sondland asked
Danilyuk as head of National Security Bureau of Ukraine to investigate Biden, Burisma, and
Manafort related investigations.
Apparently, Sondland didnt know that Danilyuk is Soros' agent and supplies info to
Democrats. This was the second leak to the Deep State.
The first leak was made by Danilyuk because he was the only person in the room with fluent
English when Zelenskiy and Trump had a phone call conversation. Zelenskiy speaks English on
very intermediate level, loses the context and emotional sense also, Yermak Andrei, the 2d
Advisor to Zelenskiy is, allegedly, on the hook of FSB. Thus, it was Danilyuk who passed
information to the Deep State to attack Trump.
"The Democrats waited for better timing of blowing the allegations it came when
Zelenskiy visited Washington and blew it in UN plus, met Trump.
"Danilyuk was present at the Zelinskiy + Trump conversation, he told about the matters
of the conversation to Alexander Vindman. Zelinskiy administration fired Danilyuk but is not
able to fire Vindman."
The article continues with info on Schiff's staffers meeting in Ukraine, it has the
agenda, who attended, etc. There are other related articles too, worth review IMO.
(1) b is not being clear that Sondland drew a definite line between the White House
meeting and the stalled military aid, in terms of how he thought they were linked to Zelensky
making the desired announcement of investigations: While Sondland said he merely "presumed"
the linkage to the military aid, he asserts the linkage to the White House meeting was made
explicit to him (albeit via Giuliani).
(2) The "well documented Ukraininan interference" that actually occurred (ostensible dirt
on Manafort) bears only a vague relationship to what has lodged in Trump's shriveled lima
bean brain (the DNC server spirited away to Kiev). Of course, since neither the Dems nor the
Repubs are interested in noting this fact, it will be ignored.
thanks b.... the way i see it, usa and everyone loses in the present set up.. you can't get
down and grovel in the swamp with the usa or ukraine, as youre going to get a lot of mud on
you and some of it is going to stick.. the info that comes out of the dynamic between these 2
countries is toxic, no matter which way you look... of course dems naively think they are
going to use it to get rid of trump, but they are dredging up some toxic stuff with a lot of
their own ckeletons in the closet... they are hoping none of it comes out and the focus
remains on - as @5 jackrabbit notes - trump mentioning biden and how this is not allowed.. i
can't see them gaining from this myself as the whole thing is a political theatre where we
mostly know the final outcome... and, it's not just the ammo that trump can throw out here,
but the accidental info such as what @1/2 frances points to as well... lots of ugliness can
come out of this that is going to stick on everyone...
@3 taffyboy.. that is old footage repackaged in a new link... thanks anyway.. it is fairly
clear though and something that the dems think others are going to miss or something.. i
don't get that part.. the dems want to keep the focus on how trump was going after a 2020
rival but i think once anyone starts looking at this, they are going to see a lot more then
they want to see.. mind you, maybe the usa media will be successful in guiding the narrative
for the war party which on some level seem unhappy with trump.. i don't know that it is
eroding trumps fan base though.. maybe.. but as b says - trump is a crook.. everyone knew
this before he got in power.. however, he has slowed down the military agenda some relative
to obama, which is really ironic.. i think it is because trump doesn't profit off the
military industrial complex as he does other stuff.. either way they are all first class
kleptomaniacs all vying for the front of the trough...
The negotiations around the Ukraine issues were going slow. It was not clear to the
negotiators what Trump actually wanted. Sondland said that at one point he called up Trump
and asked an open questions: "What do you want from Ukraine?".
According to Sondland Trump responded: "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no
quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing."
Trump is a crook. It is fair to presume that he wanted his aides to use all potential
pressure points to deliver the desired results from the Ukrainians. But Trump is also a
smart enough crook to never say that.
Is it possible that, just for once, Trump really did want nothing from Zelensky other than
to find out what Joe Biden stood to gain from pressuring the Ukrainians to sack Viktor Shokin
as Prosecutor General and what Hunter Biden's role as Board Director of a shell energy
company in Ukraine really amounted to?
That Gordon Sondland and his fellow negotiators were flabbergasted that Trump did not
tie money for military weapons to the Biden revelations, and that Sondland himself made the
assumption that Trump would make the aid money conditional on what Ukraine could provide,
might tell us more about the huckster mindset that prevails among the Washington political
and bureaucratic elite than it does about Trump's own worldview and psycholoical make-up.
Trump may be obsessed with making the Deal of the Century but the people surrounding him in
the White House are obsessed with extracting as much blood out of a stone as they
can.
If this ever gets to the Senate, a full trial will result, which will cause who knows how
many skeletons fall out of various Democrat/"Resistance" closets.
What do you think the odds are that, just somehow, nothing goes to the Senate in the
end?
>Nothing goes to Senate, I bet, but also no indictments from Barr.
> How's that for a quid pro quo?
> Posted by: casey | Nov 20 2019 21:54 utc | 13
For a kleptocracy, that almost sounds like a reasonable resolution, so no, that can not be
allowed. Trump is not being a team player, plus the retreat from northern Syria under fire
from potatoes was an unforgivable humiliation. Someone must pay for that, even if it brings
down the whole rotten house, a real possibility. Trump has how many millions of Twitter
followers? If he ever calls them out to the street, even if only 1% respond, and they show up
with guns...
Trump is unpredictable and dangerous. How does one disarm a drunk with a gun at a party?
Very, very carefully. But brain-dead big-dick Dear Leaders don't do carefully. It's Obey Or
Regarding the possibility of a Senate trail, just look at the two major papers. They are
pushing impeachment with all they have, including awarding sainthood to some who do not
deserve it, e.g. Vindman. If the Beltway echo chamber has the desired affect, Shiff will keep
things going.
This is from Saint Marie's statement:
"Supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to do. If
Russia prevails and Ukraine falls to Russian dominion, we can expect to see other attempts
by Russia to expand its territory and influence."
In other words, trotting out the old Dominoes Theory, first it will be Ukraine, then
Belarus, Poland, the Baltics. Oh the horror!
Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report is always on the money
'https://www.blackagendareport.com/freedom-rider-ukrainegate-farce
She explains that "The Democrats are hoping that Ukrainegate will succeed where Russiagate
failed and they can win the presidency without helping their voters.
"This spectacle is a get out the vote effort that doubles as anti-Russian propaganda."
In other words this is a battle to ensure that the Democratic Party does not do what it
has done a couple of times before in history and become aligned with the people against the
oligarchs.
The last to manage that were FDR in 1936 (though Huey Long didn't think so) and WJ Bryan
in 1896. He came very close to winning in his challenge to the financiers, Wall St and the
rich.
There is a real chance this year that Sanders will win the Primaries and in doing so break
the hold that the corporate machines have over the Democratic Party.
To win Sanders will have, first of all, to win the support of the black voters who have
become the most reliable and malleable vote bank in the party. This would break the hold of
the Black Misleadership Class which exists to ensure that class politics do not develop. The
great fear of the oligarchy and their paid agents in the black community is that voters will
stop thinking in racial terms and start judging politicians by their policies.
If that should happen, and 'Every Man become a King', the Few might as well emigrate to
Brazil or Colombia, and take the political class, the media and the 'intelligentsia' with
them.
The impeachment hearings will never touch the basic underlying fact that Obama/Biden
Administration restarted the Cold War by supporting the Maidan Coup and greenlighting the
seizing of the ethnic Russian Donbass region. The trench warfare there continues to this
day.
The same Corporate Democrats together with the Five-Eyes Intelligence Community have
conducted a continuous campaign to defeat and then remove Donald Trump. But they are so
incompetent that he is still in the White House but he is under pressure, all alone,
frustrated and angry, with only his daughter and Kellyanne Conway for support.
Yesterday, the USS Carrier Abraham Lincoln entered Persian Gulf after 6 months nearby;
Carrier Harry Truman is back at sea, ahead of relieving the Lincoln. US National Guard
armored units deployed to eastern Syria to keep the oil. The September drone attack shows
that Aramco's oil production facilities can be taken out at any time. A bad day and the
global economy crashes.
The only conclusion is that the hatred between globalist oligarchs and nationalists is
so deep and powerful that the consequences of a World War are ignored. The 2020 election is
pointless. The Republic is dead. The Empire shutters from internal conflict. If the Battle of
Carrhae replays once again, the war with Iran will force any survivors to retreat from the
Middle East.
Pelosi is driving this impeachment bus to a trial in the Senate next year at the height of
the primaries. The goal is to keep Warren and Bernie locked up in the Senate chamber, giving
Mayor Pete and Biden ( and maybe Bloomberg) a chance to gain ground and win some state races.
The Democrats don't care if they lose to Trump. They will do anything to make sure a
progressive doesn't win to protect their corporate paymasters.
It is beyond me why the Democrats think they can bring Trump down over this.
Of course they don't. The whole thing is a massive cover up. The idea is to bore the world on
Ukraine, sacrifice Biden and prevent Giulani from digging deeper. There is so much dirt over
Ukraine that just allowing a normal investigation would be suicide for the whole dems, not
just Kerry/Biden/Hillary.
The same thing happened with Russia/Mueller. There was never an attempt to get Trump, just
to distract from Fisa inquiries and the blatant Trump spying. The Durham investigation could
crucify many from Brennan to Hillary to probably Obama.
Bore the world with b/s investigations, hope Trump doesn't have time to do his own
homework. It will never work. Giulani has a ton of dirt to reveal if he wants. And in anycase
Trump won last time by ignoring the mudfight and concentrating on slogans that showed he had
listened to what voters are saying. Working class jobs and pay, and then every time a Dem
calls for "protect the immigrants", Transwomen's rights, better universities or attack
Trump's climate change record they lose a thousand votes.
Dem outrage at Trump is just the best thing for him to win marginal working class votes.
BTW - there seems to be this thing nowadays where you can't say the facts point one way
without claiming to hate the victor. Trump is a crook. Assad is an evil person but. China is
a dreadful place but.
Trump didn't go to Washington until 3 years ago. He is probably the most honest man in the
state.
"It is beyond me why the Democrats think they can bring Trump down over this."
Really, it's the Blue wing of the Quigley Party which, for obvious reasons, must run the
anterior assault with passive assistance from the Red wing. Schiff's role was to do a better
job of simulating substance, if the real stuff couldn't be found.
The RINOs need an optical rope-bridge, allowing them to embark on a
principled/Constitutional and oh-so-difficult moral traverse that they can be seen
reluctantly rising to for the benefit of taking the edge off incensed MAGAs. At this point,
the plan of necessity is to weather the civil insurrection because Trump simply has to
go.
Alas Schiff is not delivering much. Nonetheless I suspect that after trying everything and
the kitchen sink to get Trump, reluctant Senators' own dirty (NSA) dossiers will play key
roles. There has never been in the 70-year post WW2 era a more compulsory vote than this. All
swan-divers will be well cared for.
Those who focus on MERIT and SUBSTANCE forget that the real kingmaker is PROCESS. Article
1 Section 3 requires only 'present' Senators need vote on conviction. Thus a lot of games can
be played in the gap and particularly vulnerable RINOs might be allowed a form of sick-day
(e.g. a 20-Senator panel of Dems & Repubs).
It is hard to imagine Trump surviving Mitch's Star Chamber after heaven and earth has been
moved for three years to maneuver him to this point. The singular criticality of the Senate
well only grows as Trump's re-election appears increasingly assured.
T=Of course the less plausible the Schiff findings, the more 'process gerrymandering' will
be relied upon to carry the weight. Again, some level of civil unrest is unavoidable. However
five more years of Trump is a nonstarter.
"Trump is a crook."
I'm confounded by the persisting refusal to draw a qualitative distinction between Trump
and the system he's so clearly at odds with. Not a panacea of course. This is about power.
But distinction enough to rationalize the Herculean efforts being expended to oust
him.
Come on b, do the algebra! Something's lop-sided. Trump could save everyone a lot of
trouble if he simply fell back into the arms of his confederates. Surely at a minimum there's
a material schism in the elites. A schism means daylight in the Panopticon's ceiling. Why
isn't this cheered more?
If Trump swims in crookedness, why does the entire impeachment process hinge on two
ridiculously banal phone calls after over three years of FISA microscopy? Why, in the course
of his 'mock-defense' has he been allowed to turn back the sheets on the existential levels
of Ukraine corruption? Has the Deep State become masochistic in its old age?
And why hasn't the system found his price? Every crook has one. $50 billion would be a
reasonable opening gambit. Does anyone still think this is some kind of false-dialectic
kabuki? If it is, the stage managers deserve the world, or already have it. That, and an
Oscar. Bravo!
Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is to
advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the
US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $
flowing.
Confrontation is much more profitable than peace...
I love the title of Rick Wilson's book "Everything Trump Touches Dies". The man is completely
beshitting the presidency and the USA brand. This is not to say it wasn't foul before he laid
his tiny hands on it. He is a symptom as another commenter here points out of the failure of
the system that produced him.
Impeachment will not solve the problem even though impeachment is fully justified on the
basis of his illegal maneuvers in Ukraine. He should be removed from his command for looting
Syria's oil, or for simply entering upon Syrian territory without being invited. Bush should
be in prison for the Iraq war, for that matter. But he's another symptom.
The clear and present danger is Trump who has thrown a monkey wrench into the global
system and disunited the nations. He's wrecked trade relations with China. He's exacerbated
problems in the ME and assisted Israel in the further destruction of the Palestinian people.
He's attempting to dismantle the lawful regulatory function of government and convert it to a
lawless fascist fortress America with only contempt for international law. His ignorance of
environmental problems is vast.
If this man is not removed from office this nation will die. Sooner than it would
otherwise. It is already very sick. This spectacle of impeachment is a weak remedy. We have
no alternative.
Trump is not a crook. He approached the situation with Z no doubt as he has been approached
countless times by the Mob and the Cops in NYC. "Nice country you got here. It would be a
shame if anything were to happen to it." If you sincerely believe Trump's denial of "quid pro
quo" and his handwritten notes, you might be the only one on the planet. That will hardly
save him from impeachment but not enough to get him tossed out (which I agree with others, is
not the Dems objective). Remember too, this did not start with the Dems. And it's not some
murky Deep State. I am surprised you have not focused on the obvious role of Bolton in all
this. He's hiding behind Kupperman now, waiting for everybody to testify, then he will come
out. He obviously has first hand info on all of this, and it's his cadre who have been
leading the charge, and his allies who have been beating the war drums (V, Taylor, Kent, et
al) with Russia. Finally, whatever the Biden boys were up to, Trump went full Tony Soprano.
Not a good look for an empire in decline. It's a textbook example of the constitutional
meaning of bribery.
tintorelli , Nov 21 2019 3:29 utc | 42
Trump is not a crook. He approached the situation with Z no doubt as he has been
approached countless times by the Mob and the Cops in NYC. "Nice country you got here. It
would be a shame if anything were to happen to it." If you sincerely believe Trump's denial
of "quid pro quo" and his handwritten notes, you might be the only one on the planet. That
will hardly save him from impeachment but not enough to get him tossed out (which I agree
with others, is not the Dems objective). Remember too, this did not start with the Dems. And
it's not some murky Deep State. I am surprised you have not focused on the obvious role of
Bolton in all this. He's hiding behind Kupperman now, waiting for everybody to testify, then
he will come out. He obviously has first hand info on all of this, and it's his cadre who
have been leading the charge, and his allies who have been beating the war drums (V, Taylor,
Kent, et al) with Russia. Finally, whatever the Biden boys were up to, Trump went full Tony
Soprano. Not a good look for an empire in decline. It's a textbook example of the
constitutional meaning of bribery.
Slightly off topic: I have been reluctantly listening to the hearings in front of the Star
Chamber of the House. A thing I didn't know (but should have) and learned from the hearings:
Ambassador Volker finds it totally unremarkable that a Ukrainian official would come to him
for editing and approval of a public statement by the Ukrainian government. I think the
foreign service needs a similar cleaning of the Augean Stables.
Today's largely boring testimony included a few fireworks - notably when House Intelligence
Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) prevented Republicans from recognizing Rep. Elise Stefanik to ask
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch questions about Hunter Biden and Ukrainian gas company
Burisma.
And when Stefanik was allowed to question Yovanovitch, she pointed out that the Obama State
Department prepared her to answer questions about perceived conflicts of interest regarding the
unusual Biden arrangement .
In part two of Democrats' impeachment hearing drama, the public will hear from former
American Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, who was removed from her post in the spring.
Yovanovitch was removed from her post in the spring by the administration, and has been cast by
Democrats as an honorable public servant sacked for tying to do the right thing.
As
BBG reminds us, Yovanovitch testified in private on Oct. 11 that she felt she was recalled
following a "concerted campaign" by President Trump and Rudy Giuliani. Because she left Ukraine
in May, she clearly doesn't have any direct knowledge of Trump's efforts to elicit a quid pro
quo - or as the Dems are now calling it, a bribe.
Yovanovitch testified that she felt "threatened" by the way Trump spoke about her on the
July 25 call, which is at the center of the impeachment issue. Trump called her "bad news" and
said "she's going to go through some things."
Watch her testimony live below (it's set to begin at 9 am ET):
https://www.youtube.com/embed/sPoc_sj1hgQ
Later, the committee will enter a closed-door session to hear from David Holmes, a staffer
at the US embassy in Kyiv, about this week's revelation that Trump allegedly asked envoy Gordon
Sondland on July 26 about the status of certain "investigations" he sought from Ukraine into
the Bidens.
We're still waiting on President Trump to release a transcript of an April congratulatory
call with Zelensky, something he promised to do, but has yet to follow through on.
Fortunately, so far, the hearings have been a disaster for the Dems, with even the NYT
criticizing them as dull and boring. In response, the Dems tried to spice things up ahead of
toady's hearing by talking up the possibility of a bribery charge against Trump.
* * *
After two years of reporting on Ukraine issues, the Hill's John Solomon said that
Yovanovitch could still be an important fact witness, and that if he had his druthers, he would
ask her
these fifteen questions.
1. Ambassador Yovanovitch, at any time while you served in Ukraine did any officials in Kiev
ever express concern to you that President Trump might be withholding foreign aid assistance to
get political investigations started? Did President Trump ever ask you as America's top
representative in Kiev to pressure Ukrainians to start an investigation about Burisma Holdings
or the Bidens?
2. What was the Ukrainians' perception of President Trump after he allowed lethal aid to go
to Ukraine in 2018?
3. In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence or
U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his
affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the IMF
might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained influence
over Ukraine's national bank?
4. Back in May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions wrote a letter to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggesting you might have made comments unflattering or
unsupportive of the president and should be recalled. Setting aside that Sessions is a
Republican and might even have donors interested in Ukraine policy, were you ever questioned
about his concerns? At any time have you or your embassy staff made comments that could be
viewed as unsupportive or critical of President Trump and his policies?
5. John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in testimony
that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action Centre of
Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also known as
AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to reshaping
Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. Can you explain what role your embassy played in funding this
group and why State funds would flow to it? And did any one consider the perception of mingling
tax dollars with those donated by Soros, a liberal ideologue who spent millions in 2016 trying
to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump?
6. In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record,
videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of
names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target.
Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do
anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you just
rely on press reports?
7. Now that both the New York Times and The Hill have confirmed that Lutsenko stands by his
account and has not recanted, how do you respond to his concerns? And setting aide the use of
the word "list," is it possible that during that 2016 meeting with Mr. Lutsenko you discussed
the names of certain Ukrainians you did not want to see prosecuted, investigated or
harassed?
8. Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House Intelligence
Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the Ukrainian
prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials. These efforts
included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an investigation of
the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about certain Ukrainians
like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and NABU director Artem
Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and did any of these actions
run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign diplomats avoid becoming involved
in the internal affairs of their host country?
9. On March 5 of this year, you gave a speech in which you called for the replacement of
Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor. That speech occurred in the middle of the Ukrainian
presidential election and obviously raised concerns among some Ukrainians of internal
interference prohibited by the Geneva Convention. In fact, one of your bosses, Under Secretary
David Hale, got questioned about those concerns when he arrived in country a few days later.
Why did you think it was appropriate to give advice to Ukrainians on an internal personnel
matter and did you consider then or now the potential concerns your comments might raise about
meddling in the Ukrainian election or the country's internal affairs?
10. If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney
General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate?
11. At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with Vice
President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or an
investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky?
12. At any time since you were appointed ambassador to Ukraine, did you or your embassy have
any contact with the following Burisma figures: Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, lawyer John
Buretta, Blue Star strategies representatives Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, or former
Ukrainian embassy official Andrii Telizhenko?
13. John Solomon obtained documents showing Burisma representatives were pressuring the
State Department in February 2016 to help end the corruption allegations against the company
and were invoking Hunter Biden's name as part of their effort. Did you ever subsequently learn
of these contacts and did any one at State -- including but not limited to Secretary Kerry,
Undersecretary Novelli, Deputy Secretary Blinken or Assistant Secretary Nuland -- ever raise
Burisma with you?
14. What was your embassy's assessment of the corruption allegations around Burisma and why
the company may have hired Hunter Biden as a board member in 2014?
15. In spring 2019 your embassy reportedly began monitoring briefly the social media
communications of certain people viewed as supportive of President Trump and gathering
analytics about them. Who were those people? Why was this done? Why did it stop? And did anyone
in the State Department chain of command ever suggest targeting Americans with State resources
might be improper or illegal?
On Tuesday, Congressional impeachment hearings exposed an
interesting facet of the
current battle
between Donald Trump and the so-called deep state: namely, that
many government bureaucrats now fancy themselves as superior
to the elected civilian
government.
In an exchange between Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Alexander Vindman, a US Army Lt. Colonel,
Vindman insisted that Nunes address him by his rank.
After being addressed as "Mr. Vindman," Vindman
retorted
"Ranking
Member, it's Lt. Col. Vindman, please."
Throughout social media, anti-Trump forces, who have apparently now become pro-military
partisans, sang Vindman's praises, applauding him for putting Nunes in his place.
In a properly functioning government -- with a proper view of military power -- however, no one
would tolerate a military officer lecturing a civilian on how to address him "correctly."
It is not even clear that Nunes was trying to "dis" Vindman,
given that junior
officers have historically been referred to as "Mister" in a wide variety of times and place. It is
true that higher-ranking offers like Vindman are rarely referred to as "Mister," but even if Nunes
was
trying
to insult Vindman, the question remains: so what?
Military modes of address are for the use of
military
personnel, and no one
else.
Indeed, Vindman was
forced
to retreat on this point
when later asked by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) if he always insists on
civilians calling him by his rank. Vindman blubbered that since he was wearing his uniform (
for
no good reason, mind you
) he figured civilians ought to refer to him by his rank.
Of course, my position on this should not be construed as a demand that people give greater
respect to members of Congress.
If a private citizen wants to go before Congress and refer
to Nunes or any other member as "hey you," that's perfectly fine with me.
But the
important issue here is we're talking about
private citizens
-- i.e., the people who pay
the bills -- and not military officers who must be held as subordinate to the civilian government at
all times.
After all,
there's a reason that the framers of the US Constitution went to great pains
to ensure the military powers remained subject to the will of the civilian government.
Eighteenth and nineteenth century Americans regarded a standing army as a threat to their freedoms.
Federal military personnel
were
treated accordingly.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "to raise
and support Armies " and "to provide and maintain a Navy." Article II, Section 2 states, "The
President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States."
The authors of the constitution were careful to divide up civilian power of the
military, and one thing was clear:
the military was to have no autonomy in policymaking
.
Unfortunately, early Americans did not anticipate the rise of America's secret police in
the form of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other "intelligence" agencies. Had they, it is likely the
anti-federalists would have written more into the Bill of Rights to prevent organizations like the
NSA from shredding the fourth amendment, as has been the case.
The inversion of the civilian-military relationship that is increasingly on display
in Washington is just another symptom of the growing power of often-secret and unaccountable
branches of military agencies and intelligence agencies that exercise so much power both in
Washington and around the world.
"... Morrison also testified that the Trump administration withheld foreign aid from Ukraine due to Trump's general skepticism toward foreign aid , and a "concern that Ukrainians were not paying their fair share, as well as concerns [that] our aid would be misused because of the view that Ukraine has a significant corruption problem ." ..."
"... "I had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's judgment . Among the discussions I had with Dr. Hill in the transition [period] was our team, my team, its strengths and its weaknesses. And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex's judgment," he recalled. ..."
"... When asked about rumors that Vindman might be leaking information to the press, Morrison said "It was brought to my attention that some had -- some of my personnel had concerns that he did [have access to things he was not supposed to see] ." ..."
A former top national security adviser to President Trump told a secret impeachment panel that he
believed nothing improper occurred during a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian
president Volodomyr Zelensky,
according to a
transcript
released over the weekend.
NSC official Tim Morrison, who was on that phone call, expressed this narrative-killing opinion
to the Democratic-led House Intelligence Committee
last month
- which would have
undermined recent public testimony by several US officials who said that President Trump abused his
office when he asked Zelensky to investigate former VP Joe Biden and matters related to the 2016 US
election.
That said, Morrison also testified that US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, was involved
in an effort to encourage Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden - though he could not say whether Trump
was involved in those efforts.
He was uncertain of Trump's involvement in Sondland's efforts. "
I'm still not
completely certain that this was coming from the President
," Morrison testified to
House Democrats. "I'm only getting this from Ambassador Sondland."
During a closed-door deposition as part of the House impeachment inquiry, Morrison was asked,
"
In your view, there was nothing improper that occurred during the call?
"
"
Correct
," he answered as he was testifying under oath. -
Epoch
Times
Morrison replaced former NSC official Fiona Hill, who resigned from her position on July 19,
days before the infamous Trump-Zelensky call. He says that the word "Burisma" never came up during
that call, referring to the Ukrainian natural gas company which employed Hunter Biden on its board
while Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to have a prosecutor fired who was
investigating the company.
Trump asked Zelensky to investigate this, as well as allegations that Ukraine was involved with
the hacked DNC server as well as the only firm allowed to look at it, Crowdstrike.
Morrison also testified that
the Trump administration withheld foreign aid from Ukraine
due to Trump's general skepticism toward foreign aid
, and a "concern that Ukrainians were
not paying their fair share, as well as concerns [that] our aid would be misused because of the
view that
Ukraine has a significant corruption problem
."
Morrison was asked more about the phone call.
"
You were on the call. Do you remember whether the name Burisma came up on the call?"
"No, I don't believe it did,
" he said.
The answer is significant, as a junior NSC official, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, testified to
the House Intelligence Committee that Zelensky brought up the word "Burisma." However,
Morrison said that he has the "final clearing authority" on the July 25 call transcript
.
"Do you remember whether anyone suggested edits adding the word Burisma to the [memorandum of
conversation]?" Morrison was asked. "
I do not
," he responded. Vindman testified
that he suggested to edit in the word "Burisma."
But when asked about Vindman's suggestions,
Morrison said he approved all of them
.
"Had I recalled or had it in my notes that was mentioned, yes, I would have agreed to the
edit," he said of the word "Burisma." -
Epoch
Times
Morrison also told Congressional investigators that
he questioned Vindman's judgement
and that other NSC officials shared those concerns.
"I had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's judgment
. Among the
discussions I had with Dr. Hill in the transition [period] was our team, my team, its strengths and
its weaknesses. And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex's judgment," he recalled.
"I had concerns that he did not exercise appropriate judgment as to whom he would say what."
When asked about rumors that Vindman might be leaking information to the press, Morrison said
"It was brought to my attention that some had -- some of my personnel had concerns that
he did
[have access to things he was not supposed to see]
."
Following closely on the heels of sanctions and freeze orders by
the European Union and the United States, the primary objectives of
UFAR include facilitating international cooperation for the early
tracing of assets and identifying specific capacity building needs
for Ukraine. US Attorney General Eric Holder announced at the
conference that the Department of Justice would be placing a Justice
Department attorney in Kyiv to work exclusively on asset recovery and
mutual legal assistance. He also announced the formation of a
dedicated kleptocracy squad within the FBI.
UFAR's organizers, the United States and the United Kingdom, have
long been the most aggressive in recovering and repatriating assets
of corrupt officials and have formed units specifically to address
the issue since the entry into force of the United Nations Convention
Against Corruption, which, among other international commitments,
contains a critical chapter on the return of the proceeds of
corruption to countries of origin.
"The key character we should be
talking about is Eric Holder, President Obama's Attorney General.
No one has commented on the
chutzpah
of the Obama
administration demanding Ukraine fire Viktor Shokin, its top
prosecutor, for failing to prosecute Ukraine's most elite
criminals that had corrupted the entire system. Goldberg
explains:
"Shokin was seen as a single point of failure clogging up
the system and blocking corruption cases," a former official in
Barack Obama's administration told me. Vice President Joe Biden
eventually took the lead in calling for Shokin's ouster.
"We weren't pressing Ukraine to get rid of a tough
prosecutor, we were pursuing Ukraine to replace a weak
prosecutor who wouldn't do his job," Mr. Biden said.
Mr. Volker in his deposition defended Mr. Biden's work in
Ukraine and pointed out that the prosecutor was corrupt and
worked to shield favored people from prosecution, rather than
go after wrongdoers, according to the person familiar with his
testimony.
The international effort to remove Shokin, who became
prosecutor general in February 2015, began months before Biden
stepped into the spotlight, said Mike Carpenter, who served as
a foreign policy adviser to Biden and a deputy assistant
secretary of defense, with a focus on Ukraine, Russia, Eurasia,
the Balkans, and conventional arms control.
As European and U.S. officials pressed Ukraine to clean up
Ukraine's corruption, they focused on Shokin's leadership of
the Prosecutor General's Office.
"Shokin played the role of protecting the vested interest in
the Ukrainian system," said Carpenter, who traveled with Biden
to Ukraine in 2015. "He never went after any corrupt
individuals at all, never prosecuted any high-profile cases of
corruption."
That demonstrated that Poroshenko's administration was not
sincere about tackling corruption and building strong,
independent law enforcement agencies, said Heather Conley,
director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, a Washington-based foreign policy think
tank.
I have not found any article that points out the obvious
hypocrisy of the Obama administration demanding that a nation's
top prosecutor be fired for failing to prosecute the nation's most
powerful, corrupt, and destructive elite financial criminals. The
hypocrisy of Obama praising Holder while demanding Shokin's 'head'
was epic. To fix a problem one must first admit it and resolve to
fix it. Instead, Holder and Obama went with the preposterous lie
that there were no fraudulent elite bankers, so they brought no
prosecutions of the elite bankers whose frauds drove the GFC"
So basically, Corruptocrats want to impeach Trump, because he held up
foriegn aid to Ukraine, that was being money laundered back to the
curruptocrats like Joe Bidens son, and also because Trump wanted the
corruption investigated?....
And then the American news media
declares Trump is the criminal in all this?...
And in William Barrs grand jury room the chirping crickets are the
jury.....
Why do I get the feeling that D.C. is heading for one big reset
from a lot of pissed off people?.....
And let's not forget that Vindman
is (((Ukrainian))). So we have an un-elected Ukrainian by birth
working actively to, at best, replace his Commander-In-Chief's
judgment with his own and, at worst, actively subvert
his Commander-In-Chief's policy decisions and have him removed
from office.
Are there any military codes that might address such a
situation?
Read the transcript of his testimony. Ratcliffe gets him to
basically admit he advised his Uke counterparts to ignore
Trumps directions. The follow up is hysterical and his attorney
has to jump in and save his ***. A classic beat-down, complete
with stammering and and "holier than thou" comments from his
attorney, "if you want to go this direction, God be with you"
1.
Mr. Morrison did not believe anything improper
occurred on the July 25 call.
(p. 60)
2.
Mr. Morrison testified that the memorandum of
conversation (a phrase used to describe the call transcript) of
the July 25 call was complete and accurate.
(p. 60)
3. Mr. Morrison, who listened to the July 25 call, testified
that he was not concerned about the substance of what was
discussed on the call – only that the transcript might leak.
(p. 46-47)
4. Mr. Morrison was told by National Security Council lawyer
John Eisenberg that the July 25 call record mistakenly ended up
on the highly classified system, debunking the Democrats'
allegations of an attempted "cover up."
5.
Mr. Morrison repeatedly testified that he purposefully
kept Lt. Col. Vindman out of the loop on this matter because he
had concerns about Vindman's judgment, which were also raised
to him by Fiona Hill and others.
6. Mr. Morrison testified that, as the final clearing
authority for any edits made to the 7/25 call package, he
accepted all of Lt. Col. Vindman's proposed edits. (p. 61-62)
7. Mr. Morrison testified that he does not believe Burisma
came up on the call or that anyone suggested edits to the mem-con
to include the word Burisma. (p. 64)
8. Mr. Morrison testified that Lt. Col. Vindman relayed two
concerns to him about the July 25 call: that the call did not
get into the subject matter they had hoped, and the fidelity of
the translation. (p. 72-73)
9.
Mr. Morrison testified that Lt. Col. Vindman never
reported to Morrison any of the "light queries" that he
received from Ukrainian officials in August regarding the hold
on aid.
(p. 93)
10. Mr. Morrison confirmed that President Trump generally
does not like foreign aid generally, and specifically held
concerns that corruption in Ukraine may cause U.S. aid to be
"misused."
This should end the Democrat impeachment proceedings. There
is no crime. There was no crime. And Democrats continue to lie to
the American people about their secret sham investigation!
when news of hunter came out, I investigated a bit. I dont want to
blame an innocent person..So I went to leftist news and browsed...An
article on a msm website defended hunter, saying "many top officials
were concerned about corruption in burisma..Had nothing to do with
hunter. Hunter just worked there...So, I am not a ******* like the
left, and let them have the benefit of the doubt. Not enough proof to
beat up hunter is what I thought...but now, they twisted their lies
again and go after trump. unbelievable, I even researched and gave
hunter the benefit of the doubt, and that wasnt enough, now the left
commies are fibbing ovver their own fibs...unbelievable....burisma
was/is a corrupt entity and many top officials asked for them to be
investigated...even the left commies put out articles about it...dear
jesus
No one would argue that Ukraine isn't a cesspool of corruption,
but here's the rub. If trump was really concerned about that he
could suspend ALL US financial aid until ...umm...they adhered
to American standards of "sound and responsible money management a
fiscal responsibility'
:))
You know, like how the Pentagon accounts for it's trillions..
snicker.
Ok seriously now, the corruption he was interested in was
Burisma and the Biden connection? There's the takeaway right
there.
At the core of the Ukraine problem is this, simply put. The
regime change project has produced little to no dividends for
Corporate America and all the uniparty is willing to spare to
maintain the status quo is chump change in the great scheme of
things. Thus weakening their grip and influence. Kolomoiski,
having returned from exile is now talking about going back with
the Russians..It's a black hole, and all that trump was after was
dirt.
Taylor is a neocon and he is against detente with Russia. So he is part of State Department
nest of neocon vipers.
Taylor was very evasive. but he is a trained diplomat. Taylor will definitely regret his role
( and may be already started to regret ) but he has nothing to lose; he is old enough to
retire.
Notable quotes:
"... I love how CBS completely edited out Nunes first part of his speech about all the lowlife activities the left pulled. ..."
"... My favorite part was at 25:40 where Castro says "And at the heart of this corruption is this oligarchical system." .... for a second, I thought he was talking about the United States. ..."
My favorite part was at 25:40 where Castro says "And at
the heart of this corruption is this oligarchical system." .... for a second, I thought he
was talking about the United States.
I have learned to HATE everything the Democrats, their deep state and MSM stand for. It's
beyond comprehension that they have hijacked the greatest nation on earth and subverted the
constitution for personal power and gain! A government takeover by the citizens is not far
off, and the only people who will be safe are a few Republicans in government.
Now this amounts to the impeachment of The President of the United States, for "shaking
the confidence of a close partner for our reliability" Ambassador Taylor. 21:21
18:40 - 19:50 Turner gives a
confused explanation of the "6th Amendment" - right of criminal defendant to “to be
confronted with the witnesses against him” versus The Hearsay Rule - which is evidence
(statements made outside court setting) that may or may not be admissible at trial. Which, in
part, why Judges are present to rule on whether exceptions, exclusions to the Hearsay Rule
apply.
He obviously had his script written before this hearing and didn't listen to what was
actually said. He referenced things that were never even brought up but were talking points
for the Democrats.
...What a blinder and hypocrisy in the highest echelons of power. What a little petty
thinking....Democrats are clearly communists. Do you Americans know what this mean? Obviously
not.
Democrat lunacy on parade Taylor was about as clear as mud and so where his he said, they
said, or i heard someone say something, are we really taking these people seriously.?
Do these republicans not realize that the Ukrainian President is going to say whatever
trump tells him to say so he gets his money and weapons....he’s got a war going on and
must have those resources...what else is he going to say?
If Giuliani seeking information in Ukraine is such an abnormal thing as to cause alarm
then please explain DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa and the years she has spent in Ukraine
performing opposition research along with maintaining close ties with the NSCand the Obama
whitehouse.
There is no evidence against Trump and Taylor was so tongue-tied that he couldn't answer
some of those questions. I loved Jordan asking all those questions and putting those two
witnesses in place. In the court of law they WILL NOT TAKE HEARSAY because I worked for the
courts and lawyers so I know what the Judge would say. this is nothing but a scham and when
Trump gets to be President again I hope he puts Schiff in prison!!!!!!!
After House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) took time out of today's impeachment testimony to
rebuke President Trump for "witness intimidation," President Trump hit back.
During testimony from former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, Trump took aim at her over
Twitter, saying "
Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad
. She started off in
Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke
unfavorably about her..."
Following Trump's tweet, Schiff dramatically interrupted questioning from his staff counsel to read
Trump's tweet aloud - asking Yovanovitch what effect Trump's tweet might have on future witnesses, to
which she replied that it would be "very intimidating.
Trump's tweet was so troubling that former Media Matters employee Paul Waldman wrote in the
Washington Post
that Trump "talks and acts like a Mafioso" in an article entitled
"Yovanovitch hearing confirms that
Trump is running a thugocracy
."
Following Schiff's dramatic exchange, Trump was asked whether his words can be intimidating, to
which he said "I don't think so at all."
"
I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just like other people do
,"
Trump told White House reporters following remarks on a health care initiative, adding that he's
"allowed to speak up" and defend himself.
It's remarkable how tone deaf the Beltway Bubble has made these
bureaucrats and their clingers. The United States elected Donald
Trump, to get rid of people like Marie Yovanovitch. If anything, he
needs to speed things up.
We are at a turning point in our history. The Dems and
their Deep State agents have once again proven that they will go to
any lengths to destroy the constitution, upend the rule of law, lie,
cheat, steal and twist words to accomplish any goal.
I pretty much stopped having an ounce of sympathy for Trump this
week. On day two of his presidency he should have locked up Hillary,
and he didn't. He then has the ******* balls to tell us that "they"
meaning the Clintons "are good people". Are you ******* kidding me ?
? ?
For more than six months now, EVERYONE on planet Earth has
known about the Deep State, Obama, Biden, Pelosy, Brennan, Comey,
McCabe Stzrok, Page, Lynch, Rice ,Powers, Misfud, Fusion GPS ,Halper,
Neuland, Schiff, Nadler, Wray, Rosenstein, the entire Mainstream
Media and three dozen other ******* treasonous assholes tearing this
country apart.
And what exactly has Trump done to bring these people to justice
for treason and seditious conspiracy ? Jack ******* squat !
Epstein allegedly gets murdered in his cell/disapears, and all
Barr does is ******* shrug his shoulders like Schultz and says "I
know nothing". Assange is slowly being murdered in his cell while
Trump claims " I never heard of Wikileaks". Snowden and Manning are
enemies of the state, and nobody seems to care.
Meanwhile the entire country is being overrun up to our eyeballs
with illegals, the mentally ill are walking around like a zombie
apocalypse and the rule of law is totally dead.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for
such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes
vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and
thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."-
Joseph Goebbels
Sputnik is reporting that the US has spent $6.4 Trillion fighting wars that have killed
800,000 since Sept 11/01, that number is unbelievable, at least 1,500,000 dead in Iraq,
250,000 in Afghanistan, 750,000 in Syria.
The US military budget alone has averaged about 650 billion since then, plus the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan were funded separately (around 200 million a year), plus CIA/ blackbook
projects - 7 or 8 trillion is a more likely number.
When things get blown up, no one really knows what was actually bought and existed and
what was just a phantom piece of equipment War has always been the ideal cover for
corruption
"... "In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to Ukraine. ..."
"... But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such? ..."
"... And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay. ..."
"... The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col. Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is the duly elected president who does that. ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia. ..."
"... "They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for it." ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets. ..."
"... Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He predicted that the trauma of war will pass. ..."
"... Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received nearly 73% of all votes. ..."
"... Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They are joined in this with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup: ..."
"... Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25% of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won 5.8%. ..."
"... on Yovanovitch, She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States." ..."
"... She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. . .Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is injured in the knee ..."
NBC News
is not impressed by the first day of the Democrats' impeachment circus. But it fails to
note what the conflict is really about:
It was substantive, but it wasn't dramatic.
In the reserved manner of veteran diplomats with Harvard degrees, Bill Taylor and George
Kent opened the public phase of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on
Wednesday by bearing witness to a scheme they described as not only wildly unorthodox but
also in direct contravention of U.S. interests.
"It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian aggression," Taylor, the
acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said in explaining why
Trump's decision to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to the most immediate target of
Russian expansionism didn't align with U.S. policy.
But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor
of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall or
backfire, the first round felt more like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act play than
the opening night of a hit Broadway musical.
"In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the
permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to
Ukraine.
But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such?
President Obama was against giving weapons to Ukraine and never transferred any to Ukraine
despite pressure from certain circles. Was Obama's decision against U.S. national interest?
Where are the Democrats or deep state members accusing him of that?
Which brings us to the really critical point of the whole issue. Who defines what is in the
"national interest" with regards to foreign policy? Here is a point where for once I agree with
the right-wingers at the National Review where Andrew McCarthy writes :
[O]n the critical matter of America's interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the
policy community is right, and President Trump is wrong. If I were president, while I would
resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly associate myself with the delusion that
stable friendship is possible (or, frankly, desirable) with Putin's anti-American
dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia family and is acting on its revanchist
ambitions.
But you see, much like the policy community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.
And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the
bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National
Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their
assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a
constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay.
The U.S.
constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly
negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the
administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col.
Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is
the duly elected president who does that.
The president does not like how the 'American policy' on Russia was built. He rightly
believes that he was elected to change it. He had stated his opinion on Russia during his
campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good
relations with Russia. It is his own conviction and legitimized by the voters.
...
[I]t is the president who sets the policies. The drones around him who serve "at his
pleasure" are there to implement them.
There is another point that has to be made about the NBC's assertions. It is not in
the interest of Ukraine to be a proxy for U.S. deep state antagonism towards Russia. Robber
baron Igor Kolomoisky, who after the Maidan coup
had financed the west-Ukrainian fascists who fought against east-Ukraine, says so directly in
his
recent NYT interview :
Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his
role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a
remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn
back toward Russia.
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's
power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And
you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for
it."
... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed
Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets.
Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its
geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties
with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He
predicted that the trauma of war will pass.
...
Mr. Kolomoisky said he was feverishly working out how to end the war, but he refused to
divulge details because the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way."
Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to
pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received
nearly 73% of all votes.
Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess
it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They
are joined in this
with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup:
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern
Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians
opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but
prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in
light of this domestic opposition.
...
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary
factions, European Solidarity and Voice, whose supporters are predominantly located in
western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary groups
composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25%
of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won
5.8%.
By pursuing further conflict with Russia the deep state of the United States wants to ignore
the wishes not only of the U.S. voters but also those of the Ukrainian electorate. That
undemocratic mindset is another point that unites them with the Ukrainian fascists.
Zelensky should ignore the warmongers in the U.S. embassy in Kiev and sue for immediate
peace with Russia. (He should also investigate
Biden's undue influence .) Reengaging with Russia is also the easiest and most efficient
step the Ukraine can take to lift its desolate economy.
It is in the national interest of both, the Ukraine and the United States.
Posted by b on November 14, 2019 at 18:23 UTC |
Permalink
next page " agree with mccarthy about who conducts foreign policy, disagree about who
the aggressor is; it's the USA, trying to weaken Russia, which is the aggressor.
thanks b... typo - immediate piece with Russia - 'peace' is the spelling here...
the comments from Kolomoisky in the recent nyt interview are very telling.. aside from
being a first rate kleptomaniac who will willingly play both sides if he can profit from it,
he is also speaking a moment of truth..for him Ukraine is available to the highest bidder...
he could give a rats ass about Ukraine or the people... but still, it is refreshing that the
NYT published his comments in this regard..
the quote "the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way." is very true... it was true
before kolomisky picked a side too.. this guy is very shrewd.. i wonder if his own country is
able to see thru him?
national interest.... yes, trump gets to decide and he won on the idea of having closer
relations with russia, but the cia-msm has been lambasting him and anyone else associated
with him since before the election over the clinton e mails... they have painted a scenario
that it is all russias fault and have been relentless in this portrayal... hoping trump is
going to turn this around is like hoping someone is going to turn the titanic around from
hitting a giant iceberg... the usa is too far gone and will be hitting the iceberg.. they are
in fact...
From NYT about Kolomo???? (spelling in English is highly variable)
George D. Kent, a senior State Department official, said he had told Mr. Zelensky that his
willingness to break with Mr. Kolomoisky -- "somebody who had such a bad reputation" -- would
be a litmus test for his independence. [If is good to be independent, i.e. to do what we
want.]
And William Taylor, the acting ambassador in Kiev, said he had warned Mr. Zelensky: "He,
Mr. Kolomoisky, is increasing his influence in your government, which could cause you to
fail." [La Paz is a fresh reminder for Kiev?]
Well the thing about Zelensky is he's still there, and he is making changes in Donbass.
Kolomoisky was interested in the fracked gas in Donbass, the completion of NordStream II
has made a mess of that idea. It is good that he has seen the light, as it means Zelensky
will have support in his attempts to adapt to reality. But Kolomoisky is still a crook no
doubt.
My immediate reaction was that Kolomoisky realises he has to act - the Ukrainian oligarchs
have got too close to America. I agree with James that he is a extremely clever man.
Ukraine's traditional business is playing both ends against the middle and sending the
proceeds to Switzerland (or the Caribbean in Porosyonok's case). Since 1990 a few of these
robber barons have made a very good business winding up the west against Russia, it could go
on ever - why spoil it by lifting the rock and seeing all the insects scurrying around in the
light?
Another rock that has been lifted is in Washington, where the khokhol diaspora are
desperately trying to get Uncle Sam to right the wrongs of a century ago.
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners oif the world and they run the world they
own.
... @ b -- "Only some 20% of the Ukrainians favor to continue the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports."
The are not 'separatists', but rather Ukrainians who want to stay in a federated Ukraine
as 'provinces' with powers to pass their regional laws, similar to those in Canada.
The segment of empire in the US that are against Russia act so because it was Russia that
stymied them in Syria and continues to be in their way of expanding the control from that
part of empire...the US segment.
I still believe that the global private finance core segment of empire is behind Trump and
throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The cult of global
private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role in the new
multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyones heads to make it ongoing.
I don't believe that strategy will work but as long as they can be fronted by a MAD player
of some sort (Occupied Palestine comes to mind) they can be bully players in international
matters.
As the world economies grind to a "halt" there will be lots of pressure everywhere and
very little clarity about the key civilization war over public/private finance, IMO
For a military dictatorship, diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means. The US has
been at war with Russia since the right-wing coup at the Democratic convention of 1944. All
presidents have been servants of the military, which includes the police/intel/security
apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead role were "dealt with."
Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state bureaucrats are shocked
and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US foreign policy for 75
years!
Wow! The depth of delusion on display is as breathtaking as its complete projection of the
intentions and actions of the Evil Outlaw US Empire! Oh so many saying I'm displaying four
fingers instead of two. Too bad there isn't a padded cell big enough to contain all the
lunatics. I recall the pre- and post-coup discussions from 2014--that Russia was going to
make NATO own Ukraine until it was forced to concede it has no business being there; that
Russia would teach the would-be leaders of Ukraine a serious lesson in where their national
interests lay. NATO is ready to cede and the lesson's been learned.
IMO, two referendums must be held. The first within Russia: Will you accept portions of
Ukraine wanting to merge with Russia: Yes/No? Second to be given within Ukraine provided Yes
wins in #1: Do you wish to join Russia or remain in Ukraine? IMO, this is a very longstanding
unresolved issue of consequence for the people involved. The political leaders of Russia and
Ukraine might both be against such a vote, but IMO that merely kicks the can further down the
road and opens the door for more mischief making by the Evil Outlaw US Empire. Assuming a Yes
from Russia and some from Ukraine, a strategic threat to Russia and Europe would be
mitigated. Additional questions about those parts of Ukraine not wanting to join Russia could
be solved via additional referenda in the Ukraine and neighboring nations that might prove
willing to absorb the remnants and their people. Such action would of course negate the Minsk
Agreements.
Given the ideological passions of those living in Western and Northern Ukraine, I don't
see any hope for the continuation of the Ukrainian state as currently arranged, thus the
proposed referenda. However, if Russia says Nyet, then Minsk must be implemented.
"Democracy" is not about letting the people as a whole have a say in how the country is
governed. That would be fascist, and racist, and populist, and LITERALLY HITLER. Letting the
people decide on things like foreign policy, is literally anti-democratic.
No, "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get
to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take responsibility when things go wrong.
Because you see, we are a "Democracy."
Breaking off long established economic and cultural ties with a large neighbouring country,
virtually overnight, is a rash act, and certain to create dislocation and hardship. The
craziness of the idea was only achievable through the traumatizing psy-op of the sniper
event, leading directly to the coup and the state of war. The EU and the US were clearly
malevolent in orchestrating the Association agreement with its ridiculous terms and the
corresponding Maidan pressures.
The fools in Hong Kong, after protester-sponsored screenings of the World On Fire
documentary, were actually quoted as presuming the Maidan protests had "won" and expressed
their hopes that they too could "win". Good luck to them.
Kolomoisky and Zelensky know what needs to be done, but they fear the blood that will flow
with Nazi-Banderist scum! Zelinski's balls are not that big, and has no options left after
compromising his position from day one. Who will make the first move, I fear not him? Russia
has time, and patience, which is sorely lacking in the west who feel they have to push the
envelope.
The Minsk II protocol was agreed to on 12 February 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany, It included provisions for a halt in the fighting, the withdrawal of
foreign forces, new constitution to allow special status for Donbass, and election in Donbass
for local self governance. Control of the present border of Ukraine would be restored to the
Ukraine government. Donbass would continue to be in Ukraine with some autonomy here (scroll down).
There are many such autonomous zones in the world, and in Europe, seen here .
The problem in Ukraine is that the neo-Nazi factions promoted by the US don't want to see a
resolution, and will fight it with US support.
Kolomoysky is obviously a master thief and general scumbag...but he is no fool...
I think the writing on the wall became obvious with the Nordstream 2 finalization, where,
it is noted, Denmark came in just under the wire in terms of not disrupting the
timetable...
Obviously the interests of German business have prevailed...and rightly so in this
case...
And what of the famous EU line about 'protecting' Ukraine as a gas transit
corridor...?
LOLOLOL...that is in the same category of nothingburger as the EU noises about 'alternate
payment' mechanisms for trade with Iran...
As soon as the Denmark story broke, Gazprom and Russian energy analysts talked openly
about the tiny volumes that Ukraine could expect to see transiting its territory...as part of
a new agreement to replace the one that has expired...
It works out to a small fraction of the several billion dollars in transit fees the
Ukraine was getting...
Also considering that the IMF appears to be finally shutting off the tap of loans to this
failed gangster state...and that the promises from the EU in 2013 were just so much fairy
tales...hard-nosed operators like Kolomoysky are recalculating...
The chaos and national ruin has really cost these gangster capitalists nothing [in fact
they have profited wildly]...so it is easy for them to reverse course and come begging back
to Russia...
Bryan MacDonald has a good piece about this today in RT...
So, here we are, almost six years since the first "EuroMaidan" protests in Kiev, and
Ukraine's most prominent oligarch has finally voiced the unmentionable: the project has
failed.
As for Kolomoysky...like Trump, there is something to like about dirtballs who speak their
minds openly...LOL
Quite a turnaround by Kolomoisky. Wasn't he once caught on a tapped phone call admitting
while chuckling about Ukrainian complicity in shooting down MH-17? i.e. NOT Donbas rebels and
NOT Russia.
@12 karlof1... a referendum... as if the usa would agree to that, lol.... look how they
processed the one in crimea...
@18 flankerbandit... last line is true, but it pales in relation to the ugliness these 2
exhibit 99% of the time, although the 1% when they don't it's refreshing! ukraine will
continue to be used as a tool by the west..
forget about any referendum.. that makes too much sense and won't be allowed..
Nordstream 2 will come online in less than 2 months and the Ukrainian gas exports at that
time will cease (I.e. no oil for the Oligarchs to steal), no matter what the US says they
can't replace the Russian oil exports in terms of money & support to Ukraine, so the
Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in order for the Russians to keep
even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets
It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot.
But now the Ukrainian thieves are beginning to realize that the Western thieves are going
to steal the very ground from under their feet, so there will be no more Ukraine to steal
from. That's not a very good business model. Plus they're no doubt seeing how the US treats
its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere, and realize they could easily find themselves
the next meal for the US beast. Pretty easy to see why the smarter ones are getting
nervous.
they need to make peace with Russia or they will be left out in the cold, literally. They
seemed to have previously bought into some insane lie that they'd be a part of the EU and
NATO if theyd do Washington's bidding. The Deep state vastly underestimated Putin's resolve
when it became clear to the Russians that Washington may try and turn Crimea into a NATO port
one day. The game is over. Ukraine needs to find a way forward now for itself or it will be a
failed state in the near future. It's clear Merkel and Europe want no part of this headache
I don't think Russians want to 'own' any part of Ukraine...at least that is the nearly
unanimous opinion of my own contacts and colleagues in Russia...so I don't think any
referenda will be on the table...
What I do think is possible is what Yanukovich and Russia agreed to in terms of a trade
and economic deal...which was a lot more practical [not to mention generous] than the EU
'either or' nonsense...
Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they are selling vast tracts of
agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally dispossessing themselves of
their own food security...
At the time of the Soviet dissolution, Ukraine had the highest living standards and some
of the world's prime industry and technology...including for instance the Yuzhnoye design
bureau [rocket engines and spacecraft] and many more such cutting edge aerospace
concerns...
For years these crucial enterprises were able to keep going due to the Russian
market...that all ended in 2014 [and in fact was tapering off even before due to the massive
corruption]...
Now the Chinese are looking to scoop up these gems at firesale prices...
It is really quite unbelievable that the nutcases in the Ukraine would be willing to cut
off their own arm just to bleed on Russia's shirt...
Why did the Ukraine never recover from the gangster capitalism like Russia did...because
no Putin ever came along to reign in the oligarchy...[It could be argued Putin hasn't done
nearly enough in this regard].
The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own future...as the
unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to extract maximal
wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on the verge of
toppling...
Kolomoisky is talking his book and helping USA to make the case that Nordstream is a NATO
security issue. To pretend that he's serious about a rapproachment with Russia just plays
into that effort.
And b ignores my comment on the prior thread that he references (about Trump being
Constitutionally charged with foreign policy). Repeating: the "Imperial Presidency" has flung
off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing the need to get Congressional
approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and
black budgets.
While for practical reasons the Executive Branch of USA government has the power to
negotiate treaties and manage foreign relations, Constitutionally he does so for the
sovereign (the American people) and his efforts are subject to review and approval of the
people's representatives via the power of the purse.
Ignoring how the "Imperial Presidency" has usurped power leads to faulty analysis that
supports that power grab.
Ukrainegate IS a farce, but for other reasons. Chief among them being the inherent fakery
of 'managed democracy' which manifests as kayfabe.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners of the world and they run the world they
own.
Nicely put:- that is the reality. Thanks b for your intrepid reports.
Paul Craig Roberts has a deeply aggrieved rant at zero hedge if barflies want a chuckle.
What a shitshow.
Crimea?
It has been part of Russia about as long as the USA has been a country.
9 out of 10 residents are of Russian origin, and Russian is the spoken language.
I guess it could be returned to the 10%-- but out of fairness, we must turn the USA over to
its original occupants.
If you live in the USA, get your ass ready to leave.
One of the problems that the anti-nazis face in Ukraine is that there are occupying armies in
the country. Armies which cannot be trusted to obey instructions which are not agreed upon by
NATO warmongers.
One such army is Canadian, commanded I believe by a descendant of the Ukrainian SS refugees
and reporting to the Foreign Minister in Ottawa, a Russophobe with a family background of
nazi collaboration.
The actual political situation is much more delicate than media reports suggest: what are
called elections feature, in the Washington approved fashion, the banning of socialist and
communist candidates. Bans which are enforced by a combination of fascist commanded police
forces and, even less responsible, private nazi militias. Opponents of the Maidan regime are
driven into exile, jailed or murdered.
Those who wonder as Jackrabbit, in a rare essay into rationality, does above, about the
nature of the US Constitution after decades of the erosion of checks and balances thanks to
the Imperial Presidency, will recognise that a dialectic is at work here. Washington's
support for fascism abroad has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the
installation of fascist regimes abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US
intervenes it leaves a fascist regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind
it.
And what this means is that, among other things, the ability of the population to effect
political change is cancelled: there is no way that the people of Ukraine can decide what
they want because the decisions have been taken for them, in weird cult like gatherings of SS
worshiping Bandera supporters in Toronto and Chicago. It is no accident that most of the
'Ukrainians' being wheeled out by the Democrats to testify against Trump are actually greedy
expatriates who have never really lived in Ukraine.
There was a moment, not long ago, when it looked as if the Minsk accords promised a path to
peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately the plain people of Ukraine, the poorest in Europe
though living in one of the richest countries, Washington, Ottawa and NATO didn't like the
sound of Minsk. Nor did the fascists in the Baltic states and Poland, for whom, for
centuries, Ukraine has been a cow to milk, its people slaves to be exploited and its rich
resources too tempting to ignore.
As Thomas Jefferson explained the President's role in foreign affairs in 1790, and the lack
of advisors' policy making decisions: ''as the President was the only channel of
communication between the United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that
foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation';
that whatever he communicated as such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the
expression of the nation'; and that no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or
'to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either's
transgressing their functions.' Mr. Jefferson therefore declined to enter into any discussion
of the question as to whether it belonged to the President under the Constitution to admit or
exclude foreign agents. 'I inform you of the fact,' he said, 'by authority from the
President.'
Might also be worth yesterdays hero's asking if dear Mr Kolomoisky, joint Uki/Israeli
national, took a part in authorising the shoot down of MH17 as a news cover for Operation
Protective Edge. Heave ho zionist USA ....et al.
1.The decisions to with hold and release aid have nothing to do with the President making
foreign policy but with his campaign. Saying it was about foreign policy is a damned lie.
2.Trump as president is supposed to lead foreign policy, which means actually setting a
policy. Military aid to Ukraine, yes, except no, except yes, personal handling without asking
anybody with experience how to achieve the national goal desired, national agenda kept secret
from the people who have to carry it out, abuse of officials, demands for dubiously legal
actions without rationale...Saying it was about the president's executive role is a damned
lie.
3.Trump has not made even a tweet that questions US support for fascists. That not even a
issue for Trump. Saying this is about support for fascism is a damned lie.
4.Kolomoyskiy is a bankroller of fascists. It is not impossible even a billionaire might get
frightened by the genie he's let out of the bottle, even if he's Jewish and rich enough to
run away. But actually undoing the fascist regime means taming the paramilitaries and this is
not even on the horizon. Given the rivalry between Poroshenko and Kolomoyskiy it's not even
certain it's a real change of heart or just soothing words for the non-fascist people. Nor is
it even clear the Zelensky will follow even the Steinmeier formula. If he does, good, but
until something actually happens? Saying it's about the antifascist turn is a damned lie.
The only thing that isn't a lie is that Trump was not committing treasons, "merely" a
campaign violation. But then, Clinton never did either. The crybabies who dished it out but
can't take it deserve zero respect, and zero time.
Curious to know how Kolomoisky is working "feverishly" to end the war in the Donbass region.
Wonder if he is planning to come clean on what he knows of the Malaysia Airlines MH17
shootdown and crash in an area not far from Slavyansk and near where his Privat Group's
subsidiary company Burisma Holdings holds a licence to drill for oil and natural gas. What
does he know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control personnel's direction to MH17
to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000 metres above as the flight crew
had requested? He had been governor of Dnepropetrovsk region at the time.
Somewhere I read it alleged that the actual owner of Burisma was or is Kolomoiski.
Anything to this?
And via John Helmer (via Checkpointasia and dances with bears) comes the perspective that
it's not so much Kolomoiski floating trial balloons (though that may also be true) but that K
is being given space in the NYT to build his credentials as the new Borg villain, thereby
making it still harder for Zelensky to reconcile with Russia.
fb @ 25 said;"The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own
future...as the unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to
extract maximal wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on
the verge of toppling..."
Yup, aided and abetted by our current regime, while pretending not to...
@23
"It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot."
This is it in a nutshell. The Russians were fed up with Ukraine stealing gas. Hence, Nord
Stream 2. That was always the plan. Whether the Yanks truly grasped the rationale here
---Russia is cutting off gas to Ukraine, simple---has never been clear to me. Although it is
a fairly simple plot. The Russians had decades of shenanigans with the Ukes and said Basta.
By not overreacting to the Ukrainian-USA freakout and keeping their eyes on the prize (Nord
Stream and disengaging, gas-wise, from Uk), they have managed to reach their goal of getting
Nord Stream 2 online.
Kolomoiski is the bankroller and commander of the Azov Battalion. Has close arrangements with
other paramilitaries. And is the current principal of Burisma. And is Privatbank, the only
bank left in Ukraine. He gets a cut of all the action.
When Trump queries Zelensky, all that Zelensky is thinking is this guy does not know the
score. This guy does not know who's on first. He wants me to investigate the boss? Let him
talk to the boss. And who does Z talk to in D.C.? Pointless getting into detail with
Trump.
Trump has no team. No one in D.C. is on his side. He's unable to finish anything.
1) Say the fantasy happens and the US/Russia become BFFs like US/UK...
- Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss?
- Tough to answer, many unknowns- Russia may act different once its on top, actors may
derail schemes, Deep State temper tantrum, etc...
In general, governments are the order-providing solution for chaos and problems that only
first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over others.
Kolomoiski is a U.S. asset. His interview with the NYTimes proves it.
His threats are meant to mobilize NATO and Russia haters in general; because Trump and
most of his cadre care nothing for Ukraine.
Does anyone think Russia will give Kolomoiski 100 million dollars? Why was he given an
opportunity to threaten the USA? For no reason? Something else is afoot but Russia still
won't take the bait because they are winning.
Russia is quite happy with the status quo. The war in Ukraine keeps the war against Russia
on a level which is easy to manipulate and therefore geostrategically beneficial. Kolomoiski
will get nothing.
Thank you, b, for that snippet from NY Interview with Kolomoisky . I had glanced the headline
on RT but didn't read it because of RT's usual clumsy writing.
Kolomoiski is taunting the empire: investigate my crimes and
ukraine will seek reconciliation and alliance with russia.
Russia won't fall for it. They want kolomoiski's scalp even
more than the empire. From the statements putin has made, maybe
the only concession russia would accept is the dissolution of
ukraine as a sovereign entity and reintegration with russia, minus galicia.
Putin has remarked that they are not one people but one state. Ukraine
already knows that its domestic industry is only viable in competition
with the eu industrial powerhouses if it is integrated with russia.
What does [Kolomoysky] know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control
personnel's direction to MH17 to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000
metres above as the flight crew had requested?
Okay..so an interesting can of worms here...
First is the fact that Kolomoysky was the governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast at the
time...
Now as to the flight and Dnipro Radar [the regional air traffic control facility that
controls a very big chunk of airspace over eastern Ukraine]...
First the issue of the airplane cruising altitude...the crew had filed their flight plan
to climb from flight level 330 [33,000 ft] to FL350 after passing a certain waypoint in
eastern Ukraine...
Now the controllers did instruct the crew to go ahead and climb to their planned altitude,
but the crew declined the clearance and opted to stay at FL330...this was done very
likely because the atmospheric conditions at that height were better for fuel economy...
[To be even more specific...the Boeing manual gave an optimum flight altitude of 33,800
ft, but flying eastward you only have odd numbered flight levels to choose from, so the crew
figured they would be better off staying at 33 than climbing to 35...]
BUT...there are a couple of very curious things here...
First is the fact that Dnipro controllers deviated the airplane from its flight
plan just before it went down...ostensibly due to other traffic...
We can see this in the following map, which is what's called a high altitude en route
chart, which is used by pilots to plan and execute their flight...
You will note a couple of things here...the airplane is flying on the L980 airway
[basically a highway in the sky] when it is turned south by controllers to the RND waypoint,
which is in Russian territory...
This is NOT the route filed by the crew...which can be seen here...
They were supposed to continue flying on L980 right to the TAMAK waypoint, which is
visible on the previous chart and is right on the border with Russia...
They would have continued on the A87 airway to their next waypoint in Russia which is
TIKNA...
Now here is the thing...right after they were turned south, they got shot down...
According to the radio transcripts, the crew acknowledged the course change, but did not
object...however, usually these kinds of course changes aren't appreciated on the flight deck
because the crew is trying to minimize wasted time and wasted fuel on course
deviations...
Most times you will just not bother to complain to controllers...but for sure there will
always be chatter between the captain and copilot about being yanked around like that...
No mention is made in the Dutch Safety Board report about such chatter from the cockpit
voice recorder, which I find very odd...
Also odd is the fact that Dnipro ATC primary radar was down, and only the so-called
'secondary' was working which uses the transponder signals from the airplane...
This is very busy airspace because a lot of flights from western Europe to South Asia
traverse this territory...the plan is always to fly what's called a 'great circle route'
which is basically a straight line, if you flattened out the globe...
Plus considering that you have a war going on underneath...it's very unusual to have your
PRIMARY radar inoperable...
This is significant also because military aircraft will not be using transponders and so
will not be visible to the secondary surveillance...
The Russian primary radar did pick up two other aircraft very nearby MH17...but the Dutch
have made some kind of excuse about that data not being in 'raw' form and thus not
usable...
So we see some very suspicious anomalies here...
The Ukrainian authorities did have a NOTAM [notice to airmen] in effect up to FL320
[32,000 ft] so commercial traffic could not fly under that height...but clearly they should
have closed the airspace over the hot conflict area...
They didn't do that...and Kolomoysky was in charge...
The Deep State's view on the members' God given right to make foreign policy decisions (it
must be the God who has give it to them, because the people certainly have not) just reminds
the of the general attitude of the Government's bureaucracy. Give any fartbag a position in
the government and he/she becomes "a prince/princes over the people", give him or her a
monopoly over violence and you got yourself a king/queen. All these police and military kings
& queens milling around and lording over us. "Deep State" is such a totally natural
consequence of the government bureaucracy corrupted by power that it appropriated.
Pillaging taxes from the sheeple (and taking young maidens like Sheriff of
Nottingham/Epstein) could have never ever been enough. Did you seriously think that the Deep
Staters would constrain themselves to only stealing your money, taking your children for
their pleasure and to die in their wars of conquest, and putting you into a totally unsafe
airplanes to die for their profit? Constrain themselves when there is a whole globe out there
to be lorded over, like Bidens over Ukraine? It is the poor people of Ukraine who just have
too much money, thus had to give it through the gas monopoly to the Biden gang, which
selflessly brought them "democracy" at $5B in US taxpayers' expense. Therefore, it is the
Deep State which has been chosen by God, or someone just like that, to make the decisions
about the imperialist/globalist foreign policy and have billions of dollars thrown by the
grateful natives into their own pockets, as consulting fees:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-bank-records-confirm-burisma-biden-payments-morgan-stanley-account
So far the only clear-cut globalization is that one of crime, which has become
global.
What is the US National Interest b asks? Who defines it as such?
Ome magazine that might know is none other than The National Interest. Hopefully I won't
get attacked for quoting from what seems like a fairly sane article to me....
"The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to. Ukraine is a debt-ridden state
and only five years beyond an extralegal revolution. Should the government collapse again,
then American weapons could end up in the possession of any number of dubious paramilitary
groups.
It wouldn't be the first time. In the 2000s, CIA operatives were forced to repurchase
Stinger missiles that had fallen into the hands of Afghani warlords -- at a markup.
Originally offered to the Mujahideen in the 1980s, the Stingers came to threaten American
forces in the region. Similarly, many weapons provided with US authorization to Libyan rebels
in 2011 ended up in the possession of jihadists."
It's difficult to find clean information on happenings within Ukraine and those involving
Russia. The Ministry of Foreign affairs has this page
dedicated to the "Situation Around Ukraine." Of the three most recent listings,
this one --"Comment by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the NATO
Council's visit to Ukraine"--from 1 November is quite important as it deals with the reality
on the ground versus the circus happening thousands of miles away, although it's clear the
delusions in Washington and Brussels are the same and "continue to be guided by the Cold War
logic of exaggerating the nonexistent 'threat from the East' rather than the interests of
pan-European security."
In the
second most recent listing --"Remarks by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian
Federation to the OSCE Vladimir Zheglov at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the
situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, October 31,
2019"--the following was noted:
"There's more to it. The odious site Myrotvorets continues to function using servers
located in the United States. The UN has repeatedly stated that this violates the presumption
of innocence and the right to privacy. Recently, Deputy Head of the UN Human Rights
Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Benjamin Moreau, reiterated the recommendation to shut down
this website. A similar demand was made by other representatives of the international
community, including the German government. The problem was brought to the attention of the
European Court of Human Rights. The other day, the representative of Ukraine at the ECHR was
made aware of the groundlessness of the Ukrainian government's excuses saying that it
allegedly 'has no influence' on the above website.
"In closing, recent opinion polls in Ukraine indicate that its residents are expecting the
government to do more to bring peace to Donbas. The path to a settlement is well known, that
is, the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, that was
approved by the UN Security Council."
Clearly, Zelensky's government is much like Poroschenko's when it comes to listening to
those who empowered it, the above citation is one of several from the overall report.
The latest report deals with an ongoing case at the International Court of Justice at The
Hague that reveals some of the anti-Russian bias there. It has no bearing on this discussion,
although it does provide evidence of the contextual background against which the entire
affair, including the circus in Washington, operates.
MoA consensus is Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords they continue to oppose
to implement despite their promise to do so. Clearly an excellent example of not being
agreement capable that hasn't changed since 2015.
If the Republicans had any brains, they'd turn the Ukrainian aspect of the hearings into
an indictment against Obama/Biden for illegally overthrowing Kiev and trying to obtain their
piece-of-the-action, but then that would be the logical thing to do and thus isn't an option.
The prospect of each day providing similar spectacle is mind numbing as it airs the sordid,
unwashed underwear if the Evil Outlaw US Empire.
I normally do not reply to trolls, but I make an exception for you. Pedo-dollar? Do you have
any more such crap to dilute the valid points discussed here?
i liked what @ 32 tod said - "he's just doing the old Jewish threatening/begging
dance!
"And you are forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it." Wink!
Wink!"
stating the obvious is one remedy for any possible confusion here..
@54 karlof1... i don't believe trump is allowed to shine any light on the usas illegal
actions as that would be sacrilege to all the americans who see their country in such a
great, exceptional-ist light... how would trumps MAGA concept swallow that? it wouldn't, so
it won't happen...
You are a bit off on that story. NS2 pipeline will increase the capacity not transitioning
via Ukraine and reduce the price banditry by the Ukrainian & US gangs, but it will not
make gas transit via Ukraine unnecessary. The planned switch off of the German nuclear and
coal power plants will gradually increase the German demand for gas, that is the Russian gas
by so much that NS1 and NS2 will not be enough. Primarily, NS2 is a signal to the Ukrainian
& US Democrat gangs that if they try excessive transit fees and stealing of gas again,
that they will be circumvented within a few years by NS 3,4,5 ...
BTW, the globalized pillaging of the population is clearly not an invention of the DNC
crime gang only. For example, the 737Max is a product of primarily Republican activity on
deregulating what should have never been deregulated and subjugation to the Wall Street (aka
financialization). The pillaging of the World is strictly bipartisan, just differently
packaged:
1) R - packaging the deregulation to steal & kill as "freedom" or
2) D - packaging the regime change as responsibility to protect R2P (such regime change and
stuffing of own pockets later).
karlof1 @54 - "Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords"
Yes. As you well know, and as we have well discussed, Minsk was in its very essence the
surrender terms dictated to the US by NAF and Russia in return for letting the NATO
contractors go free and secretly out of the Debaltsevo cauldron. Either actually or
poetically, this was the basis. The US lost against NAF. The only way to prevent Donbass
incursion into the rest of Ukraine was to freeze the situation. The US had no choice, and
surrendered.
Out of the heat and fog of warfare came a simple document made of words which, even so,
illustrated perfectly just how elegantly the Kremlin had the entire situation both war-gamed
and peace-gamed. Minsk from that day until forever has locked the Ukraine play into a lost
war of attrition for the US sponsors, with zero gain - except for thieves.
To attempt to parse Ukraine in terms of statecraft is to miss the point that Ukraine can
only be parsed in terms of thievery. This is not cynicism, simply truth.
Now they sell their land because this is all there is left to sell. Kolomoisky proposes
selling the entire country to Russia for $100 billion but not only will Russia not bite, the
country isn't worth even a fraction of that - because of Minsk, it can cause zero harm to
Russia. But this ploy raises the perceived value (Kolomoisky hopes) in the eyes of the west,
and starts the bidding.
In Russia the people see all this very clearly, including on their TV. Yakov Kedmi in this
Vesti News clip of
Vladimir Soloviev's hugely popular talk show, discusses the situation. He baits Soloviev by
saying that the Ukrainian thieves are only doing what the Russian thieves did in the 1990's -
and one must filter through this badinage to take out the nuggets he supplies. Here are
three:
1. Zelensky has no security apparatus that follows his command, therefore how can he be
considered the leader of the country?
2. There is no power in Ukraine, only forces that contend over the scraps of plunder.
3. These forces are creating the only law there is, which is the sacred nature of private
property for the rich - the only thing the US holds sacred.
Therefore sell the very soil.
~~
The Minsk agreement is a sheer wall of ice reaching to the sky. No force imaginable can
scale it or break it. Against that ultimate, immovable wall the US pounds futilely, with
Ukraine caught in the middle, while Russia waits for Ukraine to devolve into whatever it
can.
And the Russian people and government regard the people of the Ukraine as brothers and
sisters. But until the west has worn itself down, and either gone away or changed the
equation through a weakening of its own position in some significant way, nothing can be done
by Russia except to wait.
What Tod @32 described is spot-on, "the old Jewish threatening/begging dance". It is not that
the Russians do not know this about Kolomoyskyi. They will play along not expecting anything
from the Zelo-on-a-String and his master. The Russians like to let those scumbags (Erdo comes
to mind) huff & puff and embarrass themselves by flips. They know - it could always be
worse if those did something intelligent. Kolomoyskyi is vile but he ain't no genius, not any
more than Erdo.
Sure Cheeza...everybody's a 'bit off' except you...
Gazprom is talking about 10 bcm a year through Ukraine for the new 10 year deal, as
opposed to the 60 bcm [billion cubic meters] that Ukraine is hoping for...
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction/)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government. Babyl-on @ 8
? before I begin , how do you measure the political and economic power of money
as opposed to the political and economic power of the intentions and needs of the masses.
Does $1 control a 100 people? A million dollars control 100,000,000 people? How do we measure
the comparative values between money power and people power? I think the divisions of
economics and the binaries of politics established by the nation state system means that the
measurement function (political and economic values) varies as a function of the total wealth
vs the total population in each nation state. If true, become obvious how it is that: foreign
investments displaces the existing homeostatis in any particular nation state, the smaller
the poorer the nation state, the more impact foreign wealth can have; in other words outside
wealth can completely destroy the homeostatis of an existing nation state. I think it is this
fact which makes globalization so attractive to the ruling interest (RI) and so damning to
the poorest of the poor.
Change by amendment is impossible There is one and only one Western Empire but
there is also an Eastern Empire, a southern empire, and a Northern Empire and I believe the
ruling interest (faction) manipulate all nations through these empires. In fact, they can do
this in any nation they wish. The world has been divided into containers of humans and
propaganda and culture have highly polarized the humans in one container against the humans
in other containers. <=divide, polarize, then exploit: its like pry the window, and gain
access to the residence, then exploit. It is obvious that the strength of the resistance to
ruling class exploitation is a function of common cause among the masses. But money allows to
control both the division of power and the polarization of the masses. The persons who have
the powers described in Article II of the US Constitution since Lincoln was murdered can be
controlled (Epstein, MSM directed propaganda, impeachment, assassination, to accomplish the
objects of the ruling interest (faction). Article II of the USA constitution removes foreign
activity of the USA from domestic view of the governed at home Americans. Article II makes it
possible for the POTUS to use American assets and resources to assist his/her feudal lords in
exploiting foreign nations almost at will and there is no way governed Americans can control
who the ruling interest place in the Article II position.
A little History Immigration to NYC from Eastern (the poor) and Western (the
rich) Europe transitioned NYC and other cities from Irish majority to a Jewish majority; and
the wealthy interest used the Jewish majorities in key cities to take control over both
Article I and Article II constitutional powers by electing field effect controlled
politicians (political puppets are elected that can be reprogrammed while they are in office
to suit the ruling interest. The source code is called rule of law, and money buys the
programmers who write the code. So the ruling interest can reprogram in field effect fashion,
any POTUS they wish. Out of sight use of the resources of America in foreign lands is nothing
new, it was established when the constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787 and
ratified in 1788.
Propaganda targeted to the Jewish Immigrants allowed the wealthy interest to
control the outcome of the 1912 election. That election allowed to destroy Article I,
Section 9, paragraph 4 " No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid unless in
Proportion to the Census of enumeration herein before directed to be taken". and to enact a
law which privatized the USA monopoly on money into the hands of private bankers (the federal
reserve act of 1913)
What was the grand design Highly competitive, independent too strong economic
Germany was interfering with Western hegemony and the oil was in the lands controlled by the
Ottomans. It took two wars, but Germany was destroyed, and the Ottoman empire (basically the
entire Middle East) became the war gained property of the British (Palestine), the French
(Syria) and the USA (Israel). Since then, the ruling interest have used their (field effect
devices to align governments so the wealthy could pillage victim societies the world over.
Field effect programming allows wealth interest to use the leaders of governments to use such
governments to enable pillage in foreign places. The global rich and powerful, and their
corporations are the ruling interest.
psychohistorian says it well "..the global private finance core segment of empire is
behind Trump and throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The
cult of global private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role
in the new multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyone's heads to make it
ongoing..." by psychochistorian @ 10
NOBITs @ 11 says it also "All presidents have been servants of the military, which includes
the police/intel/security apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead
role were "dealt with." Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state
bureaucrats are shocked and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US
foreign policy for 75 years!" by: NOBTS @ 11
According to TG @ 13 "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing
responsibility. The elites get to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take
responsibility when things go wrong. Because you see, we are a "Democracy."by: TG @ 13 <=
absolutely not.. the constitution isolates governed Americans from the USA, because the USA
is a republic and republics are about privatizing power and socializing responsibility;
worse, there ain't nothing you can do about it.
Vonu @ 19 says "According to Kevin Shipp, the National Security Council really runs the
executive branch, not the president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=XHbrOg092GA"
by: Vonu @ 19 <=but it is by the authority of Ariicle II that the NSC has the power to run
the executive branch?
KAdath @ 22 says "the Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in
order for the Russians to keep even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets by: Kadath @
22" <=exactly.. but really its not abandoning the USA, its abandoning the oligarchs local
to the pillaged nation..
J Swift @ 23 says "the US treats its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere,"
[poorly] but its not the USA per say, because only one person has the power to deal in
foreign places. Its that the POTUS, or those who control the Article II powers vested in the
POTUS, have or has been reprogrammed.. J. Switft @23>>
flankerbandit @ 25 says " Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they
are selling vast tracts of agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally
dispossessing themselves of their own food security..." flankerbandit @ 25 <=Not really
the wealthy (investor interest) have pushed the pillage at will button.. since there is no
resistance remaining, the wealthy will take it all for a song..
Jackrabbit @ 26 says "Trump [is].. Constitutionally charged with foreign policy. Repeating:
the "Imperial Presidency" has flung off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing
the need to get Congressional approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by
Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and black budgets.by Jackrabbit @ 26 <== Trumps orders
military to take 4 million day from Syria in oil?
your observation that the money has circumvented Article I of the COUS explains why the
democraps are so upset.. the wealthy democrap interest has been left to rot? Your comment
suggest s mafia is in charge?
Tod @ 32 says "As soon as some money goes his way, he'll discover democracy again.
Sorry to burst you bubbles." by: Tod @ 32" <==understatement of the day.. thanks.
Bevin @ 32 says "a dialectic is at work here. Washington's support for fascism abroad
has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the installation of fascist regimes
abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US intervenes it leaves a fascist
regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind it. this means.. the ability of
the population to effect political change is cancelled" by bevin @ 33 <= yes but there is
really no difference in a republic and its rule of law, and a fascist government and its
military police both rule without any influential input from the governed.
michael @ 34 reaffirms "The President was the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that foreign nations or their
agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'" michael @ 34 well known to
barflies, the design of national constitutions is at the heart of the global problem. Until
constitutional powers are placed in control of the governed there will never be a change in
how the constitutional powers ( in case of the USA Article II powers) are used and
abused.
OutofThinAir @45 says "In general, governments are the order-providing solution for
chaos and problems that only first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over
others.by: OutOfThinAir @ 45" <+governments are the tools of wealth interest and the
governors their hired hands.
by: War is Peace @48 " Trump is a moron, groomed by Jewish parents ( Mother was Jewish,
Father buried at biggest Jewish cementary in NYC ) to be a non-Jew worked for the mob under
Cohen ( lawyer for 1950's McCarthy ); Became the 'Goyim Fool" real estate developer as a
cover for laundering mob money. So that it didn't appear that it was Jewish Mafia Money, so
they could work with the Italian Mafia. Trump went on for his greatest role ever to be the
"fool in Chief" of the USA for AIPAC. What better way to murder people, than send out a fool,
it causes people to drop their guard. by War is Peace @48 <= yes this is my take, What
does it mean. com suggest the global wealth interest may be planning to reprogram Trump to
better protect the interest of the global wealthy.
Kiza @ 51 the reason for globalization is explained see above=> response to Babyl-on @
8
dh @ 53 says ""The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to." by dh @53 <
the USA cannot consider anything, if its foreign the POTUS (Article II) makes all decisions
because Art II gives the POTUS a monopoly on talking to, and dealing with, foreign
governments.
Deagel @ 56 says "The American people don't care, they're all drugged out, and shitting
on the side-walks all over the USA, and sleeping in their own shit. This is the best time in
USA history for the Zionists to do anything they wish." by: Deagel @ 56 <= I think you
under estimate the value Americans place on democracy and human rights, until recently
governed Americans believed the third party privately produced MSM delivered propaganda that
nearly all overseas operations by the USA were to separate the people in those places from
their despotic leaders, and to help those displaced people install Democracy.. many Americans
have come to understand such is far from the case.. the situation in the Ukraine has been an
eye opener for many Americans. thoughts are sizzling, talk is happening, and people are
trying to shut google out of their lives. that is why i think Trump is about to be
reprogrammed from elected leader to .. God in charge
I watched that Soloviev segment with Kedmi the other day...always interesting to say the
least...
Btw...I'm not really up to speed on that whole Debaltsevo cauldron thing...I've heard
snippets here and there...[there is a guy, Auslander, who comments on the Saker blog that
seems to have excellent first hand info, but I've only caught snippets here and there]...
I hadn't heard this part of the story before about Nato contractors as bargaining
chips...if you care to shed a bit more light I will be grateful...
I suggest going to The Saker Blog and
enter Debaltsevo Cauldron into the site's search box and click Submit where you'll be greeted
with numerous results.
Grieved @62--
Thanks for your reply and excellent recap. As I recall, Putin wants Donbass to remain in
Ukraine and Ukraine to remain a whole state, although I haven't read his thoughts on the
matter for quite some months as everything has revolved around implementing Minsk. The items
at the Foreign Ministry I linked to are also concerned with Minsk.
The circus act in DC is trying to avoid any mention of Minsk, the coup or anything
material to the gross imperial meddling done there to enrich the criminal elite, which
includes Biden, Clinton, other DNC members--a whole suite of actors that omits Trump in this
case, although they're trying to pin something on him. The issue being studiously ignored is
Obama/Biden needed to be busted for their actions at the time, but in time-honored fashion
weren't. And the huge rotted sewer of corruption related to that action and ALL that came
before is the real problem at issue.
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person as evidenced by The New Yorker 737Max article
in the previous thread. This good article could only be measured by how much it agrees with
your own opinion that MCAS was put in to mimic the pilots' usual fly-stick feel. If anyone
does his home work, such as the journalist of this article, then he must agree with you,
right? With experts such as you out there, why would anyone dare apply common sense and say
that it would be an unimaginably stupid idea to put in ANY AUTOMATED SYSTEM which pushes
the plane's nose down during ascent (the most risky phase of a civilian flight, when almost
desperately trying to get up and up and up) for any DUMBLY POSSIBLE REASON !? What could
ever go wrong with such an absolutely dumbly initiated system relying on one sensor? Maybe it
was a similar idea to putting a cigarette lighter right next to the car's gas tank because it
lights up cigarettes better when there are gasoline vapors around. Or maybe an idea of
testing the self-driving lithium battery (exploding & flammable) cars near kindergartens
(of some other people's children)!?
An intelligent person would have said - whatever the reason was to put in MCAS it was a
terribly dumb idea, instead of congratulating himself on understanding the "true reason".
"If I were president, while I would resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly
associate myself with the delusion that stable friendship is possible (or, frankly,
desirable) with Putin's anti-American dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia
family and is acting on its revanchist ambitions."
Really?
From what have gleaned from the alternative media available on the internet ,of which MOA is
an important part. Putin and Lavrov are the two most moral and diplomatic statesmen on the
world stage today Compared to Trump, Johnson, Macron, Merkel, Stoltenberg, Pompeo, Bolton and
whoever else blights the international scene these days these two are colossi.
To describe
them as like a Mafia family seems to me to be 180 degrees wrong. Maybe Putin overreacted, in
his early days in power, to the Chechen conflict but look at the situation today.
Look at how
Gorbachev and Yeltsin were played by the west. I appreciate you did not write the words
quoted above but you said you agree with them and I find that startling given I am usually
very admiring of your insight and knowledge of geopolitical events.
According to the Impeachniks, it is Schiff's staff who decides how Schiff votes and his
policies. It would be illegal for Schiff to make decisions. But Schiff's recommendation will
make or break the careers of his staff, so elected Schiff has some influence. That's not true
for elected Trump, because those in his service already have made careers and/or a host of
outsiders looking to place them.
Although, he didn't get impeached for it Obama did get criticized for not sending the aid to
Ukraine. He was also criticized when he did intervene, but not fast enough for the deep
state. Remember "leading from behind" in response to Libya. Obama was much more popular and
circumspect than Trump, which protected him from possible impeachment when he went off the
deep state's script.
Discussion of the USC and the responsibilities assigned therein is probably a foolish and
merely moot exercise, as law is, ultimately simply custom over time, and since '45 or so the
custom has become dissociated from the documents' provisions, particularly with regard to
war-making and the "licensed" import and sale of dangerous drugs, dope. The custom in place
is essentially ukase - rule by decree. Many decree are secret.
I do not object, simply pointing to the obvious.
This is a public secret anybody can know. Inter alia see The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia (McCoy)
...........
Custom includes also permitted theft, blackmail, trafficking children and so forth.
...........
zerohedge put up some documents tying TGM Hunter B to the money from Ukraine...
................
I would not worry about the name of the person called president. The real sitrep is more
like watching rape and murder from the dirty windows of a runaway train.
Upon the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine was left with the fifth-largest nuclear arsenal in
the world. In exchange for financial assistance in the costs of removing all the nukes, the
West guaranteed to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In the meantime, Russia has annexed the Crimea and rebels have taken control of parts of
Eastern Ukraine. The West has not provided any direct military assistance to restore those
territorial infringements.
Since the West has reneged on its end of the deal, would it not only be fair to return
Ukraine's nukes so it can defend itself like the Big Boys do, namely with threat of nuclear
annihilation?
I hate this trope. The Russian Fed. is not launching offensive operations to capture
Kharkov or Kiev. Western Ukraine is shelling ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. What would
U.S. Congressman say if these were Jews? (I would condemn that as well).
The next time someone pontificates, 'Ukrainians are dying because Trump held up aid' ask
them how many. The number is ZERO. Javelins are not being used on the front line.
Mr. Kolomoisky is spot on, i.e. when he says that the Americans will only use Ukrainians as
their little bitches to fight and die for America's gain against Russia. Just like the
Americans fucked over the Kurds in Syria, using them as proxy fighters to do USA/Israel's
dirty work. Wherever the USA shows up and starts interfering, everything turns into shit:
Iraq...Afghanistan...Venezuela...Bolivia...Ukraine...Libya...Yemen...Nicaragua...Ecuador...the
list is quite long. It remains to be seen if Mr. Kolomoisky can bring about rapprochement
with Russia. He'd better watch his back.
"Wow. My opinion of Kolomoisky has just improved ... somewhat." --Seamus Padraig @73
Yes, Kolomoisky has moved up a notch in my estimation as well; from the low of
"monstrously inhuman spawn of satan" all the way up to "rabid dog" . That's
quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
I am very glad to see you back, Grieved, and your 'wall of ice' metaphor is indeed accurate.
To me, the promising signs in Ukraine were even as here in the US when voters fought back
against what b calls Deep State, which I am sure in my heart was even more of an overwhelming
surge than registered - the best the corrupters of the system could do was make it close
enough to be a barely legitimate win for their side, and they didn't succeed. Maybe somewhere
along their line of shenanigans a small cog in the wheel got religion and didn't do their
'job'. An unsung hero who will sing when it's safe.
I hope, dearly hope, it gets safe in Ukraine very soon. They are us only further down the
line than we are, but we will get there if we can't totally remove the cancer in our midst.
That's our job; I wish Ukraine all the best in removing theirs.
Jen...I should have made clear that the two aircraft picked up by Russian PRIMARY RADAR were
unidentified...
The two commercial flights you mention were in the area and were known to both Russian and
Ukrainian controllers by means of the SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR, which picks up the
aircraft transponder signals...
However, secondary WILL NOT pick up military craft that have their transponders
off...which is normal operating procedure for military craft...
So the airspace situation was this...you can see this from one of the illustrations I
provided from the DSB prelim report...
You had MH17...you had that other flight coming from the opposite direction [flying
west]...and you had that airplane that overtook the MH17 from behind [they were in a hurry
and were going faster, so when MH17 decided to stay at FL330, they were cleared to climb to
FL350 so they could safely overtake with the necessary vertical separation...]
Those three aircraft were all picked up on the Ukrainian SECONDARY [transponder]
surveillance...as well as the Russians...on both their PRIMARY AND SECONDARY...
But what the Russians picked up were two craft ONLY ON THEIR PRIMARY...those would have
been military aircraft flying with their transponders off [they're allowed to do that and do
that most of the time in fact]...
That's why those two DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE SECONDARY DATA HANDED OVER TO THE INVESTIGATORS
BY THE UKRAINIANS...
Only primary radar would pick those up...and, very conveniently, the Dnipro primary was
inop at the time...[so the data handed to investigators by the Ukrainians would have no trace
of any military aircraft nearby]...
But with the Russian primary radar data, there is in fact evidence that there were
military aircraft in the air at the time...just that the Dutch investigators simply decided
to exclude the very vital Russian radar data on some stupid technicality...
[Really this is a very poorly done report, both prelim and final, and I've read many over
the years...]
The other thing I should have emphasized more clearly is about that course deviation that
controllers steered MH17 to, just seconds before it was hit...
The known traffic was those three commercial aircraft, as shown on the chart...here it is
again...
Those three commercial flights are clearly labeled...and the big question is... why was
MH17 DIVERTED SOUTH...OFF ITS PLANNED ROUTE...?
We can see the deviation track by the dotted red line...
Clearly there was no 'other traffic' that required MH17 to be vectored south by the
controllers...
In fact we see that there was a FOURTH commercial flight [another B777] that was flying
south exactly to that same waypoint that MH17 was diverted to...we see this airplane is
flying west on the M70 airway and is heading to the RND waypoint...
This does not make sense...why would you divert MH17 from going to TAMAK as flight
planned...in order to go south toward RND where another airplane is heading...
If nothing else this is very bad controller practice right there...yet again, the DSB
[Dutch Safety Board] does not even raise this question...
Like I said, leaving aside any guesswork, these are the simple facts and they raise
serious questions...both about the competence of the Dutch report, and the way the
controllers handled that flight...
Ukrainian think tank Ukrainian Institute of the Future and Ukrainian media outlet Zerkalo
Nedeli (both anti-Russian, but slightly more intellectual than typical Ukrainian outlets)
have contracted a Kharkov-based pollster to conduct a poll among DNR/LNR residents from
October 7 to October 31 (method: face-to-face interviews at the homes of the respondents,
sample size: 806 respondents in DNR and 800 respondents in LNR, margin of error: 3.2%) and
published its results in an article: Тест
на сумісність
[Compatibility Test] (in Ukrainian).
It's a long and rambling article, interspersed with
Ukrainian propagandistic clichés (perhaps to placate Ukrainian nationalists), but the
numbers look solid, so I've extracted the numbers I consider important and put them in a
table format. Here they are:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Gender 46.5% male 53.5% female
Age 8.3% <25 years old 91.7% ≥25 years old
Education 31.5% no vocational training or higher education 45.2% vocational training 23.3% higher education
Religion 57% marry and baptize their children in Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) 31% believe in God, but do not go to any church 12% other churches, other religions, atheists
Political activity 3% are members of parties 97% are not members of parties
Language 90% speak Russian at home 10% speak other languages at home
Nationality 55.4% consider themselves Ukrainians 44.6% do not consider themselves Ukrainians
ECONOMY
Opinion about the labor market 24.3% there are almost no jobs 39.3% high unemployment, but it's possible to find a job 15.7% there are jobs, even if temporary 17.1% key enterprises are working, those who want to work can find a job 2.9% there are not enough employees
Personal financial situation 4.9% are saving on food 36.4% enough money to buy food, but have to save money to buy clothing 43.6% enough money to buy food and clothing, but have to save money to buy a suit, a mobile
phone, or a vacuum cleaner 12% enough money to buy food, clothing, and other goods, but have to save money to buy
expensive goods (e.g. consumer electronics) 2.7% enough money to buy food, clothing, and expensive goods, but have to save money to buy a
car or an apartment 0.4% enough money to buy anything
Personal financial situation compared to the previous year 28.4% worsened 57.3% stayed the same 14.2% improved
Personal financial situation expectations for the next year 21% will worsen 58.6% will stay the same 18.7% will improve
Opinion on the Ukraine's (sans DNR/LNR) economic situation compared to the previous
year 50.3% worsened 41.4% stayed the same 6.3% improved
CITIZENSHIP
Consider themselves citizens of 57.8% the Ukraine 34.8% DNR/LNR 6.8% Russia
Russian citizenship 42.9% never thought about obtaining it 15.5% don't want to obtain it 34.2% would like to obtain it 7.4% already obtained it
Considered leaving DNR/LNR for 5.2% the Ukraine 11.1% Russia 2.9% other country 80.8% never considered leaving
Visits to the Ukraine over the past year 35.1% across the DNR/LNR–Ukraine border (overwhelming majority of them -- 32.2% of all
respondents -- are pensioners who visit the Ukraine to receive their pensions) 2.6% across the Russia–Ukraine border 62.3% have not visited the Ukraine
WAR
Is the war in Donbass an internal Ukrainian conflict? 35.6% completely agree 40.5% tend to agree 14.1% tend to disagree 9.3% completely disagree
Was the war started by Moscow and pro-Russian groups? 3.1% completely agree 6.4% tend to agree 45.1% tend to disagree 44.9% completely disagree
Who must pay to rebuild DNR/LNR? (multiple answers) 63.6% the Ukraine 29.3% Ukrainian oligarchs 18.5% DNR/LNR themselves 17% the U.S. 16.5% the EU 16% Russia 13% all of the above
ZELENSKIY
Opinion about Zelenskiy 1.9% very positive 17.2% positive 49.6% negative 29.3% very negative
Has your opinion about Zelenskiy changed over the past months? 2.7% significantly improved 7.9% somewhat improved 44.8% stayed the same 22.9% somewhat worsened 20.5% significantly worsened
Will Zelenskiy be able to improve the Ukraine's economy? 1.4% highly likely 13.3% likely 55.3% unlikely 30% highly unlikely
Will Zelenskiy be able to bring peace to the region? 1.7% highly likely 12.5% likely 59% unlikely 26.5% highly unlikely
MEDIA
Where do you get your information on politics? (multiple answers) 84.3% TV 60.6% social networks 50.9% relatives, friends 45.9% websites 17.4% co-workers 10% radio 7.4% newspapers and magazines
What social networks do you use? (multiple answers) 70.7% YouTube 61% VK 52.3% Odnoklassniki 49.8% Viber 27.1% Facebook 21.4% Instagram 12.4% Twitter 11.1% Telegram
FUTURE
Desired status of DNR/LNR 5.1% part of the Ukraine 13.4% part of the Ukraine with a special status 16.2% independent state 13.4% part of Russia with a special status 50.9% part of Russia
Desired status of entire Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts 8.4% part of the Ukraine 10.8% part of the Ukraine with a special status 14.4% independent state 13.3% part of Russia with a special status 49.6% part of Russia
Just listening to a bit of the testimony of the ex-ambassador to Ukraine.
It is all BS hearsay!
Also, this lady doesn't seem to grasp that as an employee of the State Department, she
answers to Trump. Trump is her boss.
The questioning is full of leading questions that contains allegations and unproved
premises built into them. I can't imagine that such questioning would be allowed in a normal
court of justice in the USA.
Sure, Trump is a boor. But he is still the boss and he gets to pull out ambassadors if he
wants to.
This is total grandstanding.
Also, a lot of emotional stuff like "I was devastated. I was shocked. Color drained from
my face as I read the telephone transcript . . . "
This is BS!
IIRC the Russian radar showed that the two mystery planes in questions were flying in
MH17's blindspot . That's way too close to be half an hour away. Also, the fact that
the two planes were flying over a war zone with their transponders turned off (which is why
they couldn't be conclusively identified) strongly suggests that they were military.
@ Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 15 2019 11:24 utc | 71
When the US launched a coup in Kiev, wasn't that a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty
too?
@ Posted by: Christian J Chuba | Nov 15 2019 12:36 utc | 72
You know the real reason why they have yet to deliver the javelins to Ukraine? It's
because they're afraid that they'll be sold on the black market and end up in the ME
somewhere targeting US tanks. That's why.
@ Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 15 2019 13:30 utc | 75
That's quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
on Yovanovitch,
She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to
safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States."
She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security
interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. .
.Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is
injured in the knee
Cheeza decides to launch a personal attack...also completely off topic...
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person [sic]...With experts such as you out there,
why would anyone dare apply common sense...an intelligent person would have said...blah
blah blah...
Look man...I'm not going to take up a lot of space on this thread because it's not about
the MAX...
BUT...I need to set the record straight because you are accusing me here of somehow
muddying the waters on the MAX issue...
That is a complete inversion of the truth...I have been very explicit in my [professional]
comments about the MAX...and it is the exact opposite of what you are trying to tar me with
here...
Yes, it is important to understand these things...which is why I have made the effort to
explain the issue more clearly for the layman audience...
Your pathetic attack here shows you have no shame, nor self-respect...
Let's rewind the tape here...I said that Gazprom is looking to cut supplies to Ukraine in
the new 10 year deal that comes up for negotiation in January...and that they are going to be
pumping much less gas through Ukraine because NS2 now allows to bypass Ukraine...
You took a run at this comment, calling it wrong, and putting up a bunch of your own
hypothesizing...
I responded by linking to the
Russian news report quoting officials saying exactly that...that gas to Ukraine will be
greatly reduced...
Instead of responding to that by admitting you were full of shit...you decide to attack me
on the MAX issue...everybody here knows my [professional] position on the MAX...and that I
have said repeatedly THAT IT CANNOT BE FIXED...[which is also why I have offered detailed
technical explanations...]
I'm not going to let you screw with my integrity here...everything you attributed to me
on the MAX is completely FALSE and in fact turning the truth on its head...
As Kiza #55 noted - Nordstream 1 and 2, combined, only equal half of Ukraine's transit
capacity.
The primary impact is that Ukraine can't hold far Western European customer gas hostage
anymore with its gas transit "negotiations" as Nordstream allows Russia to sell directly to
Germany.
There can still be Russian gas sold via Ukraine, but this will be mostly to near-Ukraine
neighbors: Romania, Slovakia, Austria, Czech as well as Ukraine itself.
Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania can transit from Turk Stream, but there are potential Turk (and
Bulgarian) issues.
Poland is already committing to LNG in order to not be dependent on Russian gas transiting
Ukraine - a double whammy.
The ultimate effect is to remove Ukraine's stranglehold position over Russian gas exports,
which in turn severely undercuts Ukraine's ability to both get really cheap Russian gas and
additional transit fees - a major blow to their economy.
Therefore, the continuation of gas transit via Ukraine in volumes greater than the 26 bcm/y
suggested above will depend on the European Commission and European gas importers, and
their insistence that gas transit via Ukraine continues.
Otherwise, gas transit via Ukraine will be reduced to delivering limited volumes for
European storage re-fills in the 'off-peak' summer months...
This prospect will undoubtedly complicate any negotiations between Gazprom and its
Ukrainian counterparty over a new contract to govern the transit of Russian gas via
Ukraine, once the existing contract expires at the end of December 2019.
...Gazprom may be willing to commit to only limited annual transit volumes...
European gas importers don't give a shit about Ukraine...and they have the final
word...they care only about getting the gas they need from Russia in a reliable way and at a
good price...
The news report I linked to makes it perfectly clear that the Europeans are demanding that
the Ukranians get their act together on the gas issue, or they will be dropped
altogether...
You know...FOOL...it really makes me wonder how fools like you decide to make statements
here with a very authoritative tone...when it is quite clear you are talking out your rear
end...
Nobody needs that kind of bullshit here...if you don't know a subject sufficiently well,
then maybe you should keep quiet...or when making a statement, phrase it as your own OPINION
and nothing more...
"... In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained influence over Ukraine's national bank? ..."
"... John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. ..."
"... In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record, videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target. Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you just rely on press reports? ..."
"... Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials. These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country? ..."
"... If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate? ..."
"... At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky? ..."
The next big witness for the House Democrats' impeachment hearings is Marie Yovanovitch, the
former American ambassador to Ukraine who was recalled last spring at President Trump's
insistence.
It is unclear what firsthand knowledge she will offer about the core allegation of this
impeachment: that Trump delayed foreign aid assistance to Ukraine in hopes of getting an
investigation of Joe Biden and Democrats started.
Nonetheless, she did deal with the Ukrainians going back to the summer of 2016 and likely
will be an important fact witness.
After nearly two years of reporting on Ukraine issues, here are 15 questions I think could
be most illuminating to every day Americans if the ambassador answered them.
Ambassador Yovanovitch, at any time while you served in Ukraine did any officials in Kiev
ever express concern to you that President Trump might be withholding foreign aid assistance
to get political investigations started? Did President Trump ever ask you as America's top
representative in Kiev to pressure Ukrainians to start an investigation about Burisma
Holdings or the Bidens?
What was the Ukrainians' perception of President Trump after he allowed lethal aid to go
to Ukraine in 2018?
In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence
or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and
his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the
IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained
influence over Ukraine's national bank?
Back in May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions wrote a letter to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggesting you might have made comments unflattering or
unsupportive of the president and should be recalled. Setting aside that Sessions is a
Republican and might even have donors interested in Ukraine policy, were you ever questioned
about his concerns? At any time have you or your embassy staff made comments that could be
viewed as unsupportive or critical of President Trump and his policies?
John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in
testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action
Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also
known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to
reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. Can you explain what role your embassy played in
funding this group and why State funds would flow to it? And did any one consider the
perception of mingling tax dollars with those donated by Soros, a liberal ideologue who spent
millions in 2016 trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump?
In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record,
videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of
names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target.
Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do
anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you
just rely on press reports?
Now that both the New York Times and The Hill have confirmed that Lutsenko stands by his
account and has not recanted, how do you respond to his concerns? And setting aide the use of
the word "list," is it possible that during that 2016 meeting with Mr. Lutsenko you discussed
the names of certain Ukrainians you did not want to see prosecuted, investigated or
harassed?
Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House
Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the
Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials.
These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an
investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about
certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and
NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and
did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign
diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country?
On March 5 of this year, you gave a speech in which you called for the replacement of
Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor. That speech occurred in the middle of the Ukrainian
presidential election and obviously raised concerns among some Ukrainians of internal
interference prohibited by the Geneva Convention. In fact, one of your bosses, Under
Secretary David Hale, got questioned about those concerns when he arrived in country a few
days later. Why did you think it was appropriate to give advice to Ukrainians on an internal
personnel matter and did you consider then or now the potential concerns your comments might
raise about meddling in the Ukrainian election or the country's internal affairs?
If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney
General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate?
At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with
Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or
an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky?
At any time since you were appointed ambassador to Ukraine, did you or your embassy have
any contact with the following Burisma figures: Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, lawyer John
Buretta, Blue Star strategies representatives Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, or former
Ukrainian embassy official Andrii Telizhenko?
John Solomon obtained documents showing Burisma representatives were pressuring the State
Department in February 2016 to help end the corruption allegations against the company and
were invoking Hunter Biden's name as part of their effort. Did you ever subsequently learn of
these contacts and did any one at State -- including but not limited to Secretary Kerry,
Undersecretary Novelli, Deputy Secretary Blinken or Assistant Secretary Nuland -- ever raise
Burisma with you?
What was your embassy's assessment of the corruption allegations around Burisma and why
the company may have hired Hunter Biden as a board member in 2014?
In spring 2019 your embassy reportedly began monitoring briefly the social media
communications of certain people viewed as supportive of President Trump and gathering
analytics about them. Who were those people? Why was this done? Why did it stop? And did
anyone in the State Department chain of command ever suggest targeting Americans with State
resources might be improper or illegal?
"... To become a Foreign Service Officer you must take a written and an oral exam. If you pass these exams then you win the golden ticket granting you entrance into the FSO club. FSOs have convinced themselves that only the smartest, the brightest, the most able can pass this exam. If you have not taken the exam and passed it then you are by definition not a very smart person. ..."
"... Many FSOs looked down their nose at these knuckle dragging gorillas masquerading as Special Operations forces at U.S. They assumed they were barely literate. Imagine their shock when the FSOs discovered that a member of the elite U.S. Army CT unit or a member of the SEALS could actually speak a foreign language, had read some real literature and held an advanced college degree. Not making this up. ..."
"... The Foreign Service contains many officers who take arrogance and prickishness to new heights. You make a fatal error if you believe that because they tend to be soft spoken and non-confrontational that they are not dangerous and devious. Au contraire. Many that rise in the Foreign Service have a knack for sticking a knife in the back of a perceived rival. ..."
"... Just another day in the life of a Pomposity. From what I have seen of tomorrow's witness, Marie Yovanovitch, an FSO, is the same kind of person I encountered in the Office of Counter Terrorism. Arrogant and aggrieved and convinced that she is so much smarter than the troglodytes who will be asking her questions. ..."
"... You get to the point of not caring if you don't get the credit. You just want to be able to do your job better and go home each night ..."
"... It's common for females in almost every work situation I held. Pompous men getting the credit for what a whole office of females actually did -- sometimes doing things and making decisions they just didn't ask the boss to "approve." ..."
14 November 2019Understanding the Foreign Service Officer Nerd Behavior by Larry C Johnson
A group of lions is called a "pride." A group of crows is called a "murder." A group of
geese is called a "gaggle." So what do you call a group of Ambassadors? A pomposity (that term
was coined by Colonel Lang when the two of us were working on an exercise on Iran and there
were three Ambassadors huddled in a corner scheming--brilliant).
There are two types of Ambassadors--political appointees and Foreign Service Officers who
have made their way to the top of the Foreign Service mountain. The two fellows testifying at
the opening of the House Impeachment inquiry -- Kent and Taylor -- are Foreign Service
Officers. They are a strange lot. There are some exceptions who are normal people, such as
Ambassador Morris (Buzz) Busby and Ambassador Anthony Quainton. I worked for Buzz and dealt
with Ambassador Quainton on a variety of policy issues.
I conducted training for U.S. military Special Ops forces for several years in the aftermath
of 9-11. My task was to teach them how to understand the culture of the Foreign Service
Officers and offer tips on how to interact. In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks,
U.S. SpecOps personnel were deployed to U.S. Embassies around the world and were having some
trouble interacting with the so-called diplomats.
To become a Foreign Service Officer you must take a written and an oral exam. If you pass
these exams then you win the golden ticket granting you entrance into the FSO club. FSOs have
convinced themselves that only the smartest, the brightest, the most able can pass this exam.
If you have not taken the exam and passed it then you are by definition not a very smart
person.
Many FSOs looked down their nose at these knuckle dragging gorillas masquerading as Special
Operations forces at U.S. They assumed they were barely literate. Imagine their shock when the
FSOs discovered that a member of the elite U.S. Army CT unit or a member of the SEALS could
actually speak a foreign language, had read some real literature and held an advanced college
degree. Not making this up.
The Foreign Service contains many officers who take arrogance and prickishness to new
heights. You make a fatal error if you believe that because they tend to be soft spoken and
non-confrontational that they are not dangerous and devious. Au contraire. Many that rise in
the Foreign Service have a knack for sticking a knife in the back of a perceived rival.
Let me give you a personal example. A female Ambassador who was a Deputy in the Office of
the Coordinator for Counter Terrorism had a blow up when I helped a Navy SEAL Commander, who
was detailed to State, revamp a memo she had already approved because an important overseas
asset deployed for responding to a international terrorist incident had been inadvertently left
out of the memo. When my SEAL buddy went in to brief her on the change she started screaming at
him, broke her lamp and threw a bottle of hand lotion at him. If she had been a man my friend
would have physically retaliated. Instead, my SEAL buddy walked out of the office and recounted
the incident to a Civil Service employee in the office. That employee happened to be the
neighbor of Ambassador A. Peter Burleigh, who was in charge of S/CT during that time.
When Ambassador Burleigh learned of her outburst he called her to his office and read her
the riot act. What did she do? She assumed I was the one (I was not) who had ratted on her to
Ambassador Burleigh. She set out to destroy me. My boss at the time was a retired Marine Corps
Colonel, Dominick "Dick" Gannon. What a gentleman. I counted him as a mentor and a second
father. Hard as woodpecker lips and a man who lived by a code of honor.
Dick prepared my fitness report and submitted it to his supervisor, the crazy female FSO.
She demanded he change it to trash me and he refused. So she waited. Dick went overseas on a
diplomatic mission and the female Ambassador snuck upstairs to the 7th floor (i.e., the
Secretary of State's suite). She filed a complaint against Dick accusing him of failing to do
the evaluation in a timely manner. Fortunately, the admin person she talked to, Joanne Graves,
looked it over, saw that Dick had signed and informed the female FSO that the person who had
failed to act in a timely manner was her. She was furious but beaten.
Just another day in the life of a Pomposity. From what I have seen of tomorrow's
witness, Marie Yovanovitch, an FSO, is the same kind of person I encountered in the Office of
Counter Terrorism. Arrogant and aggrieved and convinced that she is so much smarter than the
troglodytes who will be asking her questions.
I am not saying that all FSOs are like this. But a large number are. You will be seeing
another one of these critters in Friday's testimony.
Ah, troglodytes ... a decade ago I was told that I was one too. Because I can ... count.
As a student I worked in a marketing company that sold US credit cards. My part of the job
was more honourable: I was tasked with administering the phone numbers called to do that.
It's like that with these numbers: You call someone and he sais " Never ever call me
again, never ever, you a**hole " the number is blocked to be recalled for 6 weeks and was
then called again. If the person agrees to appointment with a seller, the number is blocked
for a year etc pp.
The point is, the more you call the less numbers you have left. Call in a city for a week,
starting with 5000 numbers - after a week you're left with, say, 300 (mostly crap).
To make after that many or any more appointments then is simply impossible or requires a
lot of luck or, much worse, to re-use the numbers by nullifying all blockings (= burning
resources).
It's that simple: To make fried eggs you need eggs, a stove and a pan (or a really hot
engine hood), to make bricks you need clay, if you want to drive from Europe to Vladivostok
you need ... a visum, money, time, food, good weather, a warm jacket, to know russian, have a
robust car and a lot of fuel etc pp.
One day another employee (nice ties, glued hair and IMO seriously business study damaged)
negotiated a new contract with the credit card company with very ambitious goals, without
asking whether we had the resources (phone numbers) to achieve that.
And we didn't have what was needed and the bosses decided and chose not to buy more
numbers. So I told the unfortunate guy tasked with achieving the demanded sales that, with
the numbers left, we simply couldn't do it.
I was then wildly insulted to be a ... troglodyte, wicked, mean, illoyal, evil, that I
would lie and some more of that sort. I was fired 15 minutes later, which annoyed as hell
but, on the plus side, with luck led me to a three times better paid much better job
elsewhere.
The part more entertaining me was that I was absolutely correct, which I learned a few
months later from a former colleague:
The company was bankrupt eight weeks later, and the guy who fired me had a burnout or
mental breakdown three weeks later. One of the bosses went from having been a millionaire to
work as a waiter. The contract partner simply chose another "executor" (who was amusingly
employing the same salesmen).
So, I was right, and what did it give me? Not much but a bad experience and, with luck,
something much better elsewhere. Alas, and good riddance.
Yes, it's not often that someone who is right first gets the credit. It's true in business,
educational organizations--well everywhere I ever worked. I just got used to someone else
getting credit for things I had put in place first.
You get to the point of not caring if you don't get the credit. You just want to be able
to do your job better and go home each night.
It's common for females in almost every work situation I held. Pompous men getting the
credit for what a whole office of females actually did -- sometimes doing things and making
decisions they just didn't ask the boss to "approve."
I am struck by the fact that a woman mentioned above actually threw a bottle of hand
lotion at a SEAL who came to Main State to brief her. Much the same thing happened to me with
a male FSO who was DCM in an embassy in which I was DATT.
I had drafted a lengthy report to DIA that described the local armed forces as inept and difficult to train. The embassy had
the right to append remarks to my report but not to change it or block it without my
agreement. The DCM tried for half an hour to pressure me into changing my report to make it
more favorable to the local forces.
When I refused repeatedly to do so he threw the fifteen
page message form across the room at me. I got up and left, leaving it where it fell. After
talking to the ambassador the man apologized and the embassy sent my message.
Someone's ox is getting slowly and methodically gored. Solomon's reporting on Ukraine and
the State Department has been spot on and backed up by solid evidence.
Dems skillfully changed the narrative from Biden's Corruption to Trump actions against his potential Presidential candidate
(which is actually much less dangerous to Trump then Warren or Sanders; it is optimal for Trump variation of Hilary 2.0 theme )
The issue of supplying Ukraine arm to destabilize the region (with the USA on the receiving end of the potential Russia
retaliation incase of escalation of the conflict ) was changed in "withholding the aid from the ally". Real propaganda
professionals.
Looks like George Kent is dyed-in-the-wool neocon and belongs to the neocon vipers nest in the State Department as
Nuland. He is
actually extremely damaging for the USA foreign policy person. Another crazy USA supremacist, believer in "Full Spectrum
Domination" doctrine
Notable quotes:
"... I really wish that TAC writers would stop offering concessions to the neocons in an effort to appear "serious" and "reasonable". It's disingenuous, counterfactual, and it does not work. Russia did not invade Ukraine. (You could say that about Crimea, but if you were to do so, you should also admit that the locals welcomed the "invaders" as liberators.) ..."
"... Conservatives are basically wimps, that is why they feel they have to throw the neocon dogs some bones ..."
"... If his domestic political opponents have been engaged (or even suspected of being engaged) in corrupt dealings with foreign governments, why should they not be investigated??? ..."
"... The civilians killed are almost all on the Donbass side of the line (as a result of Ukrainian terror attacks). The civilians on the other side of the line are not attacked. The Ukrainian line is that the Novorussians are shelling themselves, but that would require them, among other absurdities, to invent artillery shells that can do a 180 degree turn mid-flight. ..."
"... These foreign policy experts ignore the fact that a large percentage of Ukrainians *are* Russians and proud of their heritage but do not want to join the Russian Federation and support a united Ukraine. I was a relentless critic of Obama but the more I read about Euromaiden and the subsequent Russian invasion/annexation the more I agree with his policy or not rushing in to supply arms in what was a confusing situation that was part civil war between factions of Ukrainians. ..."
"... The 13,000 Ukrainian deaths could probably have been avoided had the US had stayed out of Ukraine's internal affairs and not encouraged the overthrow of its elected government back in 2014, however corrupt it was. It was naive of the US State Department and specifically Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary for East European Affairs (who served in this role under both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) to think that Russia would not respond to a shift in Ukrainian foreign policy in favor of the West. ..."
"... The Deep State lies about the Ukraine and US involvement in political and economic corruption there are just astounding, but not surprising. The US and NATO bear a huge portion of the blame for destabilizing an already unstable "nation," being largely responsible for the coup that ousted the rightful President Yanukovich in 2014 (whom they also helped deny election in 2004). NATO itself should have been disbanded after the Warsaw Pact was disbanded. Instead it has taken an ever more expansionist and aggressive stance toward Russia. ..."
"... The US drove forward with NATO until this inevitably happened. Then resistance became "aggression." It was imagined that NATO would station its ships in former Russian Black Sea bases of the Crimea, and so lock down Russia's north-south river system as completely as someone allowed to capture New Orleans and close the Mississippi river system. That attempt had to produce a war of some sort. Russia just had to resist that. The US did it anyway, guys like George Kennan in his last years protesting without effect. ..."
"... Refusing to consider what it was about themselves or their agenda for why they lost the election, Unable, or unwilling to allow a change of course they set about an entire process for revenge. Refusing to take this time to reassess themselves, their candidates or their agenda they have chosen instead to plow ahead in their attempts to overturn the election. by impeachment and conviction or at least damaging the president so badly making his unelectable. ..."
"... Demonstrating the worst attributes of a prosecution: a case with no evidence to the charge, manufacturing evidence, open admissions that the witnesses saw a crime or we even in the room when the alleged crime took place -- they are showing how the system works and why government cannot be trusted, maybe the public probably too busy trying to earn a living to attend to the details explains why half of them actually believe that Russia infiltrated the US to sabotage an election, regardless that no evidence supports the accusation. ..."
"... If it is an impeachable offense, then just about every administration that has been around since I have been alive should have been nailed. Do you think we don't make deals with no strings attached? ..."
"... Those string attached are for the benefit of the US. NOT for the benefit of particular persons. Strings attached to official aid to benefit particulars is called CORRUPTION ..."
"... Not a criminal act and you have your facts wrong. The president referenced CrowdStrike at the center of the collusion and Russian hack accusations) and given the circumstances of the VP's son and the VP conduct regarding an investigation in progress in the Ukraine -- the suspicions are entirely reasonable and the VP openly speaks about what he did ---- political rival or not that confession is a fact. ..."
"... -- it's metaphysically impossible to desperately need something unless you are already receiving that same thing; or if someone else once said you didn't need the thing; or wrote an op-ed saying you needed the thing but we shouldn't be the ones to provide the thing you need ..."
Choking on the Democrats' Ukraine Fantasy Narrative
Officials and media delivered enough untruths and distortions yesterday to cause us all
heartburn. State Department deputy assistant secretary, George Kent, left, and acting U.S.
ambassador to Ukraine, William B. Taylor, right, appear for a House Intelligence Committee
impeachment hearing Wednesday November 13, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Matt McClain/The
Washington Post via Getty Images)
A top U.S. State Department official began his testimony before the House impeachment
inquiry with eye-popping analogies comparing patriotic Ukrainians to the Minutemen of the
American revolution. His narrative went unchallenged, as all of Washington appears to have
suddenly fallen in love with the poor, defenseless, disadvantaged Ukraine that President Trump
tried to deny arms to.
George Kent, a U.S. State Department official who served under five presidents, told the
House Intelligence Committee Wednesday morning that after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014,
occupying seven percent of its territory, "Ukraine's state institutions were on the verge of
collapse" until "the 21st century Ukrainian equivalent of our own Minutemen in 1776" bought
"time for the regular army to reconstitute."
"Since then, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their
territorial integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression," said Kent. "American support in
Ukraine's own de facto war of independence has been critical in this regard." Here's more:
"By analogy, the American colonies may not have prevailed against British imperial might
without help from transatlantic friends after 1776. In an echo of Lafayette's organized
assistance to General George Washington's army and Admiral John Paul Jones' navy, Congress
has generously appropriated over $1.5 billion over the past five years in desperately needed
train and equip security assistance to Ukraine . Similar to von Steuben training colonials at
Valley Forge, U.S. and NATO allied trainers develop the skills of Ukrainian units at Yavoriv
near the Polish border, and elsewhere. They help rewrite military education for Ukraine's
next generation, as von Steuben did for America's first."
One would think, listening to this, that the U.S. had always provided arms to Ukraine, and
that Ukraine has relied on this aid for years. But this is completely untrue, and the
Washington blob knows it.
Back in 2014, when Russia annexed a large swath of Ukraine, the Obama administration
declined to arm Ukraine, fearing that adding American weapons to the conflict would spark a hot
war between the U.S. and Russia. At the time, Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain argued
vociferously against Obama's policy.
"The Obama Administration's policy in Ukraine effectively amounts to an arms embargo on
victims of aggression," Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain said in a joint statement. "The
United States and the European Union must provide Ukraine with the arms and related military
and intelligence support that its leaders have consistently sought and desperately need."
Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression "demands more than additional empty rhetoric
and threats of lowest-common-denominator sanctions," they wrote. "That has been the extent of
the world's response to Putin's slow-motion dismemberment of Ukraine, and it has consistently
failed to deter new acts of aggression."
Even as NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned of a "serious military buildup" by
Russian forces inside Ukraine, the Obama administration still declined to provide Ukraine with
lethal aid.
"We don't think the answer to the crisis in Ukraine is simply to inject more weapons and
engage in tit-for-tat," White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told CNN.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki stressed that the US didn't want to "get into a proxy
war with Russia."
So instead, the U.S. responded to Russian aggression with sanctions and kicking them out of
the G-8 (now G-7.) Instead of providing arms,Washington provided Ukraine with non-lethal aid
and with military advisers and continued to engage in joint training exercises together with
several other countries.
Back when a Democrat occupied the White House, foreign policy experts were comfortable with
an unarmed Ukraine.
Foreign Policy magazine published an article called "Don't Poke the Russian
Bear" just after the Russian incursion into Ukraine. Providing arms to Ukraine would be a
needless escalation of a conflict with Moscow, the piece argues.
Where are all these foreign policy experts and their fears about conflict with Russia now?
Did they all suddenly change their minds now that Donald Trump occupies the Oval Office?
Obama's opinion on arming Ukraine never wavered. Even as late as 2016, he argued to
The Atlantic that Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one.
"The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to
military domination by Russia no matter what we do," said Obama.
Thus, the Trump administration decision to provide Ukraine with weapons was a significant
departure from previous US policy. In August 2017, then-U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis
said the Trump administration was "actively reviewing" the question of whether to provide
lethal assistance to Ukraine. Then in 2018, the State Department approved the sale of 210
Javelin portable anti-tank missiles, as well as launchers, associated equipment, and training,
at a total estimated cost of $47 million.
The media appears to be deliberately blurring the timeline to obscure this fact.
From Politico:
The U.S. has provided about $1.5 billion in military support to Kiev between 2014 and this
past June, according to an updated analysis
by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. And Trump's temporary cut off of the aid
represented a significant setback for the country.
But here's what that CRS report Politico links to actually says: "During the Obama
administration, arguments against the provision of lethal assistance centered on Russia's
ability and willingness to steadily escalate conflict in response," says the report. But things
changed significantly under the Trump administration which "has provided major defensive lethal
weaponry to Ukraine."
The U.S. has only approved the sale of weapons to Ukraine last year! But now, weapons
Obama refused to provide are "a lifeline."
Obscuring the timeline advances the narrative that Ukraine relied on military assistance
which Trump suddenly precipitously withdrew. But the truth is that Ukraine did not even have
this assistance until Trump came into office. How can a country rely on something that was only
authorized last year? about the author Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and
national security reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington
Examiner and for CNS News. She is the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about
General George Patton in World War II, and her work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill ,
UK Spectator , and elsewhere. Boland is graduate from Immaculata University in
Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC .
I really wish that TAC writers would stop offering concessions to the neocons in an effort
to appear "serious" and "reasonable". It's disingenuous, counterfactual, and it does not
work. Russia did not invade Ukraine. (You could say that about Crimea, but if you were to do
so, you should also admit that the locals welcomed the "invaders" as liberators.)
If Russia were to invade Ukraine, the Ukrainian clown army, "minuteman patriots(tm)" and
all, would be wiped out in days or hours.
Conservatives are basically wimps, that is why they feel they have to throw the neocon dogs
some bones. It also is why they tend to be history's biggest losers.
If his domestic political opponents have been engaged (or even suspected of being engaged)
in corrupt dealings with foreign governments, why should they not be investigated???
Maybe you think that senior US officials should be immune from investigation, or that
laws don't apply to them?
more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their territorial
integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression," said Kent.
The UN has estimated that the total number killed in Ukraine's war since the Maidan is
13,000. This figure includes casualties in the Donbass region, fighters and civilians,
killed by the armed forces of Kiev. Mr. Kent is enlisting these dead into a cause they died
resisting. Is there no limit to Washington's cynicism?
1. And most of those pro-Kiev soldiers died because they rushed into reckless and poorly
planned offensives and got slaughtered as a result. When they stay on their own side of the
contact line, they don't get killed.
2. The civilians killed are almost all on the Donbass side of the line (as a result of
Ukrainian terror attacks). The civilians on the other side of the line are not attacked.
The Ukrainian line is that the Novorussians are shelling themselves, but that would require
them, among other absurdities, to invent artillery shells that can do a 180 degree turn
mid-flight.
The fact that the Obama administration did not give lethal aid to Ukraine came up at the
impeachment hearing yesterday and was confirmed by the two bureaucrats. A republican asked
about it.
These foreign policy experts ignore the fact that a large percentage of Ukrainians *are*
Russians and proud of their heritage but do not want to join the Russian Federation and
support a united Ukraine. I was a relentless critic of Obama but the more I read about
Euromaiden and the subsequent Russian invasion/annexation the more I agree with his policy
or not rushing in to supply arms in what was a confusing situation that was part civil war
between factions of Ukrainians.
Congress disagreed and passed the Ukraine Freedom Act which
mandated sanctions and authorized arms shipments. Obama signed it in December of 2014 but
in his signing statement wrote that wasn't going to implement sanctions or ship arms. Back
then ignoring the will of Congress wasn't an impeachable offense but obviously times change.
The 13,000 Ukrainian deaths could probably have been avoided had the US had stayed out of
Ukraine's internal affairs and not encouraged the overthrow of its elected government back
in 2014, however corrupt it was. It was naive of the US State Department and specifically
Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary for East European Affairs (who served in this role
under both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) to think that Russia would not respond to a
shift in Ukrainian foreign policy in favor of the West.
Russia was never going to allow
Sevastopol (in Crimea), its only warm water to become a future NATO base and Ms. Nuland
should have understood that. Crimea had been captured from the Ottoman Empire in Catherine
the Great's time (c. 1783). Nikita Khrushchev had transferred administrative control of
Crimea from Russia to Ukraine at a time (1954) when there was no land link from Crimea to
Russia and no one expected the USSR to break up.
At the time the Soviet Union gave its consent to the peaceful reunification of East and
West Germany in 1990, it was with the understanding that NATO would not expand eastward
beyond its then existing sphere of influence. But NATO and the US violated this
understanding as new member states from the old Soviet block countries were admitted to
NATO starting in 1999.
As the US continues to meddle in the internal affairs of foreign countries and to hand
out billions of dollars in military foreign aid money every year, the medical care our own
veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan is being short changed. Watch the documentary
"Delay, Deny and Hope You Die" (free if you have an Amazon Prime Membership).
The Deep State lies about the Ukraine and US involvement in political and economic
corruption there are just astounding, but not surprising. The US and NATO bear a huge
portion of the blame for destabilizing an already unstable "nation," being largely
responsible for the coup that ousted the rightful President Yanukovich in 2014 (whom they
also helped deny election in 2004). NATO itself should have been disbanded after the Warsaw
Pact was disbanded. Instead it has taken an ever more expansionist and aggressive stance
toward Russia.
Ukraine is a largely artificial country, parts of which (The Crimea and eastern Ukraine)
really should just be part of greater Russia (the Russian nation's very roots, after all,
are in mediaeval Kievan Rus). It had never been a sovereign nation-state before 1991, and
its current borders are arbitrary and unworkable demographically. The US line that Ukraine
is a vital national security interest in garbage - they just want to join the oligarchs in
fleecing the country and using it as a proxy in their bizarro-world where Russian bogeymen
are everywhere.
What Congress ought to be investigating is how Joe Biden's son ended up on the board of
one of the most corrupt Ukraine oil companies shortly after own visit to the country while
he was VP. That's where the real corruption is.
The US drove forward with NATO until this inevitably happened. Then resistance became
"aggression." It was imagined that NATO would station its ships in former Russian Black Sea bases of
the Crimea, and so lock down Russia's north-south river system as completely as someone
allowed to capture New Orleans and close the Mississippi river system. That attempt had to
produce a war of some sort. Russia just had to resist that. The US did it anyway, guys like
George Kennan in his last years protesting without effect.
The US did this to Ukraine. It rightly ought to be rather like Austria, Yugoslavia, and
Finland of the Cold War era, a safe space between playing off each against the other.
Instead, it got thrown into NATO's aggression.
Here is the basic question: Did Donald Trump attempt to extort the Ukrainian government to get dirt on Biden? It's a basic
yes or no question. And assuming that he did extort the Ukrainian government, is it enough of a crime and abuse of power for
him to be impeached. Every thing else is irrelevant.
No. He didn't.
Even if you think he did, his behaviour could be considered inappropriate, but that
doesn't make it a criminal offense, no matter how much you hate the man.
Like it or not, Trump WON a legal and constitutionally held election, run according to
electoral college procedures. That doesn't change because he wants to know what REALLY
happened when Biden demanded the Ukr sack its corruption investigator (and then bragged
about it) when the investigator started sniffing around the gas company that Hunter Biden
and been installed in by daddy and his pals.
Readers, don't be fooled by her focus on "arms."
Here's what the report says:
"Since independence, Ukraine has been a leading recipient of U.S. foreign and military
aid in
Europe and Eurasia. In the 1990s (FY1992-FY2000), the U.S. government provided almost
$2.6 billion in total aid to Ukraine ($287 million a year, on average).146 In the 2000s
(FY2001 to
FY2009), total aid to Ukraine amounted to almost $1.8 billion ($199 million a year, on
average).147 In the five years before Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine (FY2010 to
FY2014),
State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) assistance
(including
foreign military financing) totaled about $105 million a year, on average.
Separate
nonproliferation and threat reduction assistance administered by the Departments of Energy
and
Defense amounted to an average of over $130 million a year in obligated funds."
It's true that Obama didn't want to stumble into a proxy war with Russia. It's also true
that Trump tried to strong-arm Ukraine into investigating a political rival.
Blame the media!
Another example of the right's love of Trump. Grab 'em by the truth!
My week started nice. I has been setting dates to take an entire week off to give my body
a rest from exercise, but after but two and half days I couldn't do it. My mind could not
let iot rest. It plagued and nagged with all of those self deprecating thoughts press
against a change of pace or of course. I found myself trying to cram a weeks worth of
exercise into three days without a break . . it was nuts. Passing my quota was not enough
and i have not let it go to this moment, despite what damage i may do to my body.
I guess the democrats are that way. Refusing to consider what it was about themselves or
their agenda for why they lost the election, Unable, or unwilling to allow a change of
course they set about an entire process for revenge. Refusing to take this time to reassess
themselves, their candidates or their agenda they have chosen instead to plow ahead in
their attempts to overturn the election. by impeachment and conviction or at least damaging
the president so badly making his unelectable.
Demonstrating the worst attributes of a
prosecution: a case with no evidence to the charge, manufacturing evidence, open admissions
that the witnesses saw a crime or we even in the room when the alleged crime took place --
they are showing how the system works and why government cannot be trusted, maybe the
public probably too busy trying to earn a living to attend to the details explains why half
of them actually believe that Russia infiltrated the US to sabotage an election, regardless
that no evidence supports the accusation.
Maybe, just maybe enough of them will see this for what it is an abuse of the our system
worthy of condemnation and maybe the next election will be a second dose of shock and awe.
. Sadly should that be the case the message that democrats will here is that they need to
redouble their efforts potential opponents, even if means destroying the republic they
supposedly seek to save.
I see nothing in this article but deflection and whataboutism. Instead, answer the question
these hearings are actually about: Did Donald Trump withhold or threaten to withhold aid or
support from a foreign ally in return for a personal benefit? If so, that's extortion and
abuse of power and an impeachable offense. It's really that simple.
If it is an impeachable offense, then just about every administration that has been around
since I have been alive should have been nailed. Do you think we don't make deals with no
strings attached?
Those string attached are for the benefit of the US. NOT for the benefit of particular
persons. Strings attached to official aid to benefit particulars is called CORRUPTION
According to "Defense News," the millions of dollars in U.S. security assistance provided
to Ukraine during the Obama administration was "...aimed at helping Ukraine monitor and
secure its borders, deploy its forces more safely and effectively, and make progress toward
NATO interoperability." It was also militarily significant. For example, "After Ukraine
received 20 Lockheed Martin AN/TPQ-53 radar systems that track incoming mortar and
short-range artillery fire in 2015, the casualty rate for units equipped with those systems
went from 47 percent to about 18 percent..."
A year after Trump took office, the U.S.added lethal aid to the mix, as authorized in
the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. According to Defense News, these weapons
included "anti-armor weapon systems, mortars, crew-served weapons and ammunition, grenade
launchers and ammunition, and small arms and ammunition ― but also unspecified
'cyber' and 'electronic warfare' capabilities."
Ms. Boland's article seems to ignore the amount and the helpfulness of the previous
administration's security aid. It also blithely minimizes the harm of holding up the latest
tranche of enhanced security aid (an action that was done for no discernible reason that
anyone but several impeachment witnesses and Mick Mulvaney seems able to explain).
Agree with you that is interesting that those deep state bureaucrats who think that they
make all the policy and the they run the country did lie, and lie quite often.
But I think you're wrong that they planned anything for years. The deep state just wanted
to get Trump out via any means possible and thought they could just come up with anything.
Only useful idiots (and media) believe their lies. Clearly, you are not one of these useful
idiots.
I am hopeful that Kent is educated enough not to take seriously the analogy between the
Ukraine and the 13 colonies and that this was directed to the ignorant boobocracy that is
fixated on their TV screens watching this dreck unfold and whose knowledge of history is
virtually nonexistent.
Unless, of course, I'm wrong and Kent himself is one of them.
You might want to have some facts that are related to the charges --
"Congressional approved funding would be withheld until Ukraine officials agreed to
investigate (or at least publicly announce an investigation) into the President's political
rival."
Not a criminal act and you have your facts wrong. The president referenced CrowdStrike
at the center of the collusion and Russian hack accusations) and given the circumstances of
the VP's son and the VP conduct regarding an investigation in progress in the Ukraine --
the suspicions are entirely reasonable and the VP openly speaks about what he did ----
political rival or not that confession is a fact.
You do realize there are currently investigations underway in the US on these
issues.
-- Trump did, in fact, do exactly what he was accused of doing
-- you shouldn't whine like a baby when "only" seven percent of your territory is
militarily annexed by a hostile foreign power
-- Lindsay Graham pushed for the very aid Trump held up, but that was different because
that was Obama then and anyway can't you see how Democrats are the unprincipled
hyper-partisans here?
-- non-lethal military aid including military advisors is not military aid because
something something Obama something something mainstream media something Obama
-- it's metaphysically impossible to desperately need something unless you are already
receiving that same thing; or if someone else once said you didn't need the thing; or wrote
an op-ed saying you needed the thing but we shouldn't be the ones to provide the thing you
need
"... The first two sentences in your opening statement constitute what many would consider as defamatory statement about Russia. You speak about "Russia's invasion of Ukraine", and the desire by "Vladimir Putin to rebuild a Russian empire". And then, by inference, you attribute the thirteen thousand deaths to "superior Russian forces". ..."
"... Congressman Schiff, was it not at the Maidan in February 2014 that the United States helped overthrow a democratic elected government in Ukraine and put in its place its own preferred candidate? Did not the US government, with the active participation of Victoria Nuland and others in the State Department participate in this 'coup'? Is the death of 13,000 Ukrainians entirely attributable to Russia, or perhaps in part to the lethal weapons that we have supplied to Ukraine to keep that country out of the Russian orbit? Do we not have any responsibility for what is happening in Eastern Ukraine? And is it Russia that is building an empire, with just a few bases in other countries, when America has more than 800 bases in over 70 countries? ..."
I was surprised to hear your opening statement today at the Impeachment hearings that just
commenced. You opened with the following words:
In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's embrace
of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian empire. In the
following years, thirteen thousand Ukrainians died as they battled superior Russian
forces.
Congressman Schiff, if your impeachment hearing are intended to seek the truth, then why
open with statements that can be deemed by many as outright falsities?
The first two sentences in your opening statement constitute what many would consider as
defamatory statement about Russia. You speak about "Russia's invasion of Ukraine", and the
desire by "Vladimir Putin to rebuild a Russian empire". And then, by inference, you attribute
the thirteen thousand deaths to "superior Russian forces".
Congressman Schiff, was it not at the Maidan in February 2014 that the United States helped
overthrow a democratic elected government in Ukraine and put in its place its own preferred
candidate? Did not the US government, with the active participation of Victoria Nuland and
others in the State Department participate in this 'coup'? Is the death of 13,000 Ukrainians
entirely attributable to Russia, or perhaps in part to the lethal weapons that we have supplied
to Ukraine to keep that country out of the Russian orbit? Do we not have any responsibility for
what is happening in Eastern Ukraine? And is it Russia that is building an empire, with just a
few bases in other countries, when America has more than 800 bases in over 70 countries?
For you to open with the statement that you did was a sad commentary on our democracy, and
your own search for truth. The hope that I had of your Committee being able to investigate
successfully the truth through these impeachment hearings was lost in some respects.
As a US citizen who has just returned from Russia and seen conditions on the ground that are
very different from the political and media narrative that we see in this country, it saddened
me to see the start of the hearings today with an unwarranted attack and demonization of
Russia. I would urge you to reflect on positions such as these as the haarings go forward.
Inadvertently today I found myself trapped into listening for a couple of minutes to the
nonsense that Schiff was spouting in the House of Horrors.
It is almost incredible that what he was doing, in essence, was to draw attention to the two
great facts in this case, the first being the gangster Maidan coup, which the US no longer
even pretends not to have brought about for its own purposes, and the second, the way in
which the Vice President and his family set about profiting, personally, from the looting of
every Ukrainian's fortune-every family's healthcare, pension plan, utility bill, home. In
this case by saddling the people, dependent on gas heat to see them through the winter, with
millions to be paid to Hunter Biden, friends of John Kerry and other assorted profiteers.
Like 'b' I find it almost impossible to believe that the Democrats are opening this can of
worms and feeding it to the world.
But then I wonder if, perhaps, these people do not know something that foreigners cannot
know, something about the societal stupidity and institutional ignorance for which the only
country ever known to have supported "No Nothing" candidates is famous.
Perhaps Schiff and Pelosi know what they are doing and what they are doing is based upon HL
Mencken's dictum:
"Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
Like 'b' I find it almost impossible to believe that the Democrats are opening this can
of worms and feeding it to the world.
Just don't claim (like I do) that Russiagate and Ukrainegate are kayfabe courtesy of Deep
State 'managed democracy' or you're a nutcase that everyone will ignore.
Nah, just sit back and enjoy while the Democratic Party cuts its own throat for over the
Ukrainegate nothingburger which will see no one held accountable for anything.
A partisan witch-hunt less than a year before the 2020 Election? Double-plus good for
Trump's re-election.
But the possibility of a set-up is INCONCEIVABLE to naval-gazing Kool-Aid
drinkers.
It's gotta be real because Bloomberg wants to join the Democratic race!
Just as he wanted to join the race in 2016? His intention to do so also underscored the
reality of THAT race. Rinse, repeat. LOL. The dumbf*cks won't notice.
@ 11 jackrabbit.. you can claim that too and i am not ignoring you! i agree with bevin and b
how this is insane what the dems are doing, but the whole usa political scenario is insane...
at the same time i get cranky with regard to everything being laid at the deep states feet
when no one can articulate just what the deep state is.. in fact, i think there are a number
of powerful players running at cross purposes to each other, so i don't think it is as easy
as you make out laying it all at the feet of this 'deep state'... sure, the political process
is mostly a charade and i doubt it matters much who wins at this point...
but, i do think the usa continues to slide into a more precarious place that coincides
with a multi polar world that the usa is also very resistant to... as for the people of the
usa - maybe many of them are easily manipulated, but not all of them.. it is the same around
the world... how does one explain how the protesters in bolivia or honk kong are so easily
duped? no.. i think generally people are easily duped, but not all people..
Deep State: the unusual behavior and strange coincides driven by a small number of very
well connected people that make little sense but advance the interests of the
establishment.
Full-Spectrum Dominance (FSD) means controlled opposition everywhere. FSD in practice:
> Political kayfabe
Hillary makes mistakes that help elect Trump. Trump helps to get Pelosi elected as House
Speaker.
> Compromising whistle-blowers
The Intercept turns in whistle-blowers.
IMO, lumping the D-Party into the same boat doesn't reflect reality. A great many D-Party
members were disenfranchised by the DNC during 2016; many know it and know why, and never
swallowed Russiagate. Many of those D-Party folk are again backing Sanders and Gabbard
because they're the genuine social-democratic faction the DNC abandoned as soon as Reagan won
in 1980 since it supposedly was the Reagan Democrats that swung the election--an assumption
never proven correct. And the DNC stated during the lawsuit over 2016 that it would repeat
its actions again in 2016, 2020, and beyond. Thus there're two main factions: DNC-Corporate
D-Party and small d social-democratic D-Party--both of which are clearly incompatible. It's
the former of those two that Gabbard wants to purge; Sanders also seems willing but hasn't
been as explicit as Gabbard. Thus we have the old House divided against itself cannot stand
situation. Either you're with Obama, Clinton, the Banksters, and the further enslavement of
citizens via debt-peonage and expansion of the Outlaw US Empire or you're with the Sanders
and Gabbard social-democrats and liberation of citizens via the nationalization of education,
health care and dignified retirement, and the neutering of the Outlaw US Empire.
Unfortunately, both Gabbard and Sanders are adamant they won't run as 3rd Party POTUS
candidates, which means the Corporate faction will get its candidate on the ballot unless
something remarkable occurs--a coup within the DNC that totally purges the
Obama/Clinton/Corporate faction.
Sorry, but that last phrase I find to be 100% fantastical--about as probable as Kentucky's
#1 ranked basketball team losing at home to Evansville at much greater odds than the 40:1
cited for Evansville. Morrison said it was 5:1 50+ years ago, but I don't think people were
as brainwashed then as now.
I am aware not *every single* Democrat bought into Russiagate.
You seem to suggest that the corruption on full display by the DNC during 2016
inoculated
**some** Democrats to Russiagate if they were Bernie supports. Maybe. But we are faced with
the puzzling contradiction that Bernie himself did not support the lawsuit brought by the
Bernie supporters against the corrupt DNC ... AND ... AND ... Bernie has been a
foaming-at-the-mouth supporter of the Russiagate hysteria!
"How can he not talk about the reality that Russia, through cyberwarfare, interfered in
our election in 2016, is interfering in democratic elections all over the world, and
according to his own CIA director will likely interfere in the 2018 midterm elections that we
will be holding?" "How do you not talk about that unless you have a very special relationship
with Mr. Putin?"
Who said the above? Rachael Maddow? Hillary Clinton? John Brennan? Why none other than
Bernie Sanders!
And did you note that Bernie is being a megaphone for the CIA in this quote?
More and more and more Bernie Russiagate promoting quotes here (and 2018 had only
begun!):
Nemesis@15 -"Trust me when I say" ... never trust anyone who says anything after that phrase!
How exactly did the Dems play the right card with Russiagate? Do you mean they hoodwinked
their supporters into believing Russia to be the enemy, so that is somehow 'the right card'?
I'll stop there. You've completely confused me.
I mean "right" in that allowing Russiagate to seep into the waking consciousness of
America took the pressure off the dems and what was going to be their reckoning. In effect,
they have now doubled-down in the hope that the Trump phenomenon of nationalism will fade
away and their rule will be restored. Whether or not Sanders plays into this I think we are
yet to see, but, so far, Sanders has played ball with a lot of dem garbage.
Again, by the "right" play I mean as if a dark sorcerer had banked his continued favor
with the king he serves on a magic brew that would muddle the King's brain and keep him from
knowing of the Sorcerer's repulsive ambition. Such is the dems plan as well as many if not
all of the republicans who secretly detest DJT but who don't speak up because their base
believes in Trump.
Often I expect these stories in the media to get important technical details wrong...but
here we see that this writer did his homework...
I have said this many times before, but the MCAS system is NOT an anti-stall system...it
is there solely for the purpose of providing the right kind of stick feel to the pilot...
"On most airplanes, as you approach stall you can feel it," a veteran pilot for a U.S.
commercial carrier told me.
Instead of the steadily increasing force on the control column that pilots were used
to feeling -- and that F.A.A. guidelines required -- the new engines caused a loosening
sensation.
This is exactly it...and this is why I have to wonder how exactly is MCAS going to be
cleared to fly again...since the original, much less authoritative version was found
inadequate in providing the stick force required...and the rejigged production version proved
to be a surefire killer if it kicked in at low altitudes such as takeoff...
We recall that Captain Sullenberger called the MAX a 'death trap'...
So clearly the system's authority has to be dialed back...in which case the airplane
handling qualities do not meet established requirements...
The story here tells of the struggle that the family of Ralph Nader's grand-niece, who
perished in the Ethiopian flight, is waging to 'axe the max'...
Hopefully they will succeed, but I doubt it..the MAX can never be a good airplane...full
stop...
Inadvertently today I found myself trapped into listening for a couple of minutes to the
nonsense that Schiff was spouting in the House of Horrors.
It is almost incredible that what he was doing, in essence, was to draw attention to the two
great facts in this case, the first being the gangster Maidan coup, which the US no longer
even pretends not to have brought about for its own purposes, and the second, the way in
which the Vice President and his family set about profiting, personally, from the looting of
every Ukrainian's fortune-every family's healthcare, pension plan, utility bill, home. In
this case by saddling the people, dependent on gas heat to see them through the winter, with
millions to be paid to Hunter Biden, friends of John Kerry and other assorted profiteers.
Like 'b' I find it almost impossible to believe that the Democrats are opening this can of
worms and feeding it to the world.
But then I wonder if, perhaps, these people do not know something that foreigners cannot
know, something about the societal stupidity and institutional ignorance for which the only
country ever known to have supported "No Nothing" candidates is famous.
Perhaps Schiff and Pelosi know what they are doing and what they are doing is based upon HL
Mencken's dictum:
"Nobody ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
@Please illustrate a situation where the executive branch/office of the USA would be suddenly
discontinued...
Posted by: Chevrus | Nov 13 2019 17:33 utc | 3
Just found your query. Quick and dead-on response is a major EMP event, but that is not
what I had in mind.
Let me see if I can work up another, but necessarily lengthier response.
As I noted on the Bolivia thread, BRICS is having its Summit today & tomorrow in
Brasilia, and will likely be the most important of its brief life. So far, just this report :
"The heads of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa will discuss issues related to
economic, financial and cultural cooperation as well as arms control and joint efforts to
counter terrorism.
"The leaders of the five member-states are to attend the BRICS Business Forum, and meet
with the BRICS Business Council and the heads of the New Development Bank.
"In addition, Vladimir Putin will hold a number of bilateral meetings with the heads of
state and government taking part in the summit."
No! But there will be a new "civil war" in the US around the mid of the next decade. Split
occuring not south to north, but west to east; chaos further increased by immigrants from the
middle & south Americas with their own agenda.
Forces (land & air), militia & DHS people of the eastern party may seek secure
backing near frontier to Canada (area of Great Lakes therefore save). Some of the 'big
capitalists' who feel more international than patriot will flee to outer South America
(Argentinia, Chile).
Eventually a dead president (for that and for the civil war please look into cycles of
US-history). Peace will come with the first female president. Keep watch on Tulsi Gabbard
(but may be also another lady - as I am in Europe I am not familiar with all probable coming
female candidates).
Why no permanent split of the States? There are internal benefits (common traffic, markets
etc.) but more it is the outside pressure: to be able to compete with China it is a necessity
for the States to remain united. Also the coming chaos in Europe and Russia demands
unification of the US.
Now a very strange remark: some elites in the US have already accepted, even promote the
tendency toward "civil war" to enable a 'reset' of the political, economical and social
structure of the country. Furthermore, a seemingly weak US with a split in the military may
lead Russia in temptation to make some mistake (towards Ukraine and Europe). And now a very,
very strange remark: while some forces in the homeland are caught in civil disorder some
other forces in the overseas may be involved in a foreign war. Extremely pointed out: the
coming civil war in a very specific manner is a fake (to deceive and trap Russia - of course
not Putin but his followers).
Today I had a look into George Friedman's book about the next hundred years. For the first
view there is a lot of nonsense (disintegration of China etc.). But I agree that the power of
the US will be restored during the century. And if not the same power as it was in the 1990s,
then in every case the internal stability of the USA is completely guaranteed.
With greetings from Germany and with thanks to Bernhard for his valuable work, Gerhard
Like 'b' I find it almost impossible to believe that the Democrats are opening this can
of worms and feeding it to the world.
Just don't claim (like I do) that Russiagate and Ukrainegate are kayfabe courtesy of Deep
State 'managed democracy' or you're a nutcase that everyone will ignore.
Nah, just sit back and enjoy while the Democratic Party cuts its own throat for over the
Ukrainegate nothingburger which will see no one held accountable for anything.
A partisan witch-hunt less than a year before the 2020 Election? Double-plus good for
Trump's re-election.
But the possibility of a set-up is INCONCEIVABLE to naval-gazing Kool-Aid
drinkers.
It's gotta be real because Bloomberg wants to join the Democratic race!
Just as he wanted to join the race in 2016? His intention to do so also underscored the
reality of THAT race. Rinse, repeat. LOL. The dumbf*cks won't notice.
@ 11 jackrabbit.. you can claim that too and i am not ignoring you! i agree with bevin and b
how this is insane what the dems are doing, but the whole usa political scenario is insane...
at the same time i get cranky with regard to everything being laid at the deep states feet
when no one can articulate just what the deep state is.. in fact, i think there are a number
of powerful players running at cross purposes to each other, so i don't think it is as easy
as you make out laying it all at the feet of this 'deep state'... sure, the political process
is mostly a charade and i doubt it matters much who wins at this point...
but, i do think the usa continues to slide into a more precarious place that coincides
with a multi polar world that the usa is also very resistant to... as for the people of the
usa - maybe many of them are easily manipulated, but not all of them.. it is the same around
the world... how does one explain how the protesters in bolivia or honk kong are so easily
duped? no.. i think generally people are easily duped, but not all people..
Karlof1 @ 9 --
"I expect the atmosphere to be tense..."
I do, as well. Though I imagine certain leaders might feel a temptation to suspend
Brazil's membership, doing so would illustrate a structural weakness to be overcome by any
legitimate multipolar body. That is, if the Empire is able to turn just one member (in this
case Brazil), it may be used to weaken the organization as a whole.
Having just a limited exposure to Putin's approach to multipolarity, my understanding is
that it is to be accepted that sovereign countries evolve along their own trajectories (as
opposed to being subjected to "universal" "liberal" principles). If Brazil or Turkey decide
that this means playing both sides off each other, it will be interesting to see whether
there are any principled (as opposed to realpolitical or pragmatic) objections that Russia
might offer.
Deep State: the unusual behavior and strange coincides driven by a small number of very
well connected people that make little sense but advance the interests of the
establishment.
Full-Spectrum Dominance (FSD) means controlled opposition everywhere. FSD in practice:
> Political kayfabe
Hillary makes mistakes that help elect Trump. Trump helps to get Pelosi elected as House
Speaker.
> Compromising whistle-blowers
The Intercept turns in whistle-blowers.
The reason I ask is because I have heard a load of bull about Russia's plans to Russianize
the world and that Trump is his pawn since day -167 of his inauguration. I have heard this
from coworkers, from friends, from family, seen it on Reddit, read it on neolib outlets like
slate and the like. I'm wondering if you live in Trump country and just don't hear or see the
Russophobia being played out in the beltway and on the elitest coastlines.
Trust me when I say that the dems played the right card, albeit a desperate one, when they
started with the whole Russiagate nonsense. To you and I, b and others, Russiagate is
nonsense. But tell that to the average dem or moron yuppie in their towers along our shining
seas.
Please illustrate a situation where the executive branch/office of the USA would be suddenly
discontinued...
Posted by: Chevrus | Nov 13 2019 17:33 utc | 3
An imminent one-two punch from IG Horowitz and John Durham has powerful players
quaking
in their boots.
9/11 saw Americans willingly surrendering rights;
accepting a pack of lies, a myth, to explain the event;
militarism becoming the refuge for American's safety.
What are the limits of the rights that Americans are next willing to surrender?
**What are those limits?**
The Resistance, Democrats, no longer respects democratic rights -
no thought to the millions of voters that they would disenfranchise if
the nullification of Trump's election were successful via a coup (impeachment).
Five years ago would you have imagined that Democratic voters would be so cavalier
about democratic rights? So willing to accept the vacuous accusation that our
President is a Russian agent. Would resurrect the CIA - the torturing, kidnapping,
assassinating, war promoting, false flag creating, disinformation spewing CIA, - and
ravenously swallow endless streams of McCarthyist propaganda.
How fast,how far, can we spiral downwards? Is the seizure of power too far down the
spiral
to imagine? Five years ago would you have imagined the current decent of Democrats we have
witnessed?
If the pretext, the myth, of the necessity of seizing power, were echoed by the mouthpiece
MSM
would Democrats go along? Americans have surrendered rights in our near lifetime.
Americans
worship militarism and their military heroes more than ever before. Americans have
swallowed
hook-line-and-sinker the new-McCathyism and "Putin is an evil man".
An imminent one-two punch from IG Horowitz and John Durham has powerful players
quaking
in their boots. To answer your question, I cannot imagine what players like John Brennan
are scheming. But as you know 9/11 was not beyond their criminal limit or capability.
Paul Damascene @13: I generally share your view, about Putin's view, but I don't think Putin
minds Erdogan playing both sides, Bolsonaro, yeah, but not Erdogan, he can play games with us
all he wants. Keeps us distracted, and Erdogan doesn't like us "taking the oil", and we can't
get in a shooting war with him, he's NATO. He's the military counter-balance to the Pentagon
in Syria that Russia cannot be. So I think he will be thrashing around in N. Syria with
Putin's consent until we leave (as long as he doesn't pick a fight with Assad.)
Bolsonaro he may see as something to wait for the end of.
It will be interesting and possibly informative to see what comes out of this meeting.
Thanks for your reply! Note that the main event is the Business Forum, which is an arena
where genuine national interests usually reign. As you're likely aware, BRICS was formulated
as an instrument to facilitate development via commerce and mutual investment and that its
first major joint accomplishment was the formulation of the BRICS Development Bank to bypass
the IMF, World Bank and the dollar dominated international trade regime. I found it curious
that Global Times had zero articles on its main page related to the Summit, while
Xinhuanet ran this
short commentary overview which amounts to a short recap and cheerleading. We'll need to
await the presser this evening to get a better feel.
You make an interesting point librul... It reminds me of the whole continuity of government
scheme. 'In case of _____, break glass an impose martial law or whatever the manufactured
disaster calls for. The fact that the north woods 911 bit worked is a testament to just how
far the ptb are willing to go. You know, in regard to the USA perspective I can tell you from
first hand experience that a steady diet of agitation propaganda as well loads of distraction
have rendered a majority of the population easily lead no matter what stripes they might be
wearing. Selling Russia as the bad bad guy was easy. Look if a large group of people buy the
Bin Laden hit then the sky is the limit.
The 5 mile asteroid would pose a serious problem to most mammals, but given the amount of
species self loathing being pedaled about.... My point about the executive branch and the
question of 'is he the last' hinges on the fact that the president does nothing which is not
somewhat scripted. We know what happens when they go "off the Rez"...
Below is a ZH quote about the meeting with Trump and Erdogan today
"
"It's a great honor to be with President Erdogan... the ceasefire is holding very well, we've
been speaking to the Kurds and they seem to be very satisfied, as you know we pulled back our
troops quite a while ago..."
"I want to thank the President for the job they've [Turkey] done in Syria," Trump said of
Erdogan.
And on that note, he already addressed the rationale for continued US troop presence in
Syria, saying with Erdogan sitting next to him: "We are keeping the oil. We have the oil. The
oil is secure. We left troops behind only for the oil."
"
To those Trump supporters, I would appreciate understanding how the keep the oil fits in
with you saying Trump wants to get out of Syria?
'Deep State' is just a convenient way of labeling something we can also call 'the
illuminati', or 'the globalists', or 'the one percent', or 'Big Brother', etc.. We know that
there are hidden powers. Some call them reptilians. Who knows? We can tell that they are
there, though we cannot say exactly who they are and how they constitute their coherence, how
they organize themselves. We can see pieces of the deeper pattern, but we cannot see the
whole thing. So we use these vague and sometimes fanciful labels.
Right now a struggle is going on in Bolivia that is the world's struggle. Humanity is
maybe in its final throes, there and in so many other places. Or maybe its the birth pains of
who we were really meant to be. God help us.
IMO, lumping the D-Party into the same boat doesn't reflect reality. A great many D-Party
members were disenfranchised by the DNC during 2016; many know it and know why, and never
swallowed Russiagate. Many of those D-Party folk are again backing Sanders and Gabbard
because they're the genuine social-democratic faction the DNC abandoned as soon as Reagan won
in 1980 since it supposedly was the Reagan Democrats that swung the election--an assumption
never proven correct. And the DNC stated during the lawsuit over 2016 that it would repeat
its actions again in 2016, 2020, and beyond. Thus there're two main factions: DNC-Corporate
D-Party and small d social-democratic D-Party--both of which are clearly incompatible. It's
the former of those two that Gabbard wants to purge; Sanders also seems willing but hasn't
been as explicit as Gabbard. Thus we have the old House divided against itself cannot stand
situation. Either you're with Obama, Clinton, the Banksters, and the further enslavement of
citizens via debt-peonage and expansion of the Outlaw US Empire or you're with the Sanders
and Gabbard social-democrats and liberation of citizens via the nationalization of education,
health care and dignified retirement, and the neutering of the Outlaw US Empire.
Unfortunately, both Gabbard and Sanders are adamant they won't run as 3rd Party POTUS
candidates, which means the Corporate faction will get its candidate on the ballot unless
something remarkable occurs--a coup within the DNC that totally purges the
Obama/Clinton/Corporate faction.
Sorry, but that last phrase I find to be 100% fantastical--about as probable as Kentucky's
#1 ranked basketball team losing at home to Evansville at much greater odds than the 40:1
cited for Evansville. Morrison said it was 5:1 50+ years ago, but I don't think people were
as brainwashed then as now.
The 'Orwellian Globalists' may have overstepped, hubristically, when they chose an
out-and-out racist, an outspoken racist, to be their puppet to head the new government in
Bolivia. This may be just what was needed to provoke the MAJORITY indigenous people of
Bolivia ...
Librul@16 responds to the statement by start, Chevrus @ 3. "Please
illustrate a situation where the executive branch/office of the USA
would be suddenly discontinued..." Chevrus @ 3, end
An imminent one-two punch from IG Horowitz and John Durham
has powerful players quaking in their boots.
9/11 saw Americans willingly surrendering rights;
accepting a pack of lies, a myth, to explain the event;
militarism becoming the refuge for American's safety.
What are the limits of the rights that Americans are next
willing to surrender? **What are those limits?**
How fast, how far, can we spiral downwards? Is the seizure of power
too far down the spiral to imagine? Five years ago would you have
imagined the current decent of Democrats we have witnessed?
Is media capable to determine who shall have the power? Can
media make Americans surrender their rights?
An imminent one-two punch from IG Horowitz and John Durham
has powerful players quaking in their boots. To answer your
question, I cannot imagine what players like John Brennan
are scheming. But as you know 9/11 was not beyond their
criminal limit or capability. by: librul @ 16
Snake says look at and carefully read the statements by Assad in Syria.. they
are very telling about circumstances here in the states. Assad distinguishes
top down ideology from bottom up cause a very interesting distinguishment.. ..
So to answer your question how far are Americans willing to allow the Oligarchs to
retract human rights in America: are their any limits to the willing surrender?
I think it is as Assad said in the above citation.. outside investors
instigated the unrest in Syria and used it as pretense to get their governments
to invade Syria so that the investors could privatize all of
Syria.. That is exactly what is happening in USA governed America.
karlof1 @4
Your scenario doesn't reach its logical conclusion:
1) Asteroid strike is automatically blamed on "those damn rooskies".
2) Nuclear war ensues.
3) Far West, South, TransMissisippi and New England all secede with each claiming to be the
rightful 'United State of America'.
4) Voila.
IIRC the Clintons rode into the Whitehouse on the Democratic Leadership Committee (DLC).
The DLC has quietly morphed into the DNC (or stolen their ID). Proof might be found on
identifying the faction controlling the Democratic Party's finance committee under the
assumption whoever controls the finance also controls the party. Memory is a perfidious and
ephemeral thing and goes down Alice's rabbit hole in nothing flat.
@14 jackrabbit.. i am sorry, but it is too simplistic for me... your examples are fine, but
as i see it, they random and not some orchestrated plot from up above... that is where we
differ here... in fact, your overview is much too simplistic..you can make it simple for me,
but the whole concept of deep state orchestrating everything here is much too simplistic..
@ 16 librul... good overview that is kind of how i see the democratic party here, although
@ 24 karlof1 disagrees, it looks like that to this outsider / canuck.. here is the line from
karlof1 that gives it away for me - "Unfortunately, both Gabbard and Sanders are adamant they
won't run as 3rd Party POTUS candidates" which begs the question, why? my answer - they are
useful shills for this same agenda..
I am aware not *every single* Democrat bought into Russiagate.
You seem to suggest that the corruption on full display by the DNC during 2016
inoculated
**some** Democrats to Russiagate if they were Bernie supports. Maybe. But we are faced with
the puzzling contradiction that Bernie himself did not support the lawsuit brought by the
Bernie supporters against the corrupt DNC ... AND ... AND ... Bernie has been a
foaming-at-the-mouth supporter of the Russiagate hysteria!
"How can he not talk about the reality that Russia, through cyberwarfare, interfered in
our election in 2016, is interfering in democratic elections all over the world, and
according to his own CIA director will likely interfere in the 2018 midterm elections that we
will be holding?" "How do you not talk about that unless you have a very special relationship
with Mr. Putin?"
Who said the above? Rachael Maddow? Hillary Clinton? John Brennan? Why none other than
Bernie Sanders!
And did you note that Bernie is being a megaphone for the CIA in this quote?
More and more and more Bernie Russiagate promoting quotes here (and 2018 had only
begun!):
I see a civil war in the USA as highly unlikely. The upper class has too much common
interest and purpose. The lower classes are divided and powerless and in the near future only
seem to be becoming more so. When the third-worldization reaches a critical point, a staged
and managed revolution may be in the cards. Before a real revolution has any chance, the
elites will have flooded the USA with immigrants from the south, ensuring further division of
the lower classes and postponing any real challenge.
Overall, the societal foundation of the USA looks to have been crumbling for maybe five
decades already and for the next few decades an acceleration of that process is more likely
than a reversal. Don't be on the lookout for leaders or movements to change any of that. Only
when the american people clean up their act, ie. their addiction to numbing drugs, empty
consumerism and false jingoisms, will anything there ever change for good. Until that
happens, the place will be withering more and more.
Not until the American elites start to fail to safeguard their own priviliges at the cost
of the rest of the population will change happen.
I don't see the Russian aggression that you propose to be realistic or likely to happen.
Russia does not need to reach abroad for energy, resources or food. Their main challenge is
to manage the riches of the huge country with the people they have. Already the resurgence
after the post-1990 crash (and the preceding stagnation) is an accomplishment worthy of
admiration.
The Russian interest clearly is consolidation and defence, which is exactly what their
policies have been showing on the international stage. Suggestions of aggression are pure
projection by Atlanticists theselves. Instead of Washington trying to provoke Russian
mistakes, the real game is about Moscow trying to contain NATO's erratic trashing and
carefully preventing any catastrophic escalation.
To wit, what country did recently "update" its nuclear doctrine, suggesting the
possibility of 'limited' use of nuclear weapons? Was it Russia, or ehhm... perhaps the
USA?
The only uncertain factor between Russia and the USA is Europe. I expect a lot more
American craziness towards Europe, as its effective leverage crumbles. Europe has not yet
devolved as badly as the USA and the American implosion is a major risk factor for the
Europeans.
psychohistoiran @22 asks "To those Trump supporters, I would appreciate understanding how the
keep the oil fits in with you saying Trump wants to get out of Syria?"
As someone who voted for Trump I can tell you I do not agree with this decision nor will I
defend it. I hold the same sentiment pre 2016 that I do now - bring these endless wars to an
end. Period. Am I disappointed in his walking back the decision to leave Syria entirely? You
betcha.
Weeks ago when barflies were discussing Trump's withdrawal, someone corrected my
understanding regarding the Kurds who took control of the oil fields, so to speak, and were
selling the oil to SAA. My understanding of this newest policy is the Kurds will continue to
manage and benefit from the sale of the oil. I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me if I
am. But if my understanding of the arrangement is correct, the Kurds maintaining their role,
then they are likely still selling the oil to the SAA. Then again, maybe not, but I wouldn't
be surprised if they were.
So, management or control of the oil fields has changed, but it looks like everything else
remains as it was before when the oil fields were managed/controlled by the Kurds.
What I do respect in the President's decision to leave NE Syria is removing troops from
theater. The CIA's proxy war appears to have been shutdown. This w/o question I applaud,
LOUDLY.
BTW, all this talk about asteroids and false flags makes me remind the brilliant nineties
movie "Starship Troopers", in which Paul Verhoeven not only sort of presages 911 and the
ensuing war on the bugs, but also smuggled into it the ephemeral phrase "Are you psychic?". I
sometimes wonder how many people got that...
This may be just what was needed to provoke the MAJORITY indigenous people of Bolivia ...
I doubt it, without massive quantities of weapons similar to those received by the Syrian
takfiris, the indigenous people don't stand a chance once the Western Hemisphere Institute
for Security Cooperation (formerly SOA) trained Washington-supported death squads get to
work. It's going to be a massacre that'll be barely reported in MSM, because after the
"election" they'll be anti-democratic. Bolivia is not Syria.
The issue with the Americans is a hyper-partisan mindset has been instilled, akin to duelling
sports teams, so one cheers for their team facts or context be damned. This used to be a Fox
News-Republican phenomenon, but now has infected Dem supporters as well.
Break up of US would mean break up of Canada too. Look to the moves made by province of
Alberta in response to fed election - a sort of firewall is being proposed where Alberta will
take on fed gov responsibilities pension, health care, etc. Alberta is a Koch Bros oil
republic, and any N American melt-down will result in formation of private fiefdoms - i.e.
Alberta-Montana-Wyoming-South Dakota become Kochland.
Then you must be a shut-in or unemployed to not see the dual-benefit of the deep state in
that it stymies trump and resurrects Russia as a boogeyman. Nay! Thrice-benefit in that it
also allows for an excuse to be horrifically status quo and gamble on everything returning to
normal after the trump phenomenon runs its course and the duopoly reassert its grip.
I wonder how in the Earth can anyone have cultural cooperation and join efforts against
terrorism with a goon like Bolsonaro who has posted Twitters celebrating Bolivia´s coup
and is known misses Pinochet ´s "expeditive measures" against communists...How this, so
called group BRICS, can continue following its path, as if nothing had happened, especially
since the coup in Bolivia...
Just today read the statements by Kremlin spokeman, Peshkov, and what to say, seemed to me
quite soft his stance, throwing balons out...Sometimes I feel like to trust John Helmer on
his assesment on the existence of two blocks in the Russian Federation, the stavka ,
and these people of the Kremlin office...
To this you add the Russian ambassador to the US, today visiting Kissinger ( the builder
of the Condor Plan...) a man always like begging for better relations to this bully of a
country, and this is one of the times when I wonder if i would not be supporting all this
time just the people who wants to crush me...( meaning my now almost 6 years long support for
the RF and concretely this adminsitration...)
I found quite different the unambiguous and strong statements by the Russian FM and
Kremlin itself when Venezuela was about to suffer a coup, and now when the legitimate
government of Bolivia has been sent into exile and his indigenous population on the verge of
extermination by nazi thugs...
You can not be against nazis in the Ukraine and then support ( or be way too soft in your
lack of condemnation...) nazis in Brasil or Bolivia (... or the EU...) or you are for
international law and human rights, always, or not, but not only when business opportunities
are in prospect....
Yes, today is one of those days when my consideration of the RF and Putin´s
administration as a referent in keeping international order in the face of a lawless US just
wobbles...
No se puede estar en misa y repicando al mismo tiempo
Waiting for the final statement of the meeting for to possibly take a determination on
this issue...
@ 36 jayc... kenney is a divisive politician.. i always think of alberta like the 'texas
wannabe' of canada... they think highly of themselves and their oil, even when they can't get
it out to the coast due the fact the people on the coast view all this very differently.. and
now they are resorting to a type of quebec referendum option to use as leverage over the rest
of canada.. it didn't work with quebec, and it definitely won't work with alberta.. at least
quebec could legitimately claim itself a different type of culture... as for dividing up
canada and the usa - it makes more sense to go along north south lines - cascadia being a
good example of this.. koch republic would be a good name for that zone!!
You'd probably do well to study the history of China after the downfall of the Manchu Qing
dynasty up to the 1930s at least (when Japan began invading the country and bringing its own
forms of chaos, violence and enslavement) to get an idea of where the US might be heading if
and when the Federal government falls. From the 1910s onwards, China was governed by warlords
looking out for No 1, with their own armies.
Not so very different from the situation prevailing in Afghanistan and Libya. Talk about
the chickens coming home to roost.
The other alternative is if the 50 states decide to be self-governing statelets or form
their own federations among themselves or with neighbouring provinces and states in Canada
and Mexico, or even abroad. Alaska may petition Moscow to be accepted back into the Russian
Federation and Hawaii may seek another large patron to attach itself for security reasons.
Washington and Oregon
states may finally form a federation with British Columbia and call it Cascadia.
Yeah, like Formerly T-Bear intoned about memory. I concede, but still note Gabbard hasn't
faltered in her zeal. I finally finished my series of thoughts on the Bolivian thread
regarding the Big Picture. IMO, Evil's sly enough to get elected even if it campaigned
showing its attributes as in
this image . If I were 20 years younger, I'd emigrate to Russia or China, but I'm not and
doubt I've 20 years remaining on this orb. But I do think I've got the struggle properly
diagnosed, although no cure's readily available.
Right now a struggle is going on in Bolivia that is the world's struggle.
@Posted by: Paul | Nov 13 2019 20:06 utc | 23
Indeed ,the same way I see it, and it seems that, in this one, Russian will not be with
us...After all there is neither oil, nor weapons to sale in Bolivia, nor to the working poor
people.....
Just today I was hearing Trump stating that he would like very much assisting to the next
Vicotry Day parade in Moscow...Well, how to say ( wait for me while I go throwing up a
bit...) Just here again, a bit back in myself...
Thus, this thug, who just has unleashed those rabid nazi death squads over the poor
indigenous people of Bolivia is going to sit along the veterans who really fought the nazis
in WWII, the few who still are alive to remember the 25 millions of their own who died in the
battle fields, moreover taking into account that Trump´s father really was a nazi
himself and supported Nazi Germany as if there was no tomorrow...If you though that of
Netanyahu last year was way too much...to see how yo take this...
Seeing these things, no wonder that fascism advance without obstacles...Voting in the UN
or passing all day energically protestingthe demolition of monuments to Soviet heros of WWII
is not enough...It is neede to eergically protest when today´s nazis are salughterin
currently lving people...
As happened during WWII, I fear, it will be us the people who will have to organize
ourselves to fight this scourge...Putin, simply, will not be there....May be the Red Army
will...
Gerhard @10;
I agree the US will split up. As a poli sci initiate, i was forced to consider the role of
institutions acting in support of the polis. I wasn't impressed at the time. my disdain for
the rot of leadership in most if not all institutions in the west, it was mostly for the
greed....but i realize the cumulative effect is the fraying of those 'supports' of the nation
itself. Consider:
The 16 intelligence agencies each have their own agendas, the regulatory agencies are
revolving doors for industry placements, the FBI was crooked since the days of Hoover, the
governments agencies are rife with oligarchy quislings .....and in the end the greed of those
in power will be not be held back by any moral force. The police are militarized, murdering
and robbing their own citizens.
Meanwhile, the MSM are owned by the oligarch, so there is no national forum where the
corruption can be addressed on a national level. This leaves the blog sites such as MOA to
lead the fight against the PTB. The problem is in the nature of the internet, which has no
'locus' as in a national voice. The internet has no center. As example, i am not a US
citizen. When the polis finally hit the point where the Rentier economy has driven them to
extreme reaction, they will not be thinking of reclaiming the vast American experiment,
rather they will seek to at least control their little part of the world. I believe you will
see blocs of similar states rising up to control whet they think is in their own best
interests: The mid-west, the west coast and mountain states, the deep south, the eastern
states will find common issues to crytalize around.
That's my read.
As a Canadian, my thoughts are how Canada will negotiate with these remainder blocs of former
US states.
James @ 39
I general concur with your brief reading of Jayson Kenney and Alberta talk of separatism. But
on that score the comparison would not so much be to Texas as perhaps to Boris Johnson /
Nigel Farage, in their moves to break away from the EU. I don't know that either of them (or
Kenney) is all that passionate about separation itself, but the divisiveness -- and surfing
various waves of polarization -- are what this new nihilist political wave seems to be about.
I support the Cascadia concept. There's a wonderful work of speculative fiction called
Ecotopia that is set in a Cascadia - although it was written before the digital hi-tech era
and so could not predict that such an entity, short of a true revolution, would be run by
Microsoft - Google - Apple etc.
A high speed rail link from Vancouver to Portland has been proposed, which is a
forward-thinking policy initiative, but they are going to take a few years to think about it,
and then another fifteen to twenty years to build it, and that itself will only happen if the
"no new taxes" retrograde types don't stop it in its "tracks" (which they intend to do).
off topic: I've just realized how vexing the idea of a non-citizen army.
Imagine: The tax payer funds the majority of tax dollars to a bureau that funds its own
production of weapons, recruitment, training personnel, maintenance of 800 or so bases across
the world and, finally, deploying these recruits wherever it deems worthy, based on the
directions of it's head, potus. its just so sweet: hire mercenaries, and do whatever you want
across the planet....there are no draftees ....no one to criticize when the body bags return
stateside. Some otherwise brain-dead fuck in the pentagon is enjoying lieutenant generalship,
just for figuring out the army didn't need a draft...there were plenty of poor people, who
could be had with a few bucks......
I'm in Montana and working on a piece of fiction that anticipates the breakup of the
States in the not-so-distant future. I did a little research on Cascadia and found that
there's elements of white supremacism wanting to co-opt the idea of Cascadia for their own
ethno-state fever
dreams :
The far right is known to appropriate pop culture imagery, particularly for recruitment and
to mitigate their viewpoints. But Alexander Reid Ross, a professor at Portland State
University, explained that Cascadia, "a really important movement in the Pacific
Northwest," is targeted specifically for its link to bioregionalism. "It implies a
territorial imperative but doesn't necessarily involve anti-racism, according to the far
right, so fascists appropriate it," he told me of Cascadia.
The appropriation began at least as far back as 2004, when a flag suspiciously similar
to the Cascadian flag appeared on the cover of Harold Armstead Covington's book, A Distant
Thunder. In 2008, Covington founded the white nationalist group Northwest Front, which
calls for an "independent and sovereign White nation in the Pacific Northwest." The group
later penned a disturbing rhyme on its website about this flag, the Tricolor flag, using
language similar to Baretich's:
The sky is blue, and the land is green. The white is for the people, in
between.
Cascadia appropriation has snowballed since then. In 2016, a man adopting the moniker
Herrenvolk, a German word for "master race" used by the Nazis, helped form Cascadia, the
"foremost" alt-right group in the Pacific Northwest. According to its website, its mission
is to "regain our sovereignty and prevent foreign influence on our people." That goal
correlates with the narrative of Cascadia as quintessential, and it echoes the groaning
around Portland about newcomers spoiling the city.
in the narrative I'm working on, New Cascadia does become a white supremacist
stronghold.
I was somewhat puzzled by your Good and Evil post in the last thread, karlof1. Were you just
being facetious or did I misread you to say that all would depend on the outcome of the 2020
election?.
I followed you on the course of 'the rest of the world' under leadership from Russia and
China into multipolarity rather than one hegemon; I'd tend to agree with you on that concept,
though maybe we'd have disagreements on the course of history up to that point. I have a
literary turn of mind myself, and to me "good" literature (with a small g) always comes out
on top - as with goodness in most other aspects of life learning as well.
All the same, it's hard for me to think the coming US election will really decide
anything. That is, I don't see any of the candidates preparing his or herself to join 'the
rest of the world'. That would be the good outcome for me and I just can't see it
happening.
I'll be literary and say that maybe for nations 'the way up is the way down.' And while
the disparity and struggle between wealthy and not in the US is starkly apparent, we are
nowhere near bottoming out here yet. And I think we have to be; I think we will be - but
when? I'll be literary again and say that for Tigger it was when he got all his bounce taken
out of him. All of it. Not 'make America great' but rather 'help America survive
yadayadayada...'
I'm kinda doubting I'll be around to see it. It's sort of that 'not with a bang but a
wimper' sort of scenario - and we're a long way from wimpering yet.
Still, I feel very positive. I think 'the rest of the world' is going to be kinder than we
deserve when it all boils down to the dregs. What a day that will be!
Nemesiscalling 15
Right you are. The Anti-Russia hype has been going on for a while but had a bit of a hiatus
during King (W) Shrub II. Both parties worked to destroy the Russian economy during the
80s/90s with the Chicago/Harvard boys gutting it completely while enriching themselves. It
accelerated under Obama while they presented us with the "Reset" switch. Apparently the
Russians didn't play along so they became the bogeyman that gets inflated as time goes on.
Trump tried but got dragged down in the process.
As to a US split, I live in the south. So I've wondered if California (for example) tried
to leave if a US President would pull a Lincoln and destroy the state ... in order to save
it.
Nemesis@15 -"Trust me when I say" ... never trust anyone who says anything after that phrase!
How exactly did the Dems play the right card with Russiagate? Do you mean they hoodwinked
their supporters into believing Russia to be the enemy, so that is somehow 'the right card'?
I'll stop there. You've completely confused me.
Occupied Palestine continues killing people as documented in the report below from Reuters
"
GAZA (Reuters) - An Israeli missile strike in the Gaza Strip killed six members of a
Palestinian family on Thursday, all of them civilians, medical officials and residents said,
bringing the death toll in the territory from a 48-hour surge in fighting to 32.
The Israeli military had no immediate comment on the pre-dawn incident in Deir al-Balah,
which came as cross-border shelling exchanges continued despite a ceasefire offer by the
Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad.
Israel killed an Islamic Jihad field commander on Tuesday, sparking cross-border rocket
salvoes by the militant group and further Israeli strikes. Medics said 32 Palestinians have
been killed, at least a third of them civilians.
Those killed in Thursday's attack on a home in Deir al-Balah included a woman and a child,
medical officials said. Another 12 people were wounded, they said.
"
Sad to see this continue to go on and no resolution in sight, only escalation
I mean "right" in that allowing Russiagate to seep into the waking consciousness of
America took the pressure off the dems and what was going to be their reckoning. In effect,
they have now doubled-down in the hope that the Trump phenomenon of nationalism will fade
away and their rule will be restored. Whether or not Sanders plays into this I think we are
yet to see, but, so far, Sanders has played ball with a lot of dem garbage.
Again, by the "right" play I mean as if a dark sorcerer had banked his continued favor
with the king he serves on a magic brew that would muddle the King's brain and keep him from
knowing of the Sorcerer's repulsive ambition. Such is the dems plan as well as many if not
all of the republicans who secretly detest DJT but who don't speak up because their base
believes in Trump.
TASS and Sputnik have both published short reports on events from the BRICS Summit in
Brasilia. As I noted earlier, it revolved around the Business Forum, so most everything
focused on economics, global trade, and the hindrances in the normal conduct of commerce:
"'Undoubtedly, the global economy was affected by the fact that methods of unfair
competition, unilateral sanctions - including politically motivated ones are being used on a
wider scale in the global trade, [and] protectionism is flourishing. Under those
circumstances, BRICS nations have to take serious effort to ensure the development of their
economies, to prevent the deterioration of the social situation and the fall of living
standards, of our citizens' welfare,' Putin said at the closing ceremony of the BRICS
business forum."
Hopefully, there'll be a full transcript of Putin's remarks and further reporting to
digest tomorrow.
Re: trustworthy people, I meant that my eyes have seen first hand the effects of this
whole Russiagate brainwashing. As a result, I don't talk politics with my family, and it is
tenuous with my coworkers. Can you imagine a guy working in a west-coast city and actually
has something positive to say about DJT?
I still say that DJT deserves an ENORMOURS!...ENORMOUS! amount of credit for awakening
such terminology into the public lexicon as "Globalism," "nationalism," "fake news," and the
like. How he was able to do this was very simple but absolutely revolutionary for any
bonafide presidential candidate that I can remember or know. For myself, I view the issue as
globalism as paramount and far more world-shattering than US imperialism.
Here
is an interesting Frontline interview with Ann Coulter a week or so ago. It shines a light on
how a guy like Trump was able to capture the public imagination. Hint: it wasn't because the
Deep State was grooming him.
For any of you who use protonmail. They seem to be touting their links to clearly compromised
media sources such as Bellingcat quite strongly these days, and are pushing the empire's
message on MH17, Ukraine, Scripals, Russiagate etc etc. I was an early adopter but they now
seem compromised or simply deluded. Too bad, another one bites the dust.
Got it, Nemesiscalling, sorry to be obtuse. But I'm afraid I do disagree. This whole phobia
against Russia and anti-Trump scenario turned off huge numbers of their voters - some didn't
vote but some actually held their noses and voted for Trump. To me (and I sure could be
wrong) Dems just dug themselves a deeper hole with all of this. Save some sort of coup, I
can't see them winning a year from now. If anything more US voters have wised up than were
wised up before - you don't go back once eyes are opened.
I agree with your premise about this being kayfabe. From where I sit, there is no other
explanation for any political party to make these endless attacks based on absolutely nothing
over and over again. Attacks which can only maintain the charade from 2016 of Trump the
Victim. Does anyone think that somehow the Dems suddenly stopped being to calculating
psycho/sociopaths that they and the other side of the aisle are? Why would such shrewd
players not verify what people like Vindeman had to say before putting them on the stand?
They keep undermining their own case over and over again.
I find it impossible that they would continue to stick their hands in the fire after being
burned every single time before this, and with easily verifiable information. Especially when
the attacks are ALWAYS over stupid shit and never go after anything he actually could be
attacked for doing. What I keep seeing is like watching kindergarten kids try to kill a grown
man with foam rocks.
We keep seeing this complex, convoluted, evil shit come out of DC and yet we
simultaneously think these same players are morons? No freaking way. These attacks are the
only thing that keeps Trump's base on his side as he keeps betraying them and the opposition
keeps trying to outdo its last performance of stupid. I have seen a LOT of Trump supporters
throw in the towel on him for things he has done in the last 3 years, yet they come back to
his side after the newest stupid thing the left wing of the uni-party comes up with.
Shit, it isn't like Trump is even really shaking things up to cause such a ruckus!
This is how filthy neocon fifth column typically works: "The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine said Tuesday he was told release of
military aid was contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election, contradicting
President Trump’s denial that he used the money as leverage for political gain." Who told him? Some State Dept. apparatchik? Unless
it was directly from Trump it's just a hearsay and evidence of nothing whatsoever.
"It’s absolutely insane that neoconservatism is still a thing, let alone still a thing that mainstream America tends to regard
as a perfectly legitimate set of opinions for a human being to have. As what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts rightly
calls “the most dangerous ideology that has ever
existed,” neoconservatism has used its nonpartisan bloodlust to work with the Democratic party for the purpose of escalating tensions
with Russia on multiple fronts, bringing our species to the brink of what could very well end up being a
world war with a nuclear superpower and its allies."
This is not okay. Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member
or a child molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Taylor notably expressed his concerns in a Sept. 9 text message to US ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, saying: " I think
it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. "
To which Sondland replies " Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal
clear no quid pro quo's of any kind, " adding "I suggest we stop the back and forth by text."
On Tuesday, Mr. Taylor directly addressed accusations surrounding Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and Burisma, a Ukrainian
gas company that employed Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., one of the leading Democratic candidates
for president.
He "drew a very direct line in the series of events he described between President Trump's decision to withhold funds and refuse
a meeting with Zelensky unless there was a public pronouncement by him of investigations of Burisma and the so-called 2016 election
conspiracy theories," Ms. Wasserman Schultz said. -
New York Times
As the
Washington
Post notes, Taylor said "By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned
on the investigations of Burisma," the Ukrainian gas firm which employed Hunter Biden, "and alleged Ukrainian interference in the
2016 U.S. elections."
He's a Liar. There's no QPQ. We have the transcript of the call. No QPQ. This Frail looking Douche Bag is lying. He's obviously
on the Ukrainian-Take like the rest of them. DNC kept Servers in the Ukraine. Why would they do that??? (wink, wink)
Democrats have called the testimony the most damaging account yet, as Taylor provided an "excruciatingly detailed" opening
statement, according to the
New York Times .
Taylor was a democratic appointee from the Obama administration...shocker. And he was the only one suggesting this was politically
motivated. Sondland corrected him immediately. Nobody else, including the Ukrainians, agree with his "interpretation".
Schiff's bitch said it like he was told to. Nothing to see folks.
Bobzilla. Do not piss him off , 12 minutes ago
link
Wasn't creepy uncle joe doing a quid pro quo when he said no billion $ unless you fir the prosecutor?? Seems the demonrats
have two sets of rules. ******* hypocrites.
That's right, I followed everything Ukraine in detail in 2013, so did my Mom who is 81. She knows more Ukraine than any of
my dirtbag Democrat friends. Hunter Biden corruption old news.
First of all Ukraine had already started to investigate Biden and Burisma in March, second of all the aid was turned over to
them already and there is no resolution to the investigation yet. Third, the Ukrainians have gone on the record saying there was
no pressure. Last, the president has a responsibility to look into corruption even if it was a Demonrat.
Tandem of CIA and the State Department against Trump ?
Notable quotes:
"... Yovanovitch, who was removed from her post in May, testified that President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani led a campaign to oust her as ambassador over unsubstantiated allegations that she badmouthed the president and was seeking to stop Ukraine from opening an investigation into Joe Biden and his son. -Axios ..."
"... Last month, Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan reportedly told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Trump recalled Yovanovitch after Giuliani singled her out for having an anti-Trump agenda. ..."
"... McKinley testified to impeachment investigators that he resigned over the State Department's unwillingness to support foreign service officers caught up in the Ukraine scandal and the apparent "utilization of our ambassadors overseas to advance domestic political objectives. ..."
On Monday, the House committees conducting impeachment inquiries into President Trump released transcripts of testimony from several
witnesses, including former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and career diplomat and former senior adviser to Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo, Michael McKinley.
Yovanovitch, who was removed from her post in May, testified that President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani led a campaign to
oust her as ambassador over unsubstantiated allegations that she badmouthed the president and was seeking to stop Ukraine from opening
an investigation into Joe Biden and his son. -Axios
Yovanovitch, who left her position in May, testified that she "assumed" Trump's lack of support for her stemmed from a "partnership"
between Giuliani and Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko .
Last month, Deputy Secretary of State
John Sullivan reportedly told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Trump recalled Yovanovitch after Giuliani singled her
out for having an anti-Trump agenda.
McKinley testified to impeachment investigators that he resigned over the State Department's unwillingness to support foreign
service officers caught up in the Ukraine scandal and the apparent "utilization of our ambassadors overseas to advance domestic
political objectives." -Axios
"... Love the Clapper claim (the same Clapper who lied to Congress) says he was just doing his duty in Russiagate. As GBS said, " when a scoundrel is doing something of which he is ashamed, he always says he is doing his duty". ..."
"... There is also a long and inglorious history of interference in domestic politics from the Zinoviev Letter onwards. Plots to stage a military coup against the Wilson government of the 60s and 70s, with Mountbatten as its figurehead. The more recent Skripal Hoax. The contrived Syrian Gas Attack Hoaxes and the White Helmets. They would not hesitate to do the same to Corbyn if they deemed it necessary. ..."
"... The CIA and FBI conspired with the UK and Ukrainian governments to prevent the election of Trump, and then to sabotage and smear his administration once he had been elected. The UK played a major part in this through MI6 and Steele. This is highly dangerous for this country, irrespective of your view of Trump. ..."
"... The Democrats, the Deep State, the MSM, and the Deranged Left were willing to support these conspiracies and hoaxes, and even suspend disbelief, for the greater good. The ends justify the means. All that matters is getting rid of Trump. Anything goes. The corrosive erosion of trust, credibility and integrity in all the institutions of the state is probably irreparable. The legislature and the political process in general. The judiciary. The spooks and police. About 9% of Americans now believe the MSM. ..."
"... No need to even discuss, until Western societies ALL get a grip on the depths of depravity that lie within the actions and "The History of the National Security State" you have to admit, that Julian Assange could not have picked a better book to firmly grip and signal with, than GORE Vidal's, when being manhandled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, by Spooks who would sell their own mother, let alone nation, in their utter technological ignorance and adherence to anachronistic doctrines & mentality ! ..."
"... The most important thing for us and deliciously so now the election is happening is the BLOWBACK. Our DS lying murdering arses are going to get new ones drilled by Trump and BoBos bromance exploding in full technicolor. ..."
"... By sharing we disrupt the msm messages. Bernard at MoonofAlabama is also worth a daily visitation – priceless analysis on multiple subjects. ..."
"... I'd have thought that events like the spy in the holdall, the spies caught by farmers in Libya, the Skripal's, and the whole over-the-top reaction to the domestic terrorism threat and consequent successful pleas for extra funding, the obvious danger of creating terrorists by security services, the policy of giving asylum to foreign terrorists of countries we don't like and the whole concept of the 5 eyes and GCHQ needs more than ministerial oversight, a committee of yes men/women and an intelligence services commissioner. ..."
As the Quantum field oversees the disintegration of institutions no longer in service to the public, the Democratic party continues
to lose their marbles, perpetuating their own simulated bubble as if they alone are the nation's most trusted purveyors of truth.
Since the Mueller Report failed to deliver on the dubious Russiagate accusations, the party of Thomas Jefferson continues to remain
in search of another ethical pretense to justify continued partisan turmoil. In an effort to discredit and/or distract attention
from the Barr-Durham and IG investigations, the Dems have come up with an implausible piece of political theatre known as Ukrainegate
which has morphed into an impeachment inquiry.
The Inspector General's Report, which may soon be ready for release, will address the presentation of fabricated FBI evidence
to the FISA Court for permission to initiate a surveillance campaign on Trump Administration personnel. In addition, the Department
of Justice has confirmed that Special Investigator John Durham's probe into the origin of the
FBI's counter intelligence investigation during the 2016
election has moved from an administrative review into the criminal prosecution realm. Durham will now be able to actively pursue
candidates for possible prosecution.
The defensive assault from the Democrat hierarchy and its corporate media cohorts can be expected to reach a fevered pitch of
manic proportions as both investigations threatened not only their political future in 2020 but perhaps their very existence.
NBC s uggests that the Barr investigation is a ' mysterious ' review " amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal or
factual basis " while the
NY Times continues
to cast doubt that the investigation has a legitimate basis implying that AG Barr is attempting to " deliver a political victory
for President Trump." The Times misleads its readers with:
Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel
closed it."
when in fact, it was the Russiagate collusion allegations that Trump referred to as a hoax, rather than the Mueller investigation
per se.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va), minority leader of the Senate Intel Committee suggested that Attorney General William Barr " owes the
Committee an explanation " since the committee is completing a " three-year bipartisan investigation " that has " found nothing to
justify " Barr's expanded effort.
The Senator's gauntlet will be ever so fascinating as the public reads exactly how the Intel Committee spent three years and came
up with " nothing " as compared to what Durham and the IG reports have to say.
On the House side, prime-time whiners Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) commented that news of the Durham
investigation moving towards criminal liability " raised profound concerns that Barr has lost his independence and become a vehicle
for political revenge " and that " the Rule of Law will suffer irreparable damage ."
Since Barr has issued no determination of blame other than to assure a full, fair and rigorous investigation, it is curious that
the Dems are in premature meltdown as if they expect indictments even though the investigations are not yet complete.
There is, however, one small inconvenient glitch that challenges the Democratic version of reality that does not fit their partisan
spin. The news that former FBI General Counsel James Baker is actively cooperating with the BD investigation ought to send ripples
through the ranks. Baker has already stated that it was a 'small group' within the agency who led the counterintelligence inquiry
into the Trump campaign; notably former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Baker's cooperation was not totally unexpected since he also cooperated with the
Inspector General's FISA abuse investigation which is awaiting public release.
As FBI General Counsel, Baker had a role in reviewing the FISA applications before they were submitted to the FISA court and currently
remains under criminal investigation for making unauthorized leaks to the media.
As the agency's chief legal officer, Baker had to be a first-hand participant and privy to every strategy discussion and decision
(real or contemplated). It was his job to identify potential legal implications that might negatively affect the agency or boomerang
back on the FBI. In other words, Baker is in a unique position to know who knew what and when did they know it.
His 'cooperation' can be generally attributed to being more concerned with saving his own butt rather than the Constitution.
In any case, the information he is able to provide will be key for getting to the true origins of Russiagate and the FISA scandal.
Baker's collaboration may augur others facing possible prosecution to step up since 'cooperation' usually comes with the gift of
a lesser charge.
With a special focus on senior Obama era intel officials Durham has reportedly already interviewed up to two dozen former and
current FBI employees as well as officials in the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
From the number of interviews conducted to date it can be surmised that Durham has been accumulating all the necessary facts and
evidence as he works his way up the chain of command, prior to concentrating on top officials who may be central to the investigation.
It has also been reported that Durham expects to interview current and former intelligence officials including CIA analysts, former
CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper regarding Russian efforts to interfere in the
2016 election.
In a recent
CNN
interview , when asked if he was concerned about any wrongdoing on the part of intel officials, Clapper nervously responded:
I don't know. I don't think there was any wrongdoing. It is disconcerting to know that we are being investigated for having
done our duty and done what we were told to do by the President."
One wonders if Clapper might be a candidate for 'cooperating' along with Baker.
As CIA Director, Brennan made no secret of his efforts to nail the Trump Administration. In the summer of 2016, he formed an inter-agency
taskforce to investigate what was being reported as Russian collusion within the Trump campaign. He boasted to Rachel Maddow that
he brought NSA and FBI officials together with the CIA to ' connect the dots ."
With the addition of James Clapper's DNI, three reports were released: October, 2016, December, 2016 and January, 2017 all disseminating
the Russian-Trump collusion theory which the Mueller Report later found to be unproven.
Since 1947 when the CIA was first authorized by President Harry Truman who belatedly regretted his approval, the agency has been
operating as if they report to no one and that they never owe the public or Congress any explanation of their behaviour or activity
or how they spend the money.
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run their
own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress willing
to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast
Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member
of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31
Martin Usher
I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted a formal impeachment, they would prefer that Trump just faded away quietly before
the 2020 election and were in the process of collecting information to reinforce this. They got cornered into formalizing the
investigation by Trump's defense team baiting them as part of their overall strategy. It really doesn't change anything.
Whichever way you slice and/or dice it Trump is fundamentally incompetent, he's unable to fulfill the duties of the office
of the President. He also refuses to distinguish between private interests and public service. His cabinet, a rag tag body of
industry insiders and special interests, are busy trying to ride roughshod over opposition, established policy and even public
opinion to grab as much as possible before the whole house of cards collapses. Its a mess, and its a mess that's quite obviously
damaging US interests. Many constituency groups will have gone along with the program because they thought they could control
things or benefit from them but as its become increasingly obvious Trump's unable to deliver they've been systematically alienated.
The DNC is playing this with a relatively weak field of potential candidates for 2020. Much as I personally like a Sanders
or Warren they're just not going to fly in a Presidential contest -- as we found from the Obama presidency the ship of state just
doesn't turn on a dime, you're not going to undo decades or generations of entrenched neoconservatism and a politically divided
country overnight by some kind of Second Coming pronouncements. My concern is that if we don't get our collective acts together
we're going to end up with a President Romney after 2020 -- a much more reasonable choice considering the last four years but
also one that's guaranteed to change nothing. We need the journey but its only going to start with a few steps.
( and as for Trump/collusion we've spent the last three years confusing money with nation states. Trump's a businessman in
a business that's notorious for laundering money from dubious sources (this doesn't mean he's involved, of course)(legal disclaimer!).
I daresay that if Russia really wanted to sink Trump they could easily do so but why would they bother when he's doing such a
great job unaided?)
Latest in series of articles by the author re USA – Ukraine connections
"American Ukrainian nationalists don't like democracy. They don't understand the concept of it and don't care to learn. But
they do understand nationalist fascism where only the top of society matters. They are behind the actors of the Intelligence coup
going on in the US today .This is the mentality and politics the Diaspora is pushing into American politics today. Hillary Clinton
and the DNC is surrounded with this infection which even includes political advisors.
Rest assured they all the related Diasporas are in a fight for their political lives. If Donald Trump wins, their ability to
infect American politics might be broken. Many of the leadership will be investigated for attempting to overthrow the government
of the United States."
"My thoughts on all this are that many of us have become distracted and failed to examine the timeline of events since 9/11. We
look at news and conflict in isolation and move on to the next without seeing what is now a clear pattern."
In terms of the Middle East you need to go back further than the fortuitous event of 9/11 – at least to 1997 and the founding
of the Project for the New American Century which was essentially the first explicit formalisation of the agenda for an imperialist
Neoliberal and Neoconservative globalist new world order deployed through the media constructed conflicts of 'good' and 'evil'
around the world and with it the call for the 'democratisation' of the Middle East under the alibi of humanitarian interventionism
against broadly socialist governments, which since the fall of communism were constructed by Neoliberal fundamentalists as being
patently heretical and ideologically illegitimate forms of government. If it is economically illogical to elect a socialist failed
form of government then one can only assume that the election must have been rigged.
I started looking at this all a few years ago when I asked myself the question 14 years after the invasion of Iraq: where was
the liberal outrage at what had subsequently taken place in the ME? The answer was that from the Invasion of Iraq onward in addition
to fully embracing the economics of Neoliberalism as the end of economic history, the progressive 'left' quietly assimilated and
reduplicated the fundamentalist illiberal political philosophy of the Neocons. The progressive 'left' both in the UK and US have
subsequently become the far Neocon 'right' in all but name and their party hosts of Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the
US remain blissfully unaware of all of this. How else can we explain why they would welcome 'Woke' Bill Kristol into their ranks?
Once one accepts this hypothesis, then an awful lot falls into place in order to explain the 'Progressive' open support for regime
change and the almost total lack of any properly liberal objections to what has taken place ever since.
One key point here is that the Neocons have nothing to do with conservatism or the right. What is striking and most informative
about the history of Neo-conservatism is that it does not have its roots in conservatism at all, but grew out of disillusioned
US left wing intellectuals who were Marxist, anti-Stalinist Trotskyites. This is important because at the heart of Neo-conservatism
is something that appeals strongly to the die hard revolutionaries of the left who hold a strong proclivity for violence, conflict
and struggle. If one looks at the type of people in the Labour party who gravitated to the 'progressive' Neoliberal imperialist
camp they all exhibit similar personality traits of sociopathic control freaks with sanctimonious Messiah complexes such as Blair.
These extremist, illiberal fundamentalists love violence and revolution and the bloodier the better. In Libya or Syria is did
not matter that Gadaffi or Assad headed socialist governments, the Neo-colonised progressives would back any form of apparent
conflict and bloody revolution in any notional struggle between any identifiable form of 'authority' or 'oppression' with any
identifiable form of 'resistance' even if those leading the 'resistance' were head chopping, misogynist, jihadist terrorists.
It makes no difference to the fundamentalist revolutionary mindset.
The original left wing who gradually morphed in the Neoconservatives took 30-40 years to make the transition for the 1960s
to 1990s. The Labour party Blairites made the same journey from 1990 to 2003. Christopher Hitchens made the same journey in his
own personal microcosm.
When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end? Does anyone else think that Adam Schiff has a screw or three
loose, and should be residing in an institution? And imagine if somehow Mike Pence became Prez. Now that would be something to
scare the bejesus out of you.
Tim Jenkins
Adam Schiff should be shot for Treason, of the highest order, along with many others, including HRC, Brennan & Clapper ; and it
should be a public execution, like in Saudi Arabia. This is war on the minds of the masses, that Schiff for brains cares nothing
for.
As for Chuck Schumer, he can have a life sentence, as long as he manages to shut his utterly unfunny dumb vulgar cousin Amy
up & keep her out of the public eye, forever
Gezzah, life may seem bad right now: but imagine if, you were Amy Schumer's Husband and father of her child. Talk about obnoxious
and utterly nauseating 🙂 , with you Gezzah, all the way.
"When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end?"
"The presidential election in Argentina was a game-changer and a graphic lesson. It pitted the people versus neoliberalism.
The people won – with new President Alberto Fernandez and former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK) as his VP.
Neoliberalism was represented by a PR marketing product, Mauricio Macri [a Micron look-alike]: former millionaire playboy,
president of football legends Boca Juniors, obsessed with spending cuts, who was unanimously sold by Western MSM as a New Age
paradigm.
Well, the paradigm will soon be ejected, leaving behind the usual New Age wasteland: $250 billion in foreign debt, less
than $50 billion in reserves; inflation at 55 percent; 35.4 percent of Argentine homes can't make it); and (incredible as it
may seem in an agriculturally self-sufficient nation) a food emergency."
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Denmark's Ukronazi-friendly regime has been brought to heel by Germany's common sense:
Some big natural gas news very significant for Russia, Germany and the Ukraine. The Danish pipeline sector has been stalled
for a while now by anti-Russia, pro-Ukrainian forces within the Scandiwegian NATZO-friendly regimes. But it appears that Nordstream
2 _will_ get completed and that Ukraine's gas transit chokehold on the EU will come to an end when Russia's Nordstream 2 comes
online for Europe.
-- -- -- -
Permit for the Nord Stream 2 project is reluctantly granted by the Danish Energy Agency. Nord Stream 2 AG has been granted
a permit to construct natural gas pipelines on the Danish continental shelf.
The permit is granted pursuant to the Continental Shelf Act and in accordance with Denmark's obligations under the UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea. Denmark has been put under obligation to allow the construction of transit pipelines with respect to resources
and the environment.
In my humble opinion, the Trump stuff is all total nonsense.
Donald Trump was a property speculator in New York (amongst other places) and was heavily involved with the Mafia. Likewise,
Trump was heavily involved with Jeffery Epstein.
There's so much dirt on Trump that they could get him with the snap of fingers; but of course that's not what they really want.
Trump is pure theatre; a ploy to divert the masses. 'RussiaGate', 'UkraineGate' are all utter rollocks.
Trump and Obama, and all the rest going back to the assassination of Kennedy, are just puppets.
American/ deep state policy doesn't change a jot with any of them.
Wilmers31
America is always presentation over substance, wrapper over content, and shoot the messenger if you don't like the message. In
the meantime the adults in this world outside the US have to hold it all together. Why was for instance Hillary Clinton not in
the dock for saying 'Assad must go'?? It was meddling in the highest order.
phree
I guess this just goes to show you that a person can be a member of the ACLU, even a leader apparently, and still be highly biased
in favor of Trump.
Just because a witness is "cooperating" with an investigation does not entail that the witnesses testimony or evidence will
favor any particular side.
And implying that Clapper's comments somehow shows guilt when he clearly says he knows of no wrongdoing is pretty over the
top.
I've read a lot of what's out there about the start of the initial Russia investigation, and it does seem that some of the
FBI personnel leading it (McCabe particularly) were anti-Trump.
Isn't the bigger question whether the investigation was justified based on the reports from the Australians that Trump was
getting political dirt on Hillary from Russia? Is the FBI just supposed to ignore those reports? Really?
George Cornell
Love the Clapper claim (the same Clapper who lied to Congress) says he was just doing his duty in Russiagate. As GBS said,
" when a scoundrel is doing something of which he is ashamed, he always says he is doing his duty".
mark
The Spook Organisations and the Dirty Cops are a greater threat to our way of life than any foreign army or terrorist group (most
of which they created in the first place and which they directly control.) They are a law unto themselves and completely
free of any genuine oversight or control.
This applies equally to the US and UK. "We lie, we cheat, we steal", as Pompeo helpfully explains. They also murder people,
at home and abroad. JFK, David Kelly, Diana, Epstein. They plant bombs and blow people up. Many of the "terrorist atrocities"
from Northern Ireland to the present day, were false flag spook operations. The same applies with Gladio on the continent and
the plethora of recent false flags.
There is also a long and inglorious history of interference in domestic politics from the Zinoviev Letter onwards. Plots
to stage a military coup against the Wilson government of the 60s and 70s, with Mountbatten as its figurehead. The more recent
Skripal Hoax. The contrived Syrian Gas Attack Hoaxes and the White Helmets. They would not hesitate to do the same to Corbyn if
they deemed it necessary.
The CIA and FBI conspired with the UK and Ukrainian governments to prevent the election of Trump, and then to sabotage
and smear his administration once he had been elected. The UK played a major part in this through MI6 and Steele. This is highly
dangerous for this country, irrespective of your view of Trump.
Trump has repaid the favour by meddling in Brexit and interfering in UK politics. It is not in his nature to turn the other
cheek. We have spook organisations claiming for themselves a right of veto over election results and foreign policy. These people
are poor servants and terrible masters. We see Schumer warning against crossing the spook organisations, begging the obvious question
– who runs this country, you or the spooks?
The Democrats, the Deep State, the MSM, and the Deranged Left were willing to support these conspiracies and hoaxes, and
even suspend disbelief, for the greater good. The ends justify the means. All that matters is getting rid of Trump. Anything goes.
The corrosive erosion of trust, credibility and integrity in all the institutions of the state is probably irreparable. The legislature
and the political process in general. The judiciary. The spooks and police. About 9% of Americans now believe the MSM.
The irony in all this is that it very much serves Trump's interests. He is extremely vulnerable, having failed to keep
any of his promises. Building The Wall, Draining The Swamp, Bringing The Troops Home. Sorting out health care. Building "incredible,
fantastic" infrastructure.
All the Democrats had to do was highlight these failures, find a suitable candidate, and put forward some sensible policies,
and they were home and dry. Instead, they provided an endless series of diversions and distractions from Trump's failures by charging
down every rabbit hole they could find, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Impeachment. It couldn't work out better for Trump if he was
paying them.
Expect to see the Orange Man in the White House for another 4 years. And another even more virulent outbreak of Trump Derangement
Syndrome.
Tim Jenkins
Enigmatic and brilliant synopsis, m8, lol: & surely BigB could only agree. And you never even mentioned HQ.Intel. inside.Israel,
today & their illegal trespass of WhatsApp, via corporate 'subsidiaries' with 'plausible' denial of liability of spying on everything-everything
& any body, that could possibly threaten corporate fascist computerised dictatorship: distributing backdoors, like Promis & Prism,
liberally & worldwide, the Maxwells legacy . . . (yet)
No need to even discuss, until Western societies ALL get a grip on the depths of depravity that lie within the actions
and "The History of the National Security State" you have to admit, that Julian Assange could not have picked a better book to
firmly grip and signal with, than GORE Vidal's, when being manhandled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, by Spooks who would sell
their own mother, let alone nation, in their utter technological ignorance and adherence to anachronistic doctrines & mentality
!
Glad you mentioned 'good ole' cousin ChuckS.' >>> Lol, just for a laugh and a sense of perspective: yes, he is related to Amy
Queen of Vulgarity & hideous societal distraction. What a family of wimps & morons: the 'Schumers' being perfect fodder for ridicule
& intelligent humour, naturally . . . on a positive note, mark, think yourself lucky that you are not married to or the father
of Amy Schumer's child 🙂
The most important thing for us and deliciously so now the election is happening is the BLOWBACK. Our DS lying murdering
arses are going to get new ones drilled by Trump and BoBos bromance exploding in full technicolor.
Think May's dementia tax and Strong and Stable were bad?
Lol. This is going to be a FUN month of early xmases.
SST is essential reading for anyone concerned with US overseas policy and the corruption of the USA itself in the service of
the security state, so, many thanks for posting this link.
Dungroanin
By sharing we disrupt the msm messages. Bernard at MoonofAlabama is also worth a daily visitation – priceless analysis on
multiple subjects.
lundiel
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run
their own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress
willing to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Pretty much a carbon copy of our own oversight. We hear even less about our security services than Americans do of theirs.
I'd have thought that events like the spy in the holdall, the spies caught by farmers in Libya, the Skripal's, and the whole over-the-top
reaction to the domestic terrorism threat and consequent successful pleas for extra funding, the obvious danger of creating terrorists
by security services, the policy of giving asylum to foreign terrorists of countries we don't like and the whole concept of the
5 eyes and GCHQ needs more than ministerial oversight, a committee of yes men/women and an intelligence services commissioner.
"... Ukraine cancels arrest warrant against Zlochevsky and closes the case against him. ..."
"... Ukraine's prosecutor closes the case against Burisma after the company agrees to pay UAH 180 millions of tax liabilities. ..."
"... Burisma announces a donation of between $100,000 and 249,999 to the Atlantic Council ..."
"... U.S. supported National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) closes its case against Zlochevsky ..."
"... Joe Biden brags publicly how he blackmailed Poroshenko into firing Shokin. ..."
"... When put this way it is difficult to not ..."
"... Biden son's case is more than demonstrated right now and, in itself, is not even that impressive: it's just bread & butter patronage corruption, which happens all the time in Western Democracies, at all countries, at all levels. What's really impressive here is the scale, because an entire country was destroyed overnight. I mean, if a man as powerful as a vice-POTUS is willing to destroy entire nations just to give his son a sinecure, then no country is safe. ..."
"... A discussion to be followed by prison terms. ..."
"... "Here is to hoping that both sides continue the battle until the whole treasonous house of cards collapses." ..."
"... I agree with previous posters that the real crime was the 2014 coup, and people like Hillary, Victoria Noland and Biden are the greater criminals. But let's not make this a Dem vs Rep thing. Bush and Cheney lied us into a war in Iraq to steal their oil. Both war parties supported Poroshenko and unending anti-Russian invective. It is from that mindset that they argue over whether conditioning military aid to Ukraine constitutes quid pro quo. ..."
"... We've gone through a lot of news sources to see if we couldn't figure out what is going on in Ukraine as to why the Democrats, led by Jewish congressional representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) who leads the impeachment committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) who is on the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), Eliot Engel (D-New York) along with 21 other Jewish Democratic congressional representatives all calling for the impeachment of President Trump because of his phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. ..."
"... As I wrote in April 2015, there are very strong indications that Foreign Affairs Representative for the EU Catherine Ashton, IMF boss Christine Lagarde and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland provided the united US/EU media front for the Ukraine coup, with Biden, Kerry and John McCain too publicity hungry to remain in the background like they were almost certainly supposed to. https://bryanhemming.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/double-double-toil-and-trouble-the-cauldron-of-kiev/ ..."
"... It is like a virtual country that wants to impose a distorted view of itself. Just imagine for a minute if California became independent and all of the sudden the official language is Spanish, all relations at schools, hospitals, state centers, banks, etc. etc. are to be held in Spanish only. Well, that's happening in that new "liberated" for democracy country, the priceless work of Nulands, Bidens et al, plus all the killing, that goes without saying. ..."
"... when a corrupt system lies to itself about its corruption there is some hope. ..."
"... We desperately need a bringer of light. Could it be Tulsi Gabbard? Perhaps, if she has the guts to turn away from Indian and Israeli nationalism and if the people choose to support her truth telling. It's a long shot, but she might be our last hope. ..."
by then-Vice President Joe Biden against the
then-General Prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin. Shokin was investigating Mykola Zlochevsky,
the owner of the gas company Burisma Holdings which paid Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden at least
$50,000 per month for being on its board.
We used
that timeline to show that Biden's intervention reached its height shortly after the
prosecutor confiscated Zlochevsky houses.
A new report by John Solomon, based on released State Department emails,
supports the suspicion that Joe Biden and others intervened against Shokin on behalf of
Burisma and on request of his son:
Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the Obama State
Department during the 2016 election cycle, including one just a month before Vice President
Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son's company for
corruption, newly released memos show.
During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings sought a
meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption
allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according
to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Just three weeks before Burisma's overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home
of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running
corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election.
Solomon points to the same Interfax-Ukraine report about
the prosecutor's action against Burisma owner Zlochevsky that we have used to make our case
against Biden. Other media have so far
ignored that report and several have falsely claimed that the case against Burisma was
"dormant" when Biden intervened to get the Prosecutor General fired.
Below is an integrated timeline which combines the one
WaPo provided with the new
dates from Solomon's reporting and from additional sources. It is intended as a working
reference that can be updated when new details come to light.
Jul 2010 - Apr 2012 Mykola Zlochevsky heads the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources in Ukraine. Several oil and gas
companies owned by Zlochevsky receive lucrative special drilling permits. Feb 23 2014 The U.S.
supported Maidan 'regime change' coup overthrows the elected government of Ukraine. Mar 2014
The EU blocks funds of several Ukrainian oligarchs including Zlochevsky's.
RFERL
Mar 11 2014 Britain blocks the transfer of $23 million owned by Mykola Zlochevsky companies and
opens an investigation against him.
Guardian
Spring 2014 Burisma hires Devon Archer and Hunter Biden as members of its board.
Archer and Biden together own a firm called Rosemont Seneca Partners.
Guardian
May 2014 Rosemont Seneca Partners starts to receive monthly checks of $166,000
from Burisma.
JS
Nov 24 2014 U.S. government organ RFERL publishes a video report showing one of
Zlochevsky's palaces near Kiev. It notes the Hunter Biden connection.
RFERL
Dec 2 2014 Unknown
Ukrainian prosecutor writes letter saying that Zlochevsky is not under suspicion.
Guardian
Late 2014 Zlochevsky is put on Ukraine's most-wanted list for alleged economic
crimes. RFERL
Jan 21 2015 Referring to the
letter by the unknown Ukrainian prosecutor a British court orders the closure of the British
case against Zlochevsky and to release the $23m.
Guardian
Feb 10 2015 Victor Shokin nominated as Prosecutor General of Ukraine
Interfax
Mar 2015 EU
lifts blocking of funds of several Ukrainian oligarchs including Zlochevsky
RFERL
May 27 2015 Hunter Biden meets then-Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken, a former national
security adviser to Joe Biden who was promoted to the No. 2 job at State under then-Secretary
John Kerry.
JS
July 22 2015 Hunter Biden against meets with the State Department No. 2 Tony Blinken.
JS
July 31 2015 Ukraine's prosecutor general issues an arrest warrant against Zlochevsky.
RFERL
Sep 2015
Referring to the closed British case then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt gives a
speech urging Ukrainian prosecutors to do more against corruption.
Guardian
Oct 8 2015 Then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland
testifies in Congress: "The Prosecutor General's Office has to be reinvented as an institution
that serves the citizens of Ukraine, rather than ripping them off."
WaPo
Oct 17 2015 Shokin announces a joint investigation with Britain of the Zlochevsky
case. Interfax
Dec 7 2015 Joe Biden holds a
press conference in Kiev and announces $190 million to "fight corruption in law enforcement and
reform the justice sector."
WaPo
Dec 7/8 2015 According to his then-National Security Advisor Colin Kahl VP Biden
withholds the announcement of a $1 billion loan guarantee Ukraine was supposed to receive.
WaPo
Dec 8 2015 Joe Biden speaks in the Ukrainian parliament and decried the "cancer of
corruption" in the country. "The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform," he
noted.
WaPo
End of 2015 Shokin hands one case on Zlochevsky to the U.S. supported National
Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) Interfax
Jan 20 2016 Biden meets
Poroshenko in Davos, Switzerland, when he also presses "the need to continue to move forward on
Ukraine's anti-corruption agenda," according to a White House statement. Kahl said Biden at
that meeting reinforced the linkage between the loan guarantee and the necessary reforms.
WaPo
Feb 2 2016 Shokin confiscates several large properties and a Rolls-Royce Phantom owned
by Zlochevsky. Interfax
Feb 4 2016 First public
announcement of the confiscation of Zlochevsky's properties.
Interfax
Feb 4 2016 Hunter Biden
starts following Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken on Twitter.
JS
Feb 12 2016 Biden speaks to Poroshenko by phone. "The two leaders agreed on the
importance of unity among Ukrainian political forces to quickly pass reforms in line with the
commitments in its IMF program, including measures focused on rooting out corruption," the
White House said.
WaPo
Feb 16 2016 Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko says that he had advised Shokin to
step down. Interfax
Feb 16 2016 Poroshenko
announced he had asked Shokin to resign.
WaPo
Feb 18 2016 Another call
takes place between Biden and Poroshenko.
WaPo
Feb 19 2016 The presidential press secretary Sviatoslav Tseholko says that Shokin's
letter of resignation had arrived at the presidential administration. On the same day,
Poroshenko tables a motion in parliament to dismiss Shokin.
Interfax
Feb 19 2016 Poroshenko
announces he has received Shokin's resignation letter. It still required parliamentary
approval, and Shokin did not go away quietly.
WaPo
Feb 19 2016 Biden speaks separately with Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk.
WaPo
Feb 22/23 2016 Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies, a U.S. representative for
Burisma Holdings, seeks a meeting with then-Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli who
oversees international energy issues to discuss ending the corruption allegations against
Burisma.
JS
Feb 24 2016 A State Department email exchange under the subject line "Burisma" notes
that Karen Tramontano especially mentioned Hunter Biden while she tried to get the meeting.
JS
Mar 1 2016 Tramontano is scheduled to meet Novelli and that State Department officials
are scrambling to get answers ahead of time from the U.S. embassy in Kiev.
JS
Mar 2 2016 Hunter Biden's fellow board member at Burisma, Devon Archer, has a meeting
with Secretary of State John Kerry. Secretary Kerry's stepson, Christopher Heinz, had earlier
been a business partner with both Archer and Hunter Biden at the Rosemont Seneca investment
firm.
JS
Mar 16 2016 Reports emerged
that Shokin was back at work after having been on vacation.
WaPo
Mar 22 2016 Biden and Poroshenko speak again by phone.
WaPo
Mar 29 2016 The Ukrainian parliament, in a 289-to-6 vote, approves Shokin's dismissal.
WaPo
undated "Mr. Zlochevsky's allies were relieved by the dismissal of Mr. Shokin, the
prosecutor whose ouster Mr. Biden had sought, according to people familiar with the situation."
NYT
Mar 31 2016
Poroshenko meets with Biden during a trip to Washington, and Biden emphasizes that the loan
guarantee was contingent on further reform progress beyond Shokin's removal.
WaPo
Apr 14 2016 Biden and Poroshenko have another call. Biden congratulates the president
on his new cabinet and "stressed the urgency of putting in place a new Prosecutor General.
WaPo
May 12 2016 Poroshenko nominated Yuriy Lutsenko as the new prosecutor general.
WaPo
May 13 2016 In a phone call, Biden told Poroshenko he welcomed Lutsenko's appointment.
WaPo
Undated "Mr. Zlochevsky's representatives were pleased by the choice, concluding they
could work with Mr. Lutsenko to resolve the oligarch's legal issues, according to the people
familiar with the situation."
NYT
Jun 2016
Hunter Biden joins Zlochevsky at a Burisma organized event in Morocco.
Guardian
Aug 22 2016 Joe Biden tells the Atlantic how he blackmailed Poroshenko into
firing the "corrupt" Shokin.
Atlantic
Sep 2016Ukraine cancels arrest warrant against Zlochevsky and closes the case against him.Guardian
Jan 12 2017Ukraine's prosecutor closes the case against Burisma after the company
agrees to pay UAH 180 millions of tax liabilities.
Interfax
Jan 19 2017Burisma
announces a donation of between $100,000 and 249,999 to the Atlantic CouncilGuardian
Aug 2017U.S. supported National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) closes
its case against ZlochevskyInterfax
Oct 27 2017 Zlochevsky is estimated to have $535 million in assets, more than double than a year earlier.
Interfax
Jan 23 2018Joe Biden brags publicly how he blackmailed Poroshenko into firing Shokin.CFR
Feb 1 2018 After more than three years abroad Zlochevsky returns to Ukraine.
Interfax
May 14 2019 Ukrainian
Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko says that the Zlochevsky case was reopened "several months
ago". Interfax
Jul 2019 Shokin maintains
his suspicions about the vice president's motives, accusing Biden of promoting his dismissal
for personal reasons. He insists he had "no doubt" Biden wanted him gone in an effort to
protect his son's new employer.
ABCNews
Posted by b on November 5, 2019 at 20:13 UTC |
Permalink
Considering the deep peril the legitimacy of the Outlaw US Empire's electoral system enjoys
as Elizabeth Vos
reports, why put forth the effort to prize then reveal the truth of Ukrainegate or
Russiagate.
The DNC will forward whomever it chooses to face Trump in 2020 -- the court
determined that whomever the people choose through the primary and convention exercises
doesn't matter as DNC can legally negate that choice.
Now I don't mean to belittle the
great amount of effort b's done on those issues, but IMO the message within Vos's essay is
what must be addressed.
When put this way it is difficult to not see the corruption. How is Trump asking
Ukraine's new president to investigate this obvious corruption more of a crime than the
corruption that Trump is asking to be investigated? That will take some mental gymnastics for
the establishment's spinmeisters to explain.
Totally agree, but want to add one more important point: How is Trump's melding his
legitimate and personal interests together in a phone call also more serious than the
original war crime of overthrowing the legal Ukrainian government in an armed coup? Biden's
corruption is obvious upon logical review of the known facts, but along with ignoring this,
the US elites also completely ignore the serious crime of otherthrowing a government
(because, such things are not discussed in polite company, one supposes).
William Gruff | Nov 5 2019 20:45 utc | 2. Says "How is Trump asking Ukraine's new president
to investigate this obvious corruption more of a crime than the crime itself?"
No problem for the TDS afflicted sheeple. Not much different than the position of the
sheeple that the exposure of DNC machinations is the crime rather than the crimes of DNC
themselves.
thanks b... as far as crimes go, biden corrupt is small potatoes and ditto trumps.. the big
enchilada is the dynamic leading up to the coup of feb 23 2014.... that is what needs to be
examined and of course it won't be, as that would highlight just how corrupt the whole usa
system is here... that said, i agree with @1 karolf1 and @ 2 william gruffs comments.. in the
greater scheme of things though - meddling in a foreign country, whether it be an election or
outright war and everything in between is what the usa has excelled at for as long as i can
remember - 60's forward... they are one bullshite country with a bullshite msm completing the
propaganda loop that is on display 24/7... i am not sure what it takes to break it.. your
work certainly helps!
Biden son's case is more than demonstrated right now and, in itself, is not even that
impressive: it's just bread & butter patronage corruption, which happens all the time in
Western Democracies, at all countries, at all levels.
What's really impressive here is the scale, because an entire country was destroyed
overnight. I mean, if a man as powerful as a vice-POTUS is willing to destroy entire nations
just to give his son a sinecure, then no country is safe.
My thinking on the matter is that the Washington establishment is panicking over this
relatively small issue because, like pulling a loose end of yarn on a sweater, they fear the
whole cover story on the Ukraine covert actions will unravel if the Biden corruption
investigation continues.
The obvious explanation, for the way that the democrats have used all their energies to
ensure that the entirety of this sordid scandal is made known to the world is that the John
Birch Society entrists, such as the Clintons, are about ready to withdraw from the Democrats
altogether and so, like good arsonists, they have poured flammable, explosive material
everywhere, confident that a spark will ignite it.
In any case arguing that 'black is white' and 'up is down' is easy compared to convincing the
world that Biden, his son, Kerry and all are not totally corrupt.
According to Wikipedia, Vitaly Yarema was the Ukrainian Prosecutor
General from 19 June 2014 to 10 February 2015. He was nominated to the position by President
Petro Poroshenko.
A list of Prosecutor General title-holders is here at
this link if you need to refer to it. The odd thing though is that while Yarema was Prosecutor General, he was all very much for
bring Mykola Zlochevsky to justice in the London court (depending on who you
read , of course).
The U.K. asked Ukraine to investigate whether Burisma's founder had benefited from criminal
dealings with Sergei Kurchenko, a shadowy billionaire who acted as the alleged frontman for
the money of Viktor Yanukovych and his older son, Oleksander Yanukovych. Prosecutor General
Vityaly Yarema ordered Zlochevsky brought to court, which put him on what Ukrainians call
their "wanted list."
According to that Daily Beast source, Zlochevsky was on the "wanted list" in January
2015.
On reading that Guardian article which you cite, the thought occurred to me that
someone other than Yarema must have written and signed that letter sent from the
Prosecutor General's office to the UK court, which then ordered the case against Zlochevsky
to be dropped. That in itself would be worth an article, as the timeline seems to be a bit
confused: did Zlochevsky go on the "wanted list" before the letter was sent to the UK and the
money released or did he go on the "wanted list" AFTER the UK court dropped the case against
him and ordered the release of the $23 million?
I agree about the Voss article, but there is nothing new in it is there? The DNC 'defence'
has been in the public domain ever since it was first annunciated. As to the absolute scandal
of the disenfranchiement of 100,000 Democrats in Bernie's hometown, it was obvious on the
night that it was this which allowed HC to steal the New York Primary.
The problem was that the Sanders campaign seems to have done nothing about it- it is hard to
believe that, back in 2016, they were thinking of 2020 and running Sanders again.
Were not the White primaries, a DNC favourite at the time, banned on just these grounds that
public money and resources could not be used to disenfranchise large numbers of people?
You are right that the story, which reminds us that it was the democrats who invented dirty
tricks and the NY Democrats, who used to meet at Tammany Hall, were on the cutting edge of
electoral corruption, is one that cannot be too widely discussed. A discussion to be followed
by prison terms.
Once again this Ukraine story shows that its not the government, its not the structure of the
government, its not even the functions of the government, but instead its is the actors
that run the government and the actors that benefit from the government being run by the
actors-in-charge that make a strong case that an independent non governmental auditor is
needed (one paid from a % of the taxes collected but one that answers only to the HR courts).
So the government would not pay the auditors any salaries since the auditors are the
governed. In other words, any qualified voter would be an eligible Auditor. Such people
(auditors) would have the right to audit the-conduct of any person claiming or benefiting
from a government interest.
The independent HR court would hear all charges made by any HR auditor. All persons claiming
or benefiting in some way from a government interest would be subject to the jurisdiction of
the HR courts. The HR court would be empowered to hear a claim of wrongful behavior made
against any government person (elected, appointed, bureaucrats, military and contractors) and
if the court agrees substantive facts exist, then the court would assemble a case, impanel a
jury (from the ranks of the governed) and instruct that jury to hear the charges and to
develop the case, and to decide on the innocence or guilt of the person charged, and if
guilty then to decide on the penalty.
Important here is that the HR rights courts would hear cases against individuals that involve
corruption, fraud, theft, self dealing, negligence and treason.. the HR rights courts are not
government, they are courts made up of judges and juries that are appointed by the governed
people.
Thanks for your reply! Did you note the number of people who committed multiple felonies
that have yet to be prosecuted years now after-the-fact? The lack of justice being applied to
those who broke the law and violated the public trust is also a big issue itself that I
mentioned on the week in review. The bottom line: No democracy + no justice = no legitimacy,
which appears to be the main point. I just finished listening to
this interview with Dr. Hudson where in the last few minutes he says the DNC in 2020 aims
at electing Donald Trump, which seems to be the consensus arrived at by us barflies and with
which I agree. What Hudson doesn't touch on, nor is he asked, is what can be done to overturn
the Reagan Revolution which installed the current policy direction, although we can make a
few assumptions based on his preferences for Sanders and Gabbard and the movement to deal
with student debt relief.
My comment to the article wasn't optimistic and has yet to be posted. I don't really have
anything of substance to add to what b's proving about Biden as I've already called him out
for his Capital Crimes and the usual corruption. Maybe I ought to throw up my arms in disgust
and adopt a Don't Worry; Be Happy/What, Me Worry? escapist attitude and ignore it all for my
remaining days and party like it's 1999. Too bad Styx didn't offer a solution to having Too
Much Time on My Hands aside for that being a calamity for my sanity.
General-Prosecutor Victor Shokin was being pressured -- mostly by the USA -- to prosecute
corruption more effectively.
In response to such pressure, Shokin initiated an investigation of Mykola Zlochevsky on
October 17, 2015. It seems that Britain had established an investigation of Zlochevsky in
2014, had suspended that investigation on January 21, 2015, but then resumed that
investigation in October 2015. Shokin joined that British investigation on October 17,
2015.
It seems further that the USA eventually took unknown actions to prevent that joint
British-Ukrainian investigation of Zlochevsky.
On December 7-8, 2015, Vice President Biden indicated that a large US grant of aid money
would be conditional. However, the conditions seem to be secret.
In this situation, before the end of December 2015, General-Prosecutor Shokin transfered
the Zlochevsky investigation to the so-called National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine
(NABU), which essentially was a creature of the US Government.
The situation seemed to remain quiet through the month of January 2016. On February 2,
however, Shokin seized some of Zlochevsky's property, even though the NABU was supposed to be
managing the Zlochevsky case.
Sholin's seizure of Zlochevsky's property on February 2 sparked a US-Ukraine crisis. The
US (i.e. the Bidens) felt it had been double-crossed by Shokin.
Although the property seizure occurred on February 2, it was not announced publicly until
February 4. On that same day, Hunter Biden began following the Twitter account of US Deputy
Secretary of State Tony Blinken, who managed Ukrainian affairs. (I wonder if Blinken
communicated in code to Hunter Biden by means of Twitter.)
On February 12, Vice President Joe Biden talked with Ukrainian President Poroshenko by
telephone and ordered the firing of Shokin. The firing essentially happened later that same
day.
Joe Biden's story about waiting for an airplane due to take off in six hours might be
false or might refer to an airplane taking off in some country other than Ukraine.
Several (numerous?) topics so qualify. Either they're scarcely hinted at, or the lies and
misdirections prevail. Applause for anyone brave enough to name the first three forbidden
items that come to mind.
Are vlochevsky, kolomoisky, and pinchbuk partners in crime?
$1.8 billion in imf loans "disappeared" in koilomoiski's
privat bank. After that privat bank was nationalized and kolomoiski
fled to the us. Was this how vlochevsky's asets doubled? Coincidentally
the chinese firm investment in rosemont seneca was over $1 billion. Some
have speculated that the bidens could have become billionaires from this.
Was the chinese firm a pass through for the embezzled $1.8 billion imf loan?
Come on' folks, there are no Dems, there are no Repubs, there are no Independants ,only reps
who take the $ offered by the wealthy. In the U$A today, the party of $ owns the system. Case
closed. We get who they want. The rules have been changed to favor them. Vote if you want,
it's good therapy,but, the system is rigged.
The latest report from journalist John Solomon reveals that the Obama State Department saw
Joe and Hunter Biden's brewing Burisma scandal as a "Biden problem" during the 2016 US
election, and specificialy coached now-recalled US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch on how
to answer awkward questions about it. [.]
Memos newly released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the
Southeastern Legal Foundation on my behalf detail how State officials in June 2016 worked
to prepare the new U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, to handle a question
about "Burisma and Hunter Biden."
In multiple drafts of a question-and-answer memo prepared for Yovanovitch's Senate
confirmation hearing, the department's Ukraine experts urged the incoming ambassador to
stick to a simple answer.
"Do you have any comment on Hunter Biden, the Vice President's son, serving on the board
of Burisma, a major Ukrainian Gas Company?," the draft Q&A asked.
The recommended answer for Yovanovitch: "For questions on Hunter Biden's role in Burisma, I
would refer you to Vice President Biden's office."[.]
The Media has created a story whose purpose it is to keep the public focused on some small
details of goings-on in Ukraine mostly since 2014 and NOT the fact that this is a clear
example of a US backed coup which destabilized the country enough to allow the US Corporate
jackals in to strip off the booty. THAT is what all the participants in this scheme want to
keep secret. Why? Because the American citizens benefit not one bit from any of this. Change
will require something major to trigger it.
I agree with previous posters that the real crime was the 2014 coup, and people like Hillary,
Victoria Noland and Biden are the greater criminals. But let's not make this a Dem vs Rep
thing. Bush and Cheney lied us into a war in Iraq to steal their oil. Both war parties
supported Poroshenko and unending anti-Russian invective. It is from that mindset that they
argue over whether conditioning military aid to Ukraine constitutes quid pro quo.
In the meantime I wonder if Zelensky, who was elected over Porky with an end the war
platform, is thinking "Why do these idiots think they can negotiate by offering me something
I absolutely do not want?"
"Remember when voters in 2016 were like 'can we please have even one major candidate who
doesn't have something seriously wrong with them?', and the entire US political system was
all 'LOL nope,' and then nobody burned that system to the ground and flushed it down the
toilet? Good times."
Except IMO there were thousands of people willing and ready to burn down the system just
as there are now--that's what ought to happen to things that are corrupt: they get exposed as
illegitimate and get torched by the public is a fit of righteous outrage and exact justice
collectively.
But that didn't happen within the Outlaw US Empire in 2016, nor did it happen when Obama
backstabbed millions, broke the law he was supposed to enforce and gave billions to
fraudulent banksters. Most all political riots--not police riots--during my life were against
racism and its associated injustices long ongoing. Within the Outlaw US Empire historically,
corruption in politics is as traditional as apple pie, meaning the people are mostly inured
to its occurrence. As with customary bribery in some nations, political corruption is seen as
a normal happening usually of little consequence until something morally repulsive occurs to
raise awareness again. The problem of course is that corruption is always morally
repulsive. Perhaps such leniency says more about a nation's public than anything else--tons
of corruption's tolerated just as the killing of millions of innocents overseas is
tolerated/abided/excused. Guess it's time for some Victory Gin as there's not much more to
say.
I think you've left out the Vietnam era, karlof1 - there were certainly riots against that
war plus there was l968 in Chicago Democratic Convention. I'd call both of those political.
And I would call the Occupy movement at least anti-political in its focus on the banksters.
Plus protests against the invasion of Iraq. Those two latter 'thrusts' by the citizenry were
indeed handled oppressively and not covered adequately or at all in the case of protests
against the invasion and/or other political events. Just because they weren't covered doesn't
mean they didn't happen or weren't part of the general malaise. Trump got elected on that
premise. And just because you don't see it on TV doesn't mean the general public isn't
totally unhappy with the way things are.
Since the beginning of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, the international energy group
Burisma has been providing systematic and comprehensive assistance to the defenders of the
Fatherland. Among the military, whom the Burisma Group has supported since 2014, is the Poltava
Special Purpose Police Battalion, which has repeatedly served in the war zone in the
Donbass. from one of their press releases -
being the good nazis biden requested of them..
AFAIK, Burisma supported regaining Donbas because that's where the fracking opportunity
is.
Who else was an ardent supporter of regaining the Donbas? Kolomoyskyi, who is also
militantly pro-Israel, and is rumored to be the real owner (or part owner?) of
Burisma.
Biden is also a Zionist
and what his son made is peanuts compared to what Biden has/could make if he plays along.
Obama is said to have made $70 million after leaving the Presidency and has just bought a $15
million home. And where else is a fracking opportunity sought by a corrupt company that is connected to
corrupt politicians? Golan Heights and Genie Energy..
I liked Dr. Hudson's remarks concerning that DNC's quest for a candidate most sure to lose
to Trump. This of course accounts for their hysterical fear of Tulsi Gabbard, as she is the
only one who would be certain to beat him! The DNC will probably be willing, this time
around, to let Bernie sheepdog on into the general election if that's what it takes to stop
Tulsi. It's very sad to see the would be left media falling in line with the
Jacobin/Intercept/Omidyar psyops regime. The one slim hope is that actual voters not
controlled by any of the usual gatekeepers might overwhelm the DNC rigging machine in early
primaries. I'm encouraged whenever I'm out on the real street I frequently overhear people
mentioning her name and passersby chime in. Don't hear a thing about any of the mediocrities
supported by the DNC and the press.
From the Chris Hedges article you linked to: "The deep state committed the greatest
strategic blunder in American history when it invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq."
The sentence quoted is an example of the murky self-assured but dubious 'wordscape' that
we are so inundated by. This is not to imply that the author doesn't make many sensible
points in this particular article, or to dismiss his work more generally. In my opinion he
does lots of good work.
Note the use of the cryptic abstraction "deep state" to describe the 'perpetrator' of the
'invasions and occupations'.
Note the use of the abstract term "greatest" to describe the "strategic blunder". One can
declare without deserving even a raised eyebrow 'that was the greatest day of my life!' or
that was greatest number of apples I've ever eaten at one sitting, but never again!" But how
does one calibrate those two wars of aggression as the "greatest" whatever?
Note that these particlular wars of aggression, the supreme crime, and both not
coincidentally based on lies upon lies, have been verbally downgraded to "invasions". As in,
say, the Normandy invasion, or an invasion of grasshoppers? And all the horrors that followed
the wars of aggression are condensed by the summary word "occupation". Many of us have
occupations.
And for who were these "strategic blunders?" From the perspective of the MIC, and PNAC,
and 'strategic positioning' re Earthly heroin flows, say, perhaps these were "strategic
blessings". Or even diabolically cunning?
The point I'm making here is that even in the 'good articles', even in 'noble efforts' its
pretty hard not to slip into, what? Let's call it, Empire Speak. Or is that Swamp Speak?
@ Robert Snefjella with the analysis of the wording of the Chris Hedges article that ben
linked to
Nice work but I want to add that the real reason for going after Iraq and Afghanistan was
because they were not yet owned and subservient to the Western private banking cult.
Like Libya before Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton served her masters.
@ 42 Rboert
Personally, I don't care to dissect Hedges word choices. Those invasion were the greatest
mistake, because they broke the US public image, its military, and its economy. No, not
directly, but those overextensions were the watershed moments. While it has been quite
lucrative for certain parties since then, it has been a huge quagmire and literal sand in the
military's gears. It also destroyed the invincible image of the US military. Trillions of
dollars, thousands of troops, millions of civilians and yet we are all negotiating to stay in
Afghanistan against troops with tire scandals, no air force, and very limited mechanization.
@ 43 psycho I agree that the banking, and gold in particular, were reason for destroying
the countries. Along with human trafficking, Sumerian artifacts, takfiri recruitment,
etc.
Exactly, JR. The very limited amount of reporting on that quickly led to Jewish oligarchs
and that has been studiously ignored since. Since then it has been an endless shit show of
Biden's corruption and how the US foreign policy is handled with everyone trying to thinly
slice the corruption of DC so as to only smear the other side.
There are some
sites that think about these things.
We've gone through a lot of news sources to see if we couldn't figure out what is going on
in Ukraine as to why the Democrats, led by Jewish congressional representatives Adam Schiff
(D-Calif.) who leads the impeachment committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) who is on the
Judiciary Committee, Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), Eliot
Engel (D-New York) along with 21 other Jewish Democratic congressional representatives all
calling for the impeachment of President Trump because of his phone call with President
Zelensky of Ukraine.
This site seems devoted to looking for links of this nature, but is often sketchy IMO. Where is O when you need an obsessive analysis.
So if the Biden's and Rosemont Seneca were in Ukraine stealing IMF funds,
what were they stealing in China?
Do they have no shame? Or is that Whitey Bulger's clan ethics at play.
Is all currency ok as long as its stolen?
How much bitcoin can they steal and convert or is that story yet to be told?
That is the oldest trick in the book: owning a company as a subsidiary of another company
that you own. The wonder is that Kolomoisky didn't insert another layer of another subsidiary
between Privat Group and Burisma Holdings to cover his tracks even more.
The largest private gas producer in Ukraine is establishing relations with the new US
administration.
The Atlantic Council and the Burisma Group, Ukraine's largest independent gas producer,
have signed a partnership agreement. The Atlantic Council, with the support of Burisma,
will develop transatlantic relations programs with a focus on energy security in Europe and
the world, the company said in an official press release.
For the Burisma Group, this is a new stage in the development of cooperation between the
United States and European countries together with such an influential world institution as
the Atlantic Council.
Relations with Ukraine and future programs with the Burisma Group will be overseen by an
authoritative diplomat, US Ambassador to Ukraine (2003-2006) and Director of the Dinu
Patriciu Eurasia Center (structure under the Atlantic Council) John Herbst.
"Support and cooperation with Burisma will allow us to expand our program development
activities in Ukraine and create new platforms for discussing important and relevant
issues," said John Herbst.
It is symbolic that the collaboration between the Atlantic Council and the Burisma Group
coincided with the launch of the new US Presidential Administration Donald Trump. According
to experts, this will allow for more efficient implementation of new joint projects in the
energy sector and gain support from one of the most respected and influential organizations
in the United States. The conclusion of an agreement between Burisma and the Atlantic
Council and the full implementation of joint projects became possible after all charges
against Burisma Group and its owner Nikolai Zlochevsky were dropped.
According to Mykola Zlochevsky, president of the Burisma Group, the Atlantic Council
plays a key role in Ukraine in building transatlantic relations, democracy and energy
security. "Ambassador Herbst has been and continues to be the lawyer of Ukraine, and
Burisma is pleased to be able to support the work of the ambassador and the Atlantic
Council," said Nikolai Zlochevsky.
The Atlantic Council (US Atlantic Council) is the largest American non-governmental
analytical center for international relations of the Atlantic community, headquartered in
Washington. It is one of the most influential non-governmental organizations in the United
States, operates ten regional centers and functional programs that deal with issues of
international security and global economic development.
The Atlantic Council and Burisma Holdings working together!
As I wrote in April 2015, there are very strong indications that Foreign Affairs
Representative for the EU Catherine Ashton, IMF boss Christine Lagarde and Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland provided the united
US/EU media front for the Ukraine coup, with Biden, Kerry and John McCain too publicity
hungry to remain in the background like they were almost certainly supposed to.
https://bryanhemming.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/double-double-toil-and-trouble-the-cauldron-of-kiev/
Thank you for that link. Rolling up the naked capitalism story is
this rather more profound analysis from the Saker. It is also linked to in the abel
danger site I referenced earlier.
Something that really shocks me about Ukraine is like the video about the kitsch palace of
the Zlochevsky guy, the neighbors on the other side of the river complain about not being
able to swim across anymore, as they used to do, but the whole interview is in
Russian¡¡¡¡, I mean, it is supossed to be Kiev, not the east and
everybody speaks in a language that does not have official status anymore.
It is like a
virtual country that wants to impose a distorted view of itself. Just imagine for a minute if
California became independent and all of the sudden the official language is Spanish, all
relations at schools, hospitals, state centers, banks, etc. etc. are to be held in Spanish
only. Well, that's happening in that new "liberated" for democracy country, the priceless
work of Nulands, Bidens et al, plus all the killing, that goes without saying.
The same case happens in the UK (with Corbyn). They want the policies, but they don't want
"socialism".
This is the great contradiction of the USA and other First World countries: they know they
need to reform, but they don't want to give up the good things that capitalist imperialism
gave them. Therefore, they want the best of both worlds.
Great, true comment, vk. The people of America are willing participants in the American
Dream, aka The American Death Cult. Let's give the American People full credit for the horror
show they've inflicted on the world. They willfully chose this and continue to choose this
and that is why they embrace horrific figures like Trump, Hillary, Biden, etc..
But the American People do have a better angel. They also want community. They want to see
themselves as individually and collectively good. They want to believe that they are on the
light side of the Force, not the dark side of the Force, so to speak. How it plays out is
that they want the elites to tell them lies, sweet little lies...
For me the turning point of America, at least of the America that I've seen, was the Iraq
War. The Libya War can be seen as a second stage of that war; same with the Syria War. It's
not that such acts of global mayhem have been worse than what America has done before. It's
that the American System has embraced the evil more knowingly than ever before, it seems to
me. No one can credibly claim that they didn't see the US knowingly lie its way into war vs.
Iraq. No one can credibly call that a just war.
when a corrupt system lies to itself about its corruption there is some hope. When it
knows it is corrupt and embraces this anyway then there is no hope. The Ukraine controversey
we are seeing play its way out now typifies and illustrates this state of affairs. What Trump
did was brutal and corrupt, yet his fans continue to defend him and even to defend this. What
Biden did was far far more brutal and corrupt, yet the Dems continue to defend him and what
he did. Biden helped plunge a country into chaos and then feasted on the corpse. The Ukraine
controversey is a journey into the heart of our darkness.
We desperately need a bringer of light. Could it be Tulsi Gabbard? Perhaps, if she has the
guts to turn away from Indian and Israeli nationalism and if the people choose to support her
truth telling. It's a long shot, but she might be our last hope.
As for Biden? Well I suppose he's a placeholder for Hillary Clinton.
The USA is a capitalist society. However, as Marx demonstrated in his opus, the
development of capitalism tends to socialism. Socialism cannot be born out of
manorialism or antiquity, but only from capitalism.
The American elite knows this, so they came up with a very interesting strategy: they keep
the rest of the world down, in a permanent state of destruction and rebuild (groundhog day
mode); and, at home, they try to preserve a minimum of industrial dynamism and life quality
for their masses with "domesticated and restricted socialism". FDR did it during 1938-1944
and it worked; after the end of Bretton Woods and the establishment of the Dollar Standard,
they adopted restricted socialism in a specific sector -- the Military -- in order to
maintain its industrial and innovation capacity going in face of its inexorable tendency of
"financialization".
Although the Pentagon by itself is socialist, the USA remains capitalist because of the
way the Pentagon relates to the rest of the nation: it takes the infinite pool of taxpayer
money (so the profit motivation is removed) but they give it back to private contractors, who
are capitalist and thus have the profit motivation. Taxpayer money is then converted into
money-capital through a socialist institution.
However, this comes at a price for the capitalists: as profits go down over time (as Marx
also scientifically demonstrated), the share of the Pentagon on the overall American economy
rises, thus rising the "socialist piece of the pie". Heterodox estimates put the Pentagon
social architecture at 10% of the American economy; most still put it at around 5%, and some
of then put it at an insignificant 3%. If think that, if you take out the ficitious part of
the capitalist economy (i.e. Wall St.), the figures are much closer to the 10%, probably even
more.
@56 -- "... it [Pentagon] takes the infinite pool of taxpayer money (so the profit motivation
is removed) but they give it back to private contractors, who are capitalist and thus have
the profit motivation. Taxpayer money is then converted into money-capital through a
socialist institution."
State-base 'capitalism' just like China!
The only additional point is that a sizable % of the socialist $$$'s (more Fed than
taxpayer these days) also flow from said funds into lobbying and then into the pockets of the
politician du jour. The corrupt Clinton's were not the exception -- rather the rule. Was this
systemic corruption not referred to previously as the military-industrial-congressional
complex?
No, it would be China if the contractors themselves were owned by the Government.
China is pretty much the polar opposite of the USA: it has a socialist system with some
restricted pockets of capitalism. Capitalism there is restricted to the special economic
zones, and private enterprise is restricted to non-strategic sectors.
That's why China's tax rates are actually lowering, not rising.
@2 If you recall the media explained that Joe Biden's corruption is really Joe Biden fighting
corruption. They create their own reality. We are just supposed to swallow it. The CFR video
doesn't matter. Just like Victoria Nuland's call. Snowden's revelations, or the volumes of
wikileaks documents proving the enormity of US self described "elite" corruption
I'd written a long detailed reply that I was about to post when my computer locked-up and
I lost my entire effort, and that ended my contributions yesterday. Of the many observations
I made, this IMO was the most important--When MLK was murdered, blacks nationwide rioted; but
when JFK and RFK were murdered, nothing of the sort occurred. I'll also reinforce the notion
of people rioting as the vast majority of what's deemed a riot by Media was in fact a Police
Riot as they run amok amidst peaceful protesters just as they would do against striking
workers, of which there's a long bloody history of massacres.
If you're an outsider with a political agenda, there's no better country to target than the
United States.
Ever since the Treaty of Westphalia, the idea of territorial sovereignty has been central to how most of us think
about international politics and foreign policy. Although a huge amount of activity occurs across state borders, one
of the chief tasks of any government is to defend the nation's territory and make sure -- to the extent it can -- that
outsiders are not in position to interfere in harmful ways. But for all the effort and expense devoted to keeping
harmful influences out, sometimes countries wind up locking and bolting the windows while leaving the front door wide
open.
Take the mighty United States, for example. It has a vast Department of Homeland Security, whose job is to
defend its borders from international terrorism, illegal migration, drug smuggling, customs violations, and other
dangers. The United States has intelligence agencies monitoring dangerous developments all over the world to keep
them from harming Americans at home. It has spent trillions of dollars on a sophisticated nuclear arsenal designed to
deter a hostile country from attacking the U.S. homeland directly, and it's spent additional hundreds of billions of
dollars pursuing the holy grail of missile defense. Americans now worry about cyberthreats of various kinds,
including the possibility that foreign powers like Russia might be interfering in U.S. elections or sowing division
and false information via social media. And then there's President Donald Trump's obsession with that southern wall,
which he declares is necessary to keep the Republican base riled up -- oops, sorry, I meant to say "is necessary to
protect us from impoverished refugees or other undesirables."
Given all the time, effort, and money the United States devotes to defending the realm against outside intrusions,
it is ironic that the United States may also be the most permeable political system in modern history. More than any
great power's that I can think of, America's political system is wide open to foreign interference in a variety of
legitimate and illegitimate ways. I'm not talking about foreign bots infecting the national mind via social
media -- though that is a worrisome possibility. I'm talking about foreign governments or other interests that use a
variety of familiar avenues to shape U.S. perceptions and persuade the U.S. government to do things that these
outsiders want it to do, even when it might not be in America's broader interest.
Suppose you were a foreign government, or perhaps an opposition movement challenging a foreign regime. Suppose
further that you wanted to get America on your side, or maybe you just wanted to make sure that the United States
didn't use its considerable power against you. What avenues of influence are available to achieve your goal?
Obviously, you can use traditional diplomatic channels. You can tell your official representatives (ministers,
ambassadors, consular officers, envoys, etc.) to meet with the relevant U.S. counterparts and plead your case. While
they're at it, your official representatives could also shmooz with other members of the executive branch and try to
win them over too. There's nothing remotely dodgy here; it's just the usual workings of the normal diplomatic
machinery. And sometimes that's all you'll need, especially when your interests and America's interests really do
coincide.
But you don't have to stop there. For example, you could also take your case up to Capitol Hill. There are 435
representatives and 100 senators, and that's an awful lot of potential points of access. Most of them don't care a
fig about foreign policy (and know even less), but some of them do care and a few of them have real clout. If you can
win over a respected and well-placed representative or senator -- or even just persuade one of their top aides -- there's a
good chance a lot of the other lawmakers will follow their lead. Back in the 1950s, for example, Sen. William
Knowland (R-Calif.) was often derided as the "Senator from Formosa" because of his consistent opposition to communist
China and ardent support for Taiwan. More recently, Beltway denizen Randy Scheunemann was both a paid lobbyist for
the government of Georgia and a top foreign-policy aide to the late Republican Sen. John McCain during his 2008
presidential campaign, which may help explain why the latter was such an ardent defender of Georgia during its 2008
war with Russia.
On top of that, there are plenty of politicians outside Congress who might be enlisted to your cause as well. Over
the past decade or more, for example, Democrats including former Vermont governor and Democratic National Committee
chairman Howard Dean and Republicans such as former New York mayor (and Trump apologist) Rudy Giuliani or current
National Security Advisor John Bolton have spoken at rallies sponsored by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) an Iranian
exile group that was listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department from 1997 to 2012. The MEK is
despised within Iran for its past collaboration with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, but that didn't prevent it from
recruiting
a wide array of prominent Americans to its side, many of whom received lucrative speakers' fees. See
how easy this is?
But wait, there's more! Foreign governments, corporations, and opposition movements can also hire public relations
firms and professional lobbyists to clean up their public image, lobby politicians directly, and try to get
influential Americans to see them as valuable partners. In his amusing but disturbing
book
Turkmeniscam: How Washington Lobbyists Fought to Flack for a Stalinist Dictatorship, the journalist Ken
Silverstein showed how eager D.C. PR firms were to serve as the paid agents of a ruthless Central Asian dictator,
along with the various ways that savvy spin doctors can scrub a despot's reputation and get them access to
influential people in Washington. The sad news is that Silverstein's saga is far from atypical.
And don't forget the rest of the Blob. In recent years, for example, we've learned that several prominent D.C.
think tanks took
millions
of dollars from foreign governments eager to enhance their visibility, presence, and influence in
Washington. The receiving organizations predictably denied that the money had the slightest influence on what they
did, said, wrote, or believed, but former employees tell a
different story
. And yes, I know: Universities are not immune to temptation either.
The influence of self-interested foreigners increases even more when they can partner with domestic groups that
share their objectives, and that will use their testimony to sell whatever course of action they are trying to
promote. The most notorious recent example of this phenomenon was the infamous Iraqi schemer Ahmed Chalabi, who
joined forces with American neoconservatives to help sell the Iraq War in 2003. Foreign voices like Chalabi's often
exercise disproportionate influence because they are (falsely) perceived as objective experts with extensive local
knowledge, making uninformed, gullible, or mendacious Americans more likely to heed their advice. It is usually a
good idea to listen to what foreign witnesses have to say about conditions far away provided that one never forgets
that they may be telling Americans what they think they want to hear or feeding Americans false information designed
to advance their interests at America's expense.
Notice I haven't said a word about espionage, bribery, or more ordinary forms of corruption, though each can be
another way for foreign powers to advance their aims inside America's borders. After all, when the U.S. president
continues to defy the emoluments clause of the Constitution, and when his son-in-law and White House advisor is still
financially connected to a real estate firm that recently got
bailed out
by a Qatari-backed investment company, one may legitimately wonder whether key foreign-policy
decisions are being influenced by the personal financial interests of the president or his entourage. Trademarks in
China,
anyone
?
The debacle over Syria shows that neither party understands the country's real goals
in the Middle East -- or what it would take to achieve them.
Argument
|
Nick
Danforth
,
Daphne
McCurdy
Last but by no means least, foreign governments (or in some cases opposition groups) can also benefit from support
by Americans with a strong attachment to the countries in question.
Ethnic lobbying
by Greek Americans, Polish Americans, Irish Americans, Indian Americans, Jewish Americans, and
other ethnic groups has been part of the U.S. political scene for more than a century, and foreign governments
understand that such groups can be a valuable asset. As an official Indian government commission
noted
back in 2002, Indian Americans "have effectively mobilised on issues ranging from the nuclear test in 1999
to Kargil and lobbied effectively on other issues of concern to the Indian community. The Indian community in the
United States constitutes an invaluable asset in strengthening India's relationship with the world's only
superpower."
To be clear: Americans holding strong attachments to a foreign country are free to express their views and try to
influence what the government does, regardless of whether their particular attachment is based on ethnicity,
ideology, family connections, or personal experience (such as tourism, a Peace Corps stint, or whatever). That's how
our system of interest group politics works. Nonetheless, India and other countries have also recognized that
Americans with powerful connections are a potent source of political influence, and it would be naive to expect them
not to take advantage of it.
This issue is not one-sided, of course. The permeability of the U.S. political system allows more sources of
information to penetrate U.S. politics and undoubtedly contributes to a broader understanding of complicated
international problems in some cases. U.S. foreign policy would be even less effective if Americans tried to wall the
country off -- sorry, Donald! -- or if they foolishly tried to bar politicians from talking to people from other parts of
the world. So my warnings are not a recommendation for a head-in-the-sand approach to the outside world.
Rather, it is an argument for a more hardheaded, cynical, and realistic approach to the influence that foreigners
invariably seek to exercise over U.S. foreign policy. As long as the U.S. political system is so permeable, it
behooves Americans to treat foreign efforts to shape their thinking with due discretion. It also requires preserving
a sophisticated and independent analytic capacity of their own, so that they can distinguish when they are gaining
useful information and when they are being conned. Americans should always be willing to exchange ideas with
others -- including their adversaries, by the way -- but let's try not to be foolish about it. Foreign policy is not a
philanthropic activity, and even close allies think first and foremost about self-interest, which sometimes means
trying to bamboozle the United States into doing what they want, even at some cost to Americans. If the United States
is spending all this money securing the borders, leaving the national mind unlocked and ripe for manipulation is a
tad short-sighted.
Stephen M. Walt
is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard
University.
"... Sperry quotes Fred Fleitz, a former National Security Council official, thus: "Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White house knows . They're hiding him because of his political bias." ..."
"... why have the corporate media declined to name him? There can be but one answer to this question: If Ciaramella's identity were publicized and his professional record exposed, the Ukrainegate narrative would instantly collapse into a second-rate vaudeville act -- farce by any other name, although "hoax" might do, even if Trump has made the term his own. ..."
"... There is another half to this burlesque. While Schiff and his House colleagues chicken-scratch for something, anything that may justify a formal impeachment, a clear, documented record emerges of Joe Biden's official interventions in Ukraine in behalf of Burisma Holdings, the gas company that named Hunter Biden to its board in March 2014 -- a month, it is worth noting, after the U.S.–cultivated coup in Kiev. ..."
Ten days ago
Real Clear Investigations suggested that the "whistleblower" whose "complaint" last August set the impeachment probe in
motion was in all likelihood a CIA agent named Eric Ciaramella. And who is Eric Ciaramella? It turns out he is a young but seasoned
Democratic Party apparatchik conducting his spookery on American soil.
Ciaramella has previously worked with Joe Biden during the latter's days as veep; with Susan Rice, Obama's recklessly hawkish
national security adviser; with John Brennan, a key architect of the Russiagate edifice; as well as with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-born
Democratic National Committee official charged during the 2016 campaign season with digging up dirt on none other than candidate
Donald Trump.
For good measure, Paul Sperry's perspicacious reporting in Real Clear Investigations reveals that Ciaramella conferred
with the staff of Rep. Adam Schiff, the House Democrat leading the impeachment process, a month prior to filing his "complaint" to
the CIA's inspector general.
This information comes after Schiff stated on the record that the staff of the House Intelligence Committee, which he heads, had
no contact with the whistleblower. Schiff has since acknowledged the Ciaramella connection.
Phantom in Plain Sight
No wonder no one in Washington will name this phantom in plain sight. The impeachment probe starts to take on a certain reek.
It starts to look as if contempt for Trump takes precedence over democratic process -- a dangerous priority. Sperry quotes Fred
Fleitz, a former National Security Council official, thus: "Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows.
The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White house knows . They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Here we come to another question. If everyone knows the whistleblower's identity, why have the corporate media declined to
name him? There can be but one answer to this question: If Ciaramella's identity were publicized and his professional record exposed,
the Ukrainegate narrative would instantly collapse into a second-rate vaudeville act -- farce by any other name, although "hoax"
might do, even if Trump has made the term his own.
There is another half to this burlesque. While Schiff and his House colleagues chicken-scratch for something, anything that
may justify a formal impeachment, a clear, documented record emerges of Joe Biden's official interventions in Ukraine in behalf of
Burisma Holdings, the gas company that named Hunter Biden to its board in March 2014 -- a month, it is worth noting, after the U.S.–cultivated
coup in Kiev.
There is no thought of scrutinizing Biden's activities by way of an official inquiry. In its way, this, too, reflects upon the
pantomime of the impeachment probe. Are there sufficient grounds to open an investigation? Emphatically there are. Two reports published
last week make this plain by any reasonable measure.
"Meet the witnesses: Diplomats start off impeachment hearings" [Associated Press].
"Diplomats and career government officials, they're little known outside professional circles,
but they're about to become household names testifying in the House impeachment inquiry . The witnesses will
tell House investigators -- and Americans tuning into the live public hearings -- what they
know about President Donald Trump's actions toward Ukraine First up will be William Taylor, the
charge d'affaires in Ukraine, and George Kent, the deputy Assistant Secretary in the European
and Eurasian Bureau, both testifying on Wednesday." • You can read the full article for
the bios. First, William Taylor:
"Op-Ed in Novoye Vremya by CDA Taylor: Ukraine's Committed Partner" [ U.S.
Embassy in Ukraine ]. From November 10, 2019, the penultimate paragraph. I've helpfully
underlined the dogwhistles:
But as everyone who promotes democracy knows, strengthening and protecting democratic
values is a constant process, requiring persistence and steady work by both officials and
ordinary citizens. As in all democracies, including the United States, work
remains in Ukraine, especially to strengthen rule of law and to hold
accountable those who try to subvert Ukraine's structures to serve their personal aims,
rather than the nation's interests .
It's kind of Taylor to let the Ukrainians know who's really in charge of foreign policy,
isn't it? Now, Kent–
"George Kent Opening Statement At Impeachment Hearing: Concerned About
"Politically-Motivated Investigations" [
RealClearPolitics ]. From the full text as prepare for delivery:
Ukraine's popular Revolution of Dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-Russian leadership to
flee to Moscow.
By analogy, the American colonies may not have prevailed against British
imperial might without help from transatlantic friends after 1776. In an echo of
Lafayette's organized assistance to General George Washington's army and Admiral John Paul
Jones' navy , Congress has generously appropriated over $1.5 billion over the past five
years in desperately needed train and equip security assistance to Ukraine.
Similar to von Steuben training colonials at Valley Forge, U.S. and NATO allied
trainers develop the skills of Ukrainian units at Yavoriv near the Polish border, and
elsewhere.
Are these people out of their minds? See, e.g., "America's Collusion With Neo-Nazis" [
The Nation ]:
Not even many Americans who follow international news know the following, for example:
That the snipers who killed scores of protestors and policemen on Kiev's Maidan Square in
February 2014, thereby triggering a "democratic revolution" that overthrew the elected
president, Viktor Yanukovych, and brought to power a virulent anti-Russian, pro-American
regime -- it was neither democratic nor a revolution, but a violent coup unfolding in the
streets with high-level support -- were sent not by Yanukovych, as is still widely reported,
but instead almost certainly by the neofascist organization Right Sector and its
co-conspirators.
§ That the pogrom-like burning to death of ethnic Russians and others in Odessa
shortly later in 2014 reawakened memories of Nazi extermination squads in Ukraine during
World War II has been all but deleted from the American mainstream narrative even though it
remains a painful and revelatory experience for many Ukrainians.
(To be fair, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis we supported weren't slaveholders, unlike to many of
our own Founders. So there's that.)
The Hearings should be in a room that lets in sunlight, that universal disinfectant. Make
the Front Row Kid Careerists sit by the windows.
Thus far, my main reaction is that the State Department needs to be shaken up to get rid of
those entrenched FRK'ing Careerists and to bring in some accountability. Inspector General
positions and functions should not be optional at the whim of some SoS or other.
Not change for its own sake, just bringing things out of the shadows. In keeping with my
light theme, a Sunset Provision would help, too. That is one step toward eliminating the
hearsay, innuendo and nonsense suppression of Due Process as that is anti-Constitutional. The
people, including back-row, dropouts and all, deserve better from their government.
"... So the Ukrainians traded their corrupt Ukrainian elected President, mostly accumulating stuff in Ukraine, for corrupt neocon/ neolib Democrat bureaucrats and Ukrainian/ Americans, who now cannot be denied their pound of flesh (which will quickly exit Ukraine, taking much of that country's value with it). ..."
"... Even the anti-corruption agencies are corrupt! So American policy now is set by such bureaucrats, who not only play military adventurism games (to justify all that money in loans, grants, and weapons), but even pass the corruption level of the Native Ukrainians in skimming that incoming money and getting rich, and of course steal whatever isn't nailed down (American policy as previewed in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"). ..."
"to a one they are turf-conscious careerists who think they set U.S. foreign policy and
resent the president for intruding upon them. It is increasingly evident that Trump's true
offense is proposing to renovate a foreign policy framework that has been more or less
untouched for 75 years (and is in dire need of renovation)."
This may be even worse than Lawrence depicts. It is clear that Vindman in his opening
remarks made it clear that the consensus policy of experts (like John Bolton) had been
following an agenda from the Obama administration (or before, but implemented under Obama,
Biden and Nuland) and it is verboten to change anything, despite constitutionally these
people at best only having advisory roles to the President (and constitutionally the
President can ask for their opinions in writing; CYA even back then!) The Ukrainian Americans
involved in the coup (national security from Vindman's perspective) are deeply committed
since 2014, and they expect to reap the benefits with no interference from Trump. And the
Democrats/ Ukraine-Americans "running the show" are probably much more corrupt than
Ukrainians governing their country before 2014.
I have started Oliver Bullough's "Money Land" and was aghast at the luxury items
Yanukovich had stolen through corruption and accumulated at his many properties. Surely with
so much money going to corrupt Yanukovich and his henchmen, the coup would have been a
blessing for the Ukrainian people! Right? I was shocked to find that after the overthrow of
Yanukovich in 2014, the median per capita household income in Ukraine, which had risen
steadily from $2032 in 2010 to $2601 in 2013, had dropped over 50% to $1110 to $1135 in 2015
and 2016, and has only risen to $1694 in 2018 (ceicdata.com).
So the Ukrainians traded their
corrupt Ukrainian elected President, mostly accumulating stuff in Ukraine, for corrupt
neocon/ neolib Democrat bureaucrats and Ukrainian/ Americans, who now cannot be denied their
pound of flesh (which will quickly exit Ukraine, taking much of that country's value with
it).
Even the anti-corruption agencies are corrupt! So American policy now is set by such
bureaucrats, who not only play military adventurism games (to justify all that money in
loans, grants, and weapons), but even pass the corruption level of the Native Ukrainians in
skimming that incoming money and getting rich, and of course steal whatever isn't nailed down
(American policy as previewed in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman").
"... Will the Democratic Party, this time in open collusion with the intelligence apparatus, succeed in its second attempt to depose President Donald Trump in what might fairly be called a bloodless coup? Whatever the outcome of the thus-far-farcical impeachment probe, which is to be conducted publicly as of Wednesday, did the president use his office to pressure Ukraine in behalf of his own personal and political interests? Did Trump, in his fateful telephone conversation last July 25 with Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, put U.S. national security at risk, as is alleged? ..."
"... All good questions. Here is another: Will Joe Biden, at present the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, get away with what is almost certain to prove his gross corruption and gross abuse of office when he carried the Ukraine portfolio while serving as vice president under Barack Obama? ..."
"... Ciaramella has previously worked with Joe Biden during the latter's days as veep; with Susan Rice, Obama's recklessly hawkish national security adviser; with John Brennan, a key architect of the Russiagate edifice; as well as with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-born Democratic National Committee official charged during the 2016 campaign season with digging up dirt on none other than candidate Donald Trump. ..."
"... Here we come to another question. If everyone knows the whistleblower's identity, why have the corporate media declined to name him? There can be but one answer to this question: If Ciaramella's identity were publicized and his professional record exposed, the Ukrainegate narrative would instantly collapse into a second-rate vaudeville act -- farce by any other name, although "hoax" might do, even if Trump has made the term his own. ..."
"... There is another half to this burlesque. While Schiff and his House colleagues chicken-scratch for something, anything that may justify a formal impeachment, a clear, documented record emerges of Joe Biden's official interventions in Ukraine in behalf of Burisma Holdings, the gas company that named Hunter Biden to its board in March 2014 -- a month, it is worth noting, after the U.S.–cultivated coup in Kiev. ..."
"... There is no thought of scrutinizing Biden's activities by way of an official inquiry. In its way, this, too, reflects upon the pantomime of the impeachment probe. Are there sufficient grounds to open an investigation? Emphatically there are. Two reports published last week make this plain by any reasonable measure. ..."
Now that "Russiagate" has failed and "
Ukrainegate " neatly takes its
place, many questions arise.
Will the Democratic Party, this time in open collusion with the intelligence apparatus, succeed in its second attempt to depose
President Donald Trump in what might fairly be called a bloodless coup? Whatever the outcome of the thus-far-farcical impeachment
probe, which is
to be conducted publicly as of Wednesday, did the president use his office to pressure Ukraine in behalf of his own personal
and political interests? Did Trump, in his fateful telephone conversation last July 25 with Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president,
put U.S. national security at risk, as is alleged?
All good questions. Here is another: Will Joe Biden, at present the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination,
get away with what is almost certain to prove his gross corruption and gross abuse of office when he carried the Ukraine portfolio
while serving as vice president under Barack Obama?
Corollary line of inquiry: Will the corporate media, The New York Times in the lead, get away with self-censoring what is now
irrefutable evidence of the impeachment probe's various frauds and corruptions? Ditto in the Biden case: Can the Times and the media
that faithfully follow its lead continue to disregard accumulating circumstantial evidence of Biden's guilt as he appears to have
acted in the interest of his son Hunter while the latter sat on the board of one of Ukraine's largest privately held natural gas
producers?
Innuendo & Interference
It is not difficult to imagine that Trump presented Zelensky with his famous quid pro quo when they spoke last summer: Open an
investigation into Biden père et fils and I will release $391 million in military aid and invite you to the White House. Trump seems
to be no stranger to abuses of power of this sort. But the impeachment probe has swiftly run up against the same problem that sank
the good ship Russiagate: It has produced no evidence. Innuendo and inference, yes. Various syllogisms, yes. But no evidence.
There is none in the transcript of the telephone exchange. Zelensky has flatly stated that there was no quid pro quo. The witnesses
so far called to testify have had little to offer other than their personal opinions, even if Capitol Hill Democrats pretend these
testimonies are prima facie damning. And the witnesses are to one or another degree of questionable motives: To a one, they appear
to be Russophobes who favor military aid to Ukraine; to a one they are turf-conscious careerists who think they set U.S. foreign
policy and resent the president for intruding upon them. It is increasingly evident that Trump's true offense is proposing to renovate
a foreign policy framework that has been more or less untouched for 75 years (and is in dire need of renovation).
Ten days ago
Real Clear Investigations suggested that the "whistleblower" whose "complaint" last August set the impeachment probe in motion
was in all likelihood a CIA agent named Eric Ciaramella. And who is Eric Ciaramella? It turns out he is a young but seasoned Democratic
Party apparatchik conducting his spookery on American soil.
Ciaramella has previously worked with Joe Biden during the latter's days as veep; with Susan Rice, Obama's recklessly hawkish
national security adviser; with John Brennan, a key architect of the Russiagate edifice; as well as with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-born
Democratic National Committee official charged during the 2016 campaign season with digging up dirt on none other than candidate
Donald Trump.
For good measure, Paul Sperry's perspicacious reporting in Real Clear Investigations reveals that Ciaramella conferred with the
staff of Rep. Adam Schiff, the House Democrat leading the impeachment process, a month prior to filing his "complaint" to the CIA's
inspector general.
This information comes after Schiff stated on the record that the staff of the House Intelligence Committee, which he heads, had
no contact with the whistleblower. Schiff has since acknowledged the Ciaramella connection.
Phantom in Plain Sight
No wonder no one in Washington will name this phantom in plain sight. The impeachment probe starts to take on a certain reek.
It starts to look as if contempt for Trump takes precedence over democratic process -- a dangerous priority. Sperry quotes Fred Fleitz,
a former National Security Council official, thus: "Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York
Times knows. Congress knows. The White house knows . They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Here we come to another question. If everyone knows the whistleblower's identity, why have the corporate media declined to
name him? There can be but one answer to this question: If Ciaramella's identity were publicized and his professional record exposed,
the Ukrainegate narrative would instantly collapse into a second-rate vaudeville act -- farce by any other name, although "hoax"
might do, even if Trump has made the term his own.
There is another half to this burlesque. While Schiff and his House colleagues chicken-scratch for something, anything that
may justify a formal impeachment, a clear, documented record emerges of Joe Biden's official interventions in Ukraine in behalf of
Burisma Holdings, the gas company that named Hunter Biden to its board in March 2014 -- a month, it is worth noting, after the U.S.–cultivated
coup in Kiev.
There is no thought of scrutinizing Biden's activities by way of an official inquiry. In its way, this, too, reflects upon
the pantomime of the impeachment probe. Are there sufficient grounds to open an investigation? Emphatically there are. Two reports
published last week make this plain by any reasonable measure.
'Bursimagate'
John Solomon, a singularly competent follower of Russiagate and Ukrainegate, published
a report last Monday exposing Hunter Biden's extensive contacts with the Obama State Department in the early months of 2016.
Two developments were pending at the time. They lie at the heart of what we may well call "Burismagate."
One, the Obama administration had committed to providing Ukraine with $1 billion in loan guarantees. In a December 2015 address
to the Rada, Ukraine's legislature, V–P Biden withheld an apparently planned announcement of the credit facility.
Two, coincident with Hunter Biden's numerous conferences at the State Department, Ukraine's prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin,
was swiftly advancing a corruption investigation into Burisma's oligarchic owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, who was by early 2016 living
in exile. Just prior to Biden's spate of visits to Foggy Bottom, Shokin had confiscated several of Zlochevsky's properties -- a clear
sign that he was closing in. Joe Biden wanted Shokin fired. He is, of course,
famously on the record boasting of his threat [starts at
52.00 in video below]to withhold the loan guarantee as a means to getting this done. Shokin was in short order dismissed, and the
loan guarantee went through.
Solomon documents his report with memos he obtained via the Freedom of Information Act earlier this year. These add significantly
to the picture. "Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the Obama State Department during
the 2016 election cycle," he writes, "including one just a month before Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor
investigating his son's company for corruption."
Last Tuesday, a day after Solomon published his report, Moon of Alabama , the much-followed web publication, posted a granularly
researched and well-sourced
timeline of the events surrounding Shokin's dismissal at Vice President Biden's request. This is the most complete chronology
of the Burismagate story yet available.
In an ethical judicial system, it or something like it would now sit on a prosecutor's desk. There is no suggestion in the Moon
of Alabama's timeline that Shokin had shelved his investigation into Burisma by the time Biden exerted pressure to get him sacked,
as Biden's defenders assert. Just the opposite appears to be the true case: The timeline indicates Shokin was about to pounce. Indeed
Shokin said so under oath in an Austrian
court case, testifying that he was fired because of Biden's pressure not to conduct the probe.
It is important to note that there is no conclusive evidence that Joe Biden misused his office in behalf of his son's business
interests simply because there has been no investigation. Given what is beginning to emerge, however, the need for one can no longer
be in doubt. Can Democrats and the media obscure indefinitely what now amounts to very strong circumstantial evidence against Biden?
We live in a time when the corporate media make as much effort to hide information as they do to report it. But as in the case
of Ciaramella's identity, it is unlikely these myriad omissions can be sustained indefinitely -- especially if Biden wins the Democratic
nomination next year. Forecast: If only because of Burismagate, Joe Biden will never be president.
As everyone in Washington seems to understand, it is highly unlikely Trump will be ousted via an impeachment trial: The Republican-controlled
Senate can be counted on to keep him in office. Whatever Trump got up to with Zelensky, there is little chance it will prove sufficient
to drive him from office. As to the charge that Trump's dealings with the Ukrainian president threatened national security, let us
allow this old chestnut to speak for itself.
Price of Irresponsible Theatrics
This leaves us to reckon the price our troubled republic will pay for months of irresponsible theatrics that are more or less
preordained to lead nowhere.
More questions. What damage will the Democrats have done when Ukrainegate draws to a close (assuming it does at some point)? What
harm has come to U.S. political institutions, governing bodies, judiciary and media? The corporate press has been profligately careless
of its already questionable credibility during the years of Russiagate and now Ukrainegate. Can anyone argue there is no lasting
price to pay for this?
More urgently, what do the past three years of incessant efforts to unseat a president tell us about the power of unelected constituencies?
The CIA is now openly operating on American soil in clear breach of its charter and U.S. law. There is absolutely no way this can
be questioned. We must now contemplate the frightening similarities Russiagate and Ukrainegate share with the agency's classic coup
operations abroad: Commandeering the media, stirring discontent with the leadership, pumping up the opposition, waving false flags,
incessant disinformation campaigns: Maybe it was fated that what America has been doing abroad the whole of the postwar era would
eventually come home.
What, at last, must we conclude about the ability of any president (of any stripe) to effect authentic change when our administrative
state -- "deep," if you like -- opposes it?
"... I might have to disagree with Vindman being labelled 'a bureaucrat among bureaucrats'. I would judge that his allegiances lay elsewhere and by that I do not mean the dual loyalty to the Ukraine, even though he appears to be acting in the roll of Kiev's man in Washington. I suppose that you would say that he is a member of the deep state and the policies that they formulate with little regard to who is in power. ..."
"... Burisma is just one of numerous examples of the payoffs and shady deals that poison the American political system and disgust citizens. Schiff has been given the impossible task of trying to defend that against mounting evidence of corruption. How can he or anyone else rationalize that little gas board activity, or countless others including those benefiting those people related to elected officials across the aisle. ..."
"... One of the wonderful aspects of Empire is that you get to house all the right-wing exiles from around the world. Whether it's Batista-ites from Cuba, Curveballs from Iraq, rich, right-wing "refugees" from Chavismo in South America or Ukrainians like Vindman. They're happy to use the host country to further a color revolution back home, and the CIA is happy to use them as cover for another Empire resource grab. ..."
Ilargi: Vindman, the
Expert Posted on November 13, 2019
by Yves Smith
Yves here. While the main source for this piece on Alexander Vindman is Byron York of the
Washington Examiner, bear in mind that the Examiner is a non-crazy right-leaning site and has
even broken some important stories. It is telling that there are so few people on the left who
have the patience and constitutional fortitude to pick through the impeachment evidence
carefully, see what it amounts to and withstand the vitriol if what they find is not what Team
Dem insists is there.
And that's before we get to our regular lament: why are the Dems choosing a line of inquiry
which is a hairball (albeit less of one than Russiagate) and also has the Dems taking the
position that the President is not in charge of foreign policy, and should defer to the CIA and
other non-accountable insiders? Why not go after emoluments, which is in the Constitution as a
Presidential no-no, where Trump has clearly abused repeatedly (you need go no further than the
guest list in his DC hotel) and therefore easy to prove, and would have the added benefit of
allowing Team Dem to rummage around in his finances?
By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at
Automatic Earth
Let's see what shape I can give this. I was reading a piece by Byron York that has the first
good read-out I've seen of the October 29 deposition by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman,
self-labeled no. 1 Ukraine expert at the National Security Counsel, and I want to share that in
a summarized form, with my comments. There'll be some longer quotes though. And I know there
are people who may not like York, but just skip his opinions and focus on the facts then.
Overall, Vindman comes across to me as a bureaucrat among bureaucrats, who also appears to
be on the edge what we think of when we mention the Deep State. And who seems to think his
views and opinions trump Trump's own. ".. his greatest worry was that if the Trump-Zelensky
conversation were made public, then Ukraine might lose the bipartisan support it currently has
in Congress."
A US President is elected to determine foreign policy, but Vindman doesn't like things that
way. He wants the policy to be set by people like him. It brings to mind Nikki Haley saying
that Tillerson and Kelly wanted her to disobey the President, because they felt they knew
better. That slide is mighty slippery. And unconstitutional too.
And the suspicion that Vindman's report of the call may be what set off "whistleblowing" CIA
agent Eric Ciaramella is more alive after the testimony than before. But, conveniently, his
name may not be spoken. For pete's sake,
Vindman Even Testified He Advised Ukrainians to Ignore Trump .
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in
full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council
Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between
President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the
Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his
testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper
[for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news
reports.
Here are four problems with the Vindman testimony:
1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
[..] Indeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to
some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript
that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president. As one of a half-dozen
White House note-takers listening to the call, Vindman testified that he tried unsuccessfully
to make a few edits to the rough transcript as it was being prepared. In particular, Vindman
believed that Zelensky specifically said the word "Burisma," the corrupt Ukrainian energy
company that hired Hunter Biden, when the rough transcript referred only to "the company."
But beyond that, Vindman had no problems with the transcript, and he specifically said he did
not believe any changes were made with ill intent.
"You don't think there was any malicious intent to specifically not add those edits?"
asked Republican counsel Steve Castor. "I don't think so." "So otherwise, this record is
complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?" "Yes," said Vindman. Once Vindman
had vouched for the rough transcript, his testimony mostly concerned his own interpretation
of Trump's words. And that interpretation, as Vindman discovered during questioning, was
itself open to interpretation. Vindman said he was "concerned" about Trump's statements to
Zelensky, so concerned that he reported it to top National Security Council lawyer John
Eisenberg. (Vindman had also reported concerns to Eisenberg two weeks before the
Trump-Zelensky call, after a Ukraine-related meeting that included Gordon Sondland, the U.S.
ambassador to the European Union.)
Vindman said several times that he was not a lawyer and did not know if Trump's words
amounted to a crime but that he felt they were "wrong." That was when Republican Rep. John
Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, tried to get to the root of Vindman's concerns. What was
really bothering him? "I'm trying to find out if you were reporting it because you thought
there was something wrong with respect to policy or there was something wrong with respect to
the law," Ratcliffe said to Vindman. "And what I understand you to say is that you
weren't certain that there was anything improper with respect to the law, but you had
concerns about U.S. policy. Is that a fair characterization?"
"So I would recharacterize it as I thought it was wrong and I was sharing those views,"
Vindman answered. "And I was deeply concerned about the implications for bilateral relations,
U.S. national security interests, in that if this was exposed, it would be seen as a partisan
play by Ukraine. It loses the bipartisan support. And then for -- " "I understand that,"
Ratcliffe said, "but that sounds like a policy reason, not a legal reason." Indeed it
did.
Elsewhere in Vindman's testimony, he repeated that his greatest worry was that if
the Trump-Zelensky conversation were made public, then Ukraine might lose the bipartisan
support it currently has in Congress. That, to Ratcliffe and other Republicans, did not seem
a sufficient reason to report the call to the NSC's top lawyer, nor did it seem the basis to
begin a process leading to impeachment and a charge of presidential high crimes or
misdemeanors.
So Vindman was so concerned that he contacted the National Security Council (NSC) top
lawyer, John Eisenberg. However, when John Ratcliffe asked Vindman: "I'm trying to find out
if you were reporting it because you thought there was something wrong with respect to policy
or there was something wrong with respect to the law.." , it turns out, it was about
policy, not the law. So why did he contact Eisenberg? He doesn't know the difference, or
pretends he doesn't know? Moreover, Eisenberg's not the only person Vindman contacted. There
were lots of others. And remember, this is sensitive material. Vindman was listening in on the
President's phone call with a foreign leader, in itself a strange event. Presidents and PM's
should be able to expect confidentiality.
2) Vindman withheld important information from investigators.
Vindman ended his opening statement in the standard way, by saying, "Now, I would be
happy to answer your questions." As it turned out, that cooperation did not extend to both
parties.
The only news in Vindman's testimony was the fact that he had twice taken his concerns to
Eisenberg. He also told his twin brother, Yevgeny Vindman, who is also an Army lieutenant
colonel and serves as a National Security Council lawyer. He also told another NSC official,
John Erath, and he gave what he characterized as a partial readout of the call to George
Kent, a career State Department official who dealt with Ukraine. That led to an obvious
question: Did Vindman take his concerns to anyone else? Did he discuss the Trump-Zelensky
call with anyone else? It was a reasonable question, and an important one. Republicans asked
it time and time again. Vindman refused to answer, with his lawyer, Michael Volkov, sometimes
belligerently joining in. Through it all, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff
stood firm in favor of keeping his committee in the dark.
[..] Vindman openly conceded that he told other people about the call. The obvious
suspicion from Republicans was that Vindman told the person who became the whistleblower, who
reported the call to the Intelligence Community inspector general, and who, in a carefully
crafted legal document, framed the issue in a way that Democrats have adopted in their drive
to remove the president from office. Vindman addressed the suspicion before anyone raised it.
In his opening statement, he said, "I am not the whistleblower I do not know who the
whistleblower is and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of the
whistleblower."
Fine, said Republicans. We won't ask you who the whistleblower is. But if your story is
that you were so concerned by the Trump-Zelensky issue that you reported it to Eisenberg, and
also to others, well, who all did you tell? That is when the GOP hit a brick wall from
Vindman, his lawyer Volkov, and, most importantly, Schiff. As chairman of the Intelligence
Committee, charged with overseeing the intelligence community, Schiff might normally want to
know about any intelligence community involvement in the matter under investigation. But in
the Vindman deposition, Schiff strictly forbade any questions about it. "Can I just caution
again," he said at one point, "not to go into names of people affiliated with the IC in any
way." The purpose of it all was to protect the identity of the whistleblower, who Schiff
incorrectly claimed has "a statutory right to anonymity."
Schiff's role is beyond curious. Sometimes you think he's the boy with his finger in the
dike, mighty fearful that it could break at any moment. But then Vindman's lawyer jumps in as
well:
That left Republicans struggling to figure out what happened. "I'm just trying to
better understand who the universe of people the concerns were expressed to," said Castor.
"Look, the reason we're objecting is not -- we don't want -- my client does not want to be in
the position of being used to identifying the whistleblower, okay?" said Volkov. "And based
on the chair's ruling, as I understand it, [Vindman] is not required to answer any question
that would tend to identify an intelligence officer."
[..] Vindman's basic answer was: I won't tell you because that's a secret. After
several such exchanges, Volkov got tough with lawmakers, suggesting further inquiries might
hurt Vindman's feelings. "Look, he came here," Volkov said. "He came here. He tells you he's
not the whistleblower, okay? He says he feels uncomfortable about it. Try to respect his
feelings at this point." An unidentified voice spoke up. "We're uncomfortable impeaching the
president," it said. "Excuse me. Excuse me," Volkov responded. "If you want to debate it, we
can debate it, but what I'm telling you right now is you have to protect the identity of the
whistleblower. I get that there may be political overtones. You guys go do what you got to
do, but do not put this man in the middle of it."
Castor spoke up. "So how does it out anyone by saying that he had one other conversation
other than the one he had with George Kent?" "Okay," said Volkov. "What I'm telling you right
now is we're not going to answer that question. If the chair wants to hold him in contempt
for protecting the whistleblower, God be with you. You don't need this. You don't need to go
down this. And look, you guys can -- if you want to ask, you can ask -- you can ask questions
about his conversation with Mr. Kent. That's it. We're not answering any others." "The only
conversation that we can speak to Col. Vindman about is his conversation with Ambassador
Kent?" asked Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin. "Correct," said Volkov, "and you've already asked
him questions about it."
"And any other conversation that he had with absolutely anyone else is off limits?" "No,"
said Volkov. "He's told you about his conversations with people in the National Security
Council. What you're asking him to do is talk about conversations outside the National
Security Council. And he's not going to do that. I know where you're going." "No,
actually, you don't," said Zeldin. "Oh, yes, sir," said Volkov. "No, you really don't," said
Zeldin. "You know what?" said Volkov. "I know what you're going to say. I already know
what you're going to do, okay? And I don't want to hear the FOX News questions, okay?"
[..] It should be noted that Volkov was a lawyer, and members of Congress were members
of Congress. The lawyer should not be treating the lawmakers as Volkov did. Volkov was
able to tell Republicans to buzz off only because he had Schiff's full support . And
Republicans never found out who else Vindman discussed the Trump-Zelensky call with.
Looking at this, you get to wonder what the role is of GOP lawmakers, and why anyone would
want to be one. Their peers across the aisle pretend they can tell them exactly what and what
not to do or say. Is that why they are elected? I couldn't find one question or even word in
here that would be labeled unfitting, or out of place, or aggressive or anything like that. But
even then, they hit a brick wall.
So what makes Vindman the expert on Ukraine? I get the idea that it's his compliance with
whatever anyone says is the desired and required policy, and in this case, what is not. He
certainly doesn't appear to know everything. Maybe that's because he left the country at age
three.
3) There were notable gaps in Vindman's knowledge.
Vindman portrayed himself as the man to see on the National Security Council when it
came to issues involving Ukraine. "I'm the director for Ukraine," he testified. "I'm
responsible for Ukraine. I'm the most knowledgeable. I'm the authority for Ukraine for the
National Security Council and the White House." Yet at times there were striking gaps in
Vindman's knowledge of the subject matter. He seemed, for instance, distinctly incurious
about the corruption issues in Ukraine that touched on Joe and Hunter Biden.
Vindman agreed with everyone that Ukraine has a serious corruption problem. But he knew
little specifically about Burisma, the nation's second-largest privately owned energy
company, and even less about Mykola Zlochevsky, the oligarch who runs the firm. "What do you
know about Zlochevsky, the oligarch that controls Burisma?" asked Castor. "I frankly don't
know a huge amount," Vindman said. "Are you aware that he's a former Minister of Ecology"?
Castor asked, referring to a position Zlochevsky allegedly used to steer valuable government
licenses to Burisma. "I'm not," said Vindman.
"Are you aware of any of the investigations the company has been involved with over the
last several years?" "I am aware that Burisma does have questionable business dealings,"
Vindman said. "That's part of the track record, yes." "Okay. And what questionable business
dealings are you aware of?" asked Castor. Vindman said he did not know beyond generalities.
"The general answer is I think they have had questionable business dealings," Vindman
said.
[..] Vindman had other blind spots, as well. One important example concerned U.S.
provision of so-called lethal aid to Ukraine, specifically anti-tank missiles known as
Javelins. The Obama administration famously refused to provide Javelins or other lethal aid
to Ukraine, while the Trump administration reversed that policy, sending a shipment of
missiles in 2018. On the Trump-Zelensky call, the two leaders discussed another shipment in
the future. "Both those parts of the call, the request for investigation of Crowd Strike and
those issues, and the request for investigation of the Bidens, both of those discussions
followed the Ukraine president saying they were ready to buy more Javelins. Is that right?"
asked Schiff.
"Yes," said Vindman. "There was a prior shipment of Javelins to Ukraine, wasn't there?"
said Schiff. "So that was, I believe -- I apologize if the timing is incorrect -- under the
previous administration, there was a -- I'm aware of the transfer of a fairly significant
number of Javelins, yes," Vindman said. Vindman's timing was incorrect. Part of the entire
Trump-Ukraine story is the fact that Trump sent the missiles while Obama did not. The top
Ukraine expert on the National Security Council did not seem to know that.
York goes on to explain just how much of a bureaucrat Vindman is, as exemplified by things
like "..there's a fairly consensus policy within the interagency towards Ukraine," . The
"interagency" doesn't set -foreign- policy, the President does.
4) Vindman was a creature of a bureaucracy that has often opposed President
Trump.
One of his favorite words is "interagency," by which he means the National Security
Council's role in coordinating policy among the State Department, Defense Department, the
Intelligence Community, the Treasury Department, and the White House. [..] He says things
such as, "So I hold at my level sub-PCCs, Deputy Assistant Secretary level. PCCs are my boss,
senior director with Assistant Secretaries. DCs are with the deputy of the National Security
Council with his deputy counterparts within the interagency." He believes the interagency has
set a clear U.S. policy toward Ukraine. "You said in your opening statement, or you indicated
at least, that there's a fairly consensus policy within the interagency towards Ukraine,"
Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman said to Vindman.
"Could you just explain what that consensus policy is, in your own words?" "What I can
tell you is, over the course of certainly my tenure there, since July 2018, the interagency,
as per normal procedures, assembles under the NSPM-4, the National Security Policy [sic]
Memorandum 4, process to coordinate U.S. government policy," Vindman said. "We, over the
course of this past year, probably assembled easily a dozen times, certainly at my level,
which is called a subpolicy coordinating committee -- and that's myself and my counterparts
at the Deputy Assistant Secretary level -- to discuss our views on Ukraine."
The "interagency" doesn't set policy, the President does -and with him perhaps the House and
Senate. But not an alphabet soup of agencies.
I've said it before, and I fear I may have to say it again, this is a show trial. And no,
it's not even a trial, that happens next in the Senate. Jonathan Turley said the other day that
he thinks Nancy Pelosi wants a quick -before Christmas- resolution to the House part, but I'm
not convinced.
The reason is that the Democrats lose the director's chair once this moves to the Senate.
They can't silence the Republicans there the same way Adam Schiff does it in the House. Pelosi
herself said in March that impeachment MUST be a bipartisan effort. It's unclear why she
abandoned that position in August, but I think it could be panic, and that it was the worst
move she could have made.
Because this thing in its present shape is unwinnable. To impeach Trump, the Dems would need
Republican votes. But how could they possibly get those when they lock out the Republicans of
the entire process?
I certainly have no legal expertise & knowledge relating to what it takes to impeach a
president, but it does all strike be as being pretty threadbare & if it it all falls
apart only likely to strengthen Trump's support. I get the feeling that the only truly smart
thing about these people is in their ability to constantly fill their rice bowls &
perhaps we need an extra definition for that word.
Smart :
adj. Having or showing intelligence; bright. synonym: intelligent.
adj. Canny and shrewd in dealings with others.
IMO, I also don't believe that the above applies to gadgets, apps or whatever.
I always think of something similar to your second definition when I hear/read that
someone is smart. It is a subclass of self-serving intelligence. If I put myself in Vindman's
position, what would I do? What would be smart and what would be on the general interest?.
His actions reflect where he feels his obligations belong and it shows clearly he was
"obligued" to the interagency, not to the President. It is not clear to me if he thougth that
the interagency represents, better than the president, the interest of the US or if he was
being smart and thinking of his own career within the interagency.
I might have to disagree with Vindman being labelled 'a bureaucrat among bureaucrats'. I
would judge that his allegiances lay elsewhere and by that I do not mean the dual loyalty to
the Ukraine, even though he appears to be acting in the roll of Kiev's man in Washington. I
suppose that you would say that he is a member of the deep state and the policies that they
formulate with little regard to who is in power. That is the thing about these hearings. The
moment that the Republicans pull at a loose thread of this narrative, the Democrats stomp on
it before it goes any further. But the connections are all there on record and can be
followed up. Here are some examples.
Burisma, who is at the heart of this whole matter, has been giving the Atlantic Council
$100,000 a year for the past three years which is deep state central. You can see their name
in the $100,000 – $249,999 section at https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/support-the-council/honor-roll-of-contributors/
and is just below the British Consulate General Istanbul and two entries above CNN. Burisma
"also reimbursed speaker travel and event costs, which amounted to around [$50,000 to
$70,000] per year." One of the staffers that went there was Thomas Eager who worked for
Schiff's Intelligence Committee, and the group at one point met with Bill Taylor, the top
U.S. diplomat in Ukraine. Bill Taylor is now one of the main witnesses.
If any sort of proper investigations start then it will open up all these people and their
connections and the lucrative payments that they have been receiving from places like
Burisma. Maybe when this case first came up the DNC thought that this was an impeachment case
to die for but they may very well get their wish. It is all there online and it does not take
much to find a very dubious group of people, organizations and companies with it seems the
Atlantic Council acting as some sort of clearing house. Below is just one article talking
about some of this stuff as an example-
Burisma is just one of numerous examples of the payoffs and shady deals that poison the
American political system and disgust citizens. Schiff has been given the impossible task of
trying to defend that against mounting evidence of corruption. How can he or anyone else
rationalize that little gas board activity, or countless others including those benefiting
those people related to elected officials across the aisle.
That defense of the widespread corruption permeating the DC culture is the real subject of
Schiff's fool's errand. When he fails, that will set back whatever good works the Dems have
been trying to accomplish, and undermine what remains of an alleged two-party system. That is
the Hill upon which he has been sent to die.
How can the Party that inflicted Christine Blasey Ford on us and turned a Supreme Court
nomination into a Jerry Springer show demean the institutions of the Republic further into
disrepute? With this going nowhere piece of political theater.
I have a hard time believing that any Lieutenant Colonel could be sufficiently high enough
in the food chain to have any impact on policy. I wonder if people are focusing on him too
much, at the expense of what's really going on here.
This isn't just a matter of the bureaucracy at odds with the President – it's also
Congress. Despite what many people seem to think, the President does not have carte blanche
in the conduct of foreign policy. Congress passed legislation to provide military assistance
to Ukraine. The President does not have the authority to decide on his own on whether to
execute that legislation or not. Unless there are conditions attached to that legislation, or
previously existing, the President cannot attach conditions of his own to that
legislation.
The U.S. system of government, as clearly envisioned by the founders, was set up with the
legislative branch to have more power than either the executive or judicial. Only Congress
can initiate legislation, and if the President vetoes it, Congress has the power to override
that veto. You can argue the merits of providing military assistance to the Ukraine (which I
personally think is a bad idea), but Congress did approve of it in accordance with the
Constitution. Trump withholding that assistance most likely did not. There are a lot of bad
actors on both sides of this controversy, but that doesn't mean that there aren't certain
principles worth defending. In my mind, Congress reasserting itself over the President is an
important enough principle to support impeachment (assuming they make their case). Long term,
such a position could also be used to reign in the blob.
One of the wonderful aspects of Empire is that you get to house all the right-wing exiles
from around the world. Whether it's Batista-ites from Cuba, Curveballs from Iraq, rich,
right-wing "refugees" from Chavismo in South America or Ukrainians like Vindman. They're
happy to use the host country to further a color revolution back home, and the CIA is happy
to use them as cover for another Empire resource grab.
What I find amusing about all this is that there is an influential school of American
political science writing going back to Huntington and Janowitz which shows an almost
paranoid distrust of career military officers and their potential impact on policy, and
advocates their close "control" by civilian political authorities to prevent them influencing
government too much. Now, suddenly, every General who ever led a military coup because they
feared that the government was doing things that were bad for the country will be feeling
retrospectively justified. The position in any democracy is quite clear: the government makes
the decisions in the context of existing laws, including the Constitution. Government
officials, in uniform or not, are not there to substitute their judgement of the interests of
the country for the judgement of the political leadership.
One might even entertain the suspicion that the reason so many keep accusing Trump of
fascism is that they keep flirting with it themselves. That "interagency consensus" thing is
much scarier than Trump and indeed some of his more despicable moves –Venezuela,
Bolivia(?)–may track back to that very source. Some of us have long thought that what
the USG does in Latin America is what they would like to do here if they could get away with
it. The previous Clinton impeachment, Bush v Gore, the media's lockstep approval of
imperialistic militaristic "narratives," the wild, over the top rejection of Trump's defeat
of Hillary–all show a deep contempt for the democratic process by both parties. Letting
military or IC figures opine on policy is part of this. How long before some general tells
Trump he should resign to "restore order"?
These Deep-Staters, who aren't so deep anymore, remind me of those Japanese theatre
stage hands that dress in black and by convention, are invisible to the audience, even though
they move about the stage in plain sight.
They've gradually become more and more visible, what with color revolutions abroad, and
election fraud at home, and finally, one would hope, they are throwing a tantrum, insisting
not only that they are still ' invisible' but that their efforts to pull off regime
change here at home are legitimate.
Which reminds me of a good friend's definition of a politician;
"A politician is a person who would try to steal a red-hot stove with their bare
hands."
"... this impeachment isn't directed at Trump at all, it's about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party agenda away from the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public health-care and equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing to the corporate gods. ..."
"... Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the Repoops are like the Genovese. And they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth. ..."
"... To me Trump is like the mobster Joe Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and wanted to start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split when it comes to impeachment. ..."
"... Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist Web Site: The CIA Democrats . ..."
"... "The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving to leave their audience with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth." ..."
"... Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get the entire alphabet included; ahoy all boats! ..."
"... Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament. Since the end of World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a "war on terrorism" meant to settle matters once and for all. ..."
"... To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is essentially zero. ..."
"... The very fact Bloomberg had to enter the Democratic Party presidential race is the definite proof Biden's corruption and involvement on the destruction of Ukraine is so overwhelming and difficult to hide that it will eventually be impossible to cover it with the NYT and WaPo power alone should he be chosen as the nominee. ..."
I am amazed how the Impeachment Circus and the mainstream media continue to
ignore the facts of this story:
Joe Biden has been a favorite target for Trump-allied lawmakers. Many have adopted Trump's unsubstantiated assertion that Biden
pushed for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, because he was investigating Burisma.
The CIA is emerging as a domestic political party.
...
Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest. "The CIA is not involved in domestic politics," he said. "Period. That's on the
record."
This he asserted confidently, at an event where he had just spoken about about influence campaigns on swing voters and implied
that Hillary Clinton might be right in calling U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Even seasoned analysts, it
seems, have their blind spots.
What shifted [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] now? I'd say the answer is: this impeachment isn't directed at Trump at all, it's
about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party
agenda away from the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public health-care and
equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing to the corporate gods.
I agree with Mr. Salutin, the impeachment is not about impeachment, although if impeachment results, I'm sure they will take
it. And I agree it's about protecting the current Democratic Part "elites", both from scandal (Joe Biden, Clinton) and from the
challenge on the left. A risky and desperate move .
I tend to think it was Trump going after the Ukraine cesspit that precipitated the impeachment, but other motives seem relevant.
I have thought since Obama went all in with Russiagate that the current Dem leadership does not feel it can afford to relinquish
control.
Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the Repoops are like the Genovese. And
they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth.
To me Trump
is like the mobster Joe Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and wanted to
start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split
when it comes to impeachment.
Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair'
(original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19, nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)
Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist
Web Site: The CIA Democrats .
Craig Murray has an exclusive interview with
Randy Credico he prefaces with these remarks:
"The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself
was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone
trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about
Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving
to leave their audience with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact
it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on
a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth."
That would include MoA barflies since we crave Truth. Murray has a bit more to say prior to the excerpt I provide, which I
suggest be read, too.
What a feast of links! I've only just started, with b's Daniel Lazare piece at Stretegic Culture.org - well done!
" ...This is what impeachment is about, not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine – plus Syria, Libya,
Yemen, and other countries that the Obama administration succeeded in destroying – and why Trump should pay the supreme penalty
for suggesting that Democrats are in any way to blame..."
Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get the entire alphabet included; ahoy all
boats!
Impeachment is about controlling where the attention is focused. When things get to close to home Pelosi says look over here at
the orange head, look over there at the border but whatever you do, do not look over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1KfU5ifhqE ">here.
"Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair'
(original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19, nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)"
Andrew J. Bacevich weighs in on US foreign policy:
Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament. Since the end of
World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian
Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly
in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a
"war on terrorism" meant to settle matters once and for all.
To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the
ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that
failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is essentially zero.
There is no going back to an imagined Golden Age of American statecraft in the Middle East. The imperative is to go forward,
which requires acknowledging how wrongheaded U.S. policy in region has been ever since FDR had his famous tete-a-tete with
King Ibn Saud and Harry Truman rushed to recognize the newborn State of Israel.t
The very fact Bloomberg had to enter the Democratic Party presidential race is the definite proof Biden's corruption and involvement
on the destruction of Ukraine is so overwhelming and difficult to hide that it will eventually be impossible to cover it with
the NYT and WaPo power alone should he be chosen as the nominee.
Is Whistleblower Aid a Charity Fraud? by Larry C Johnson There has been a lot of
smoke and diversion put up with regards to alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella thanks to the
work of his lawyer, Mark Zaid, and the charitable foundation supporting this
effort--Whistleblower Aid. I think it is time to set the record straight and raise some serious
questions about both Ciaramella and the charity backing him.
Eric Ciaramella, according to various press reports, is a CIA intelligence analyst who also
has close ties to Democrats working against Donald Trump. Ciaramella worked at the National
Security Council on the Ukraine issue and had repeated contacts with individuals, such as DNC
operative Alexandra Chalupa, who were involved in the plot to smear Donald Trump as an agent of
Russia. It also is reported that Ciaramella was suspected of being the source for a false story
claiming that former FBI Director Comey was fired because Vladimir Putin told Trump to do it.
And, most importantly, Ciaramella was back at CIA Headquarters when Donald Trump spoke with
Ukraine's President Zelensky. He did not listen in on the call nor did he have access to the
transcript.
Here's the bottomline--Ciaramella, lacking first hand information, does not qualify as a
whistleblower. As a former intelligence analyst, like Ciaramella, I know that you must have
first hand information. What qualifies as first hand? You listened in on the conversation. You
read the transcript. Or, and no one has raised this, you have a piece of human or signals
intelligence that tells a different story from the publicized transcript. ZERO evidence for any
of this. Ciaramella's only qualification is that he does not like Trump and his policies
towards Ukraine.
Then there is the indisputable fact that the Ukrainian President is on the record, in
public, denying any pressure and denying any quid pro quo.
All of these facts justify bringing Mr. Ciaramella before Congress, putting him under oath
and getting him to explain the foundation for his claims. But Democrats and anti-Trumpers are
saying "no" and insisting that the identity of the whistleblower must be protected at all
costs. That is bunk. There is only one legitimate reason to keep the whistleblower's identity
secret--i.e., if he or she was undercover, either official or non-official. Ciaramella was not
undercover. He is no different from any other civil servant who works in any other part of the
Federal bureaucracy. He just happens to hold a Top Secret clearance.
I know several whistleblowers who have been vilified publicly by the very bureaucracies
where they exposed wrong doing--Bill Binney (NSA), Kirk Wiebe (NSA), Ed Loomis (NSA),
Russ Tice (NSA), Diane
Roark (Congress), John Kiriakou (CIA) and Peter Van Buren (State). In none of these
cases was there a public outcry to protect their identity. And there is one big difference
between these whistleblowers and Ciaramella--they had first hand knowledge about wrongdoing in
their respective organizations.
Which brings me to the not-for-profit organization that is backing Ciaramella--Whistleblower
Aid. According to Wikipedia :
In September 2017, Tye and lawyer Mark Zaid cofounded Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit law
firm.
But public records tell a different story. Whistleblower Aid is a "doing-business-as" name.
The incorporated name is Values United. It was
incorporated in Louisiana in April 2009 . The incorporation subsequently was revoked in
2013 and reinstated on 13 March 2017. Here is the Louisiana document:
Values United was granted 501 (c) (3) status on 30 March 2017 (you can find the determination
letter here .)
So, it was organized in March of 2017, not September. A minor point I suppose but a key
fact.
What do we find when we look at the 990 tax return required for not-for-profits? The DBA
name for Values United is Whistleblower Aid:
There is another oddity revealed in the tax return for Whistleblower Aid--huge liabilities.
Total assets at the end of 2017 are $133,106.00. Total liabilities? $752,823.00. Where was the
money going? Who was getting paid? And how is an organization with more than $600,000 in debt
able to stay afloat. True not-for-profits are supposed to operate according to strict oversight
and rules. Is Whistleblower Aid doing what it is chartered to do or is it acting as a partisan
political organization, something a charitable group is not allowed to do. It is worth looking
at.
and had repeated contacts with individuals, such as DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa
So, all roads, then, lead to a criminal undercover org of Taco Bell. When I thought it
couldn't get any more tragicomic, it did. Now Taco Bell's commercials chihuahua comes in mind
with "drop the Chalupa" line. I wonder what do they mean by "drop".
State attorney general offices provide charitable non-profit oversight and offer a complaint
process. George Soros has been campaigning to buy up AG offices, since they wield so much
power behind the spotlight. Someone is Louisiana needs to file an AG complaint.
Liabilities are explained on the attached schedules.
It appears the bulk of the liabilities (nearly $600k) are in the form of loans made TO
"Values United" by the principal officer and his father.
They appear to have financed the bulk of the activity for 2017 via the loans.
They must not have filed a tax return for 2018 (or the IRS hasn't posted it yet.)
Note sure what is going on, but it does appear to be strange. Hard to tell what exactly
they are spending the money on, other than nearly $300k for a flashy Media Strategy firm.
Yeah. Looks more like a vanity charity. Charity fraud shows up on the expenses side that
go to favored parties and has a lot of income that comes from "donors" that expect something
in return. Certain well known foundations by former presidents come to mind. Charitable
foundations are quite a racket.
Is it merely coincidence that it was transformed into "Whistleblower Aid" this late Spring
just when IC Inspector General Michael Atkinson was installed, the IG who changed whistle
blower policies which now no longer require firsthand knowledge ?
This sure seems like one of Chuck Schumer's "6 ways from Sunday" the IC is trying, to get
back at Trump. I wonder who funds this "charity"?
Am I mistaken or isn't this form, so conveniently revised just this past August, 2019, the
"whistleblower" form which now reflects the policy change of permitting secondhand
information?
Who backed the significant debt of this operation is an equally interesting question? . What
do the minutes of the board of directors meetings disclose. How did this significant debt
conform to its stated charitable intent, that allowed its IRS tax exempt status. How
"charitable" will it be if this organization defaults on this amount of debt? More
information, please.
Why do the names "Values United" and "Volunteers United" sound so much like a
counter-punch to "Citizens United", the anathema SCOTUS ruling to both Democrats and the big
public sector unions.
"Why do the names "Values United" and "Volunteers United" sound so much like a
counter-punch to "Citizens United", the anathema SCOTUS ruling to both Democrats and the
big public sector unions.
The post-Clinton Deomcratic Party establishment has adapted to the Citizens
United decision just fine, thank you very much. They just took their cue from Groucho Marx:
"These are my principles! You don't like them? I have others."
Out West we get two standard slurs against all conservatives (aka alt right, far right, right
wingers, Fox and Friends and white supremists:
Conservatives are tools of Citizen United and the Koch Bros. Boooo, hisss, booo!
Clinton swore the first thing she would do as POTUS was get a constitutional amendment
against Citizens United. You report an interesting change of heart. Tell me more. Why is
Citizens United now working for the Democrat Party - the post-Clinton Democrat party, soon to
become the Neo-Clinton party?
It seems to me that Trump is constantly on the back foot playing defense. He does not seem
proactive in countering his opposition and directly taking the fight to his opponents.
He didn't declassify initially to avoid accusations of obstruction of the Mueller special
counsel. Now that Mueller didn't lay the knockout punch, they've found another reason to
claim obstruction with the Ukraine quid pro quo. All along he knew that Rosenstein played him
by setting up Mueller, yet he did not fire him. Same with Wray. He's now passed the buck on
to Barr who has his own agenda and prerogatives.
With LTC Vindman's testimony out there he should be all over his insubordination and as
C-in-C should order his court martial.
The fact that none of the insiders in his administration have a paid any price for their
acts of leaking and stories of innuendo and fanning the flames to have him impeached is only
emboldening them to escalate and be even more brazen.
Many are hoping the Durham investigation will settle the score and that justice, while not
swift, is nevertheless sure. It'll be a huge disappointment (to say the least) if none of the
malefactors pay a hefty price.
A while back, it took me 2 years and lots of legal expenses to finally get satisfaction
from a flooring company, so I would expect something like SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY to take a
little longer!
Trump is always getting ahead of their game, as well as punching back defensively. He is
changing the dynamics. One must listen carefully. So little of his proactive charges filter
through the media - even WSJ and now Fox are playing mind games against Trump. Give Kellyanne
Conway some credit - she still gets ahead of the story like no one else.
Following a complaint, the Scottish Charity Regulator investigated and concluded that
certain aspects of the IOS activities could not be classed as charitable.
For Spook aficionados, interesting commentary on the alleged biological relationship to
the alleged "Whistleblower",Eric Ciaramella, and the former head of See Eye Aye
Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton:
''Here's the bottomline--Ciaramella, lacking first hand information, does not qualify as a
whistleblower.''
'If' Ciaramella is the whistleblower who set him up to be the whistleblower?
Could it be whistleblower Lt. Vindman, who was there, or his twin brother who is a lawyer in
the NSC?
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman------------Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovich- Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill ------------Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard,
Russian expert.
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman-Russian---Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Polish/Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovitch - Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill --Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard, Russian
expert.
I have read the testimonies and several things jump out. All these people are outspoken
anti Russia activist and pro Ukraine. According to their statements Russia is the ultimate
evil. Vindman, Yovanovitch and Hill all use the same description...''Ukraine needs US aid
because it is fighting for US interest and against Russian aggression'. Their testimonies
were as much or more about why we should support Ukraine then about what Trump said or didn't
say.
This Trump coup is coming from the NSC and the State Department, not the CIA this
time.
Calling All Patriots to Intelligence War, with Special Guest, Bill Binney
Less than 24 hours after our Nov. 7 live "fireside chat" broadcast, YouTube said our video
was "was flagged for review" and they've made it unavailable for public viewing. While we're
in the process of appealing this, we've made our broadcast available in Vimeo.
Clearly we've struck a nerve! In this too hot for YouTube broadcast, LaRouchePAC's Barbara
Boyd is joined by William Binney (former NSA and member of the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, VIPS). They give the latest in the coup attempt against President
Donald Trump.
Mark Zaid, the attorney for the fake whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, laid out the entire
plot of what we now see unfolding before our eyes in a series of tweets, starting back in
January of 2017. Zaid tweeted: "the coup has started" and "impeachment will follow
ultimately." In July of 2017, Ciarmella said that CNN would play a key role in the coup and
that, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his
supporters." Zaid further promised that the coup would take place in a series of steps and
that as one member of RESIST, within the Administration fell, two others would take their
place.
Here's some more grit regarding Eric Ciaramella, and the coup against POTUS Trump
Facebook And YouTube Erase All Mentions Of Anti-Trump Whistleblower's Name. Not only are
Facebook and YouTube's standards a form of censorship, they are an example of partisanship on
the largest social media platforms in the world.
Phil, you need to get on the State Department and NSC re the coup against Trump by the
Ukraine cabal . The State Department has been stuffed with people like the below who try to
set US policy according their personal loyalties and /or hatreds or love for any foreign
country. And as we all know the State Department lost all objectivity when the Jews
infiltrated it decades ago to run out the 'Arbarist".
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment Ukraine testimony against Trump
Fiona Hill -- -- -- -- Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard,
Russian expert.
I have read the testimonies and several things jump out. All these people are outspoken
anti Russia activist and pro Ukraine. According to their statements Russia is the ultimate
evil. Vindman, Yovanovitch and Hill all use the same description "Ukraine needs US aid
because it is fighting for US interest and against Russian aggression'. .same spin Jews put
on "Israel fighting for US and world interest against Iran'.
Their testimonies were as much or more about why we should support Ukraine then about what
Trump said or didn't say.
It is clear and was even said by Hill in her testimony that they .."should formulate foreign
policy, not they president'. And in several cases that is what they have done going even
further with sanctions on countries then what was called for and the unattentive Trump just
accepts it .
This Trump coup is coming from the Deep State of the NSC and the State Department, not the
CIA this time.
'If' Ciaramella is the whistleblower who set him up to be the whistleblower?
Could it be whistleblower Lt. Vindman, who was there, or his twin brother who is a lawyer in
the NSC?
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman------------Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovich- Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill ------------Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard,
Russian expert.
I have read the testimonies and several things jump out. All these people are outspoken anti
Russia activist and pro Ukraine. According to their statements Russia is the ultimate evil.
Vindman, Yovanovitch and Hill all use the same description...''Ukraine needs US aid because it
is fighting for US interest and against Russian aggression'. Their testimonies were as much or
more about why we should support Ukraine then about what Trump said or didn't say.
For Spook aficionados, interesting commentary on the alleged biological relationship to
the alleged "Whistleblower",Eric Ciaramella, and the former head of See Eye Aye
Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton:
Calling All Patriots to Intelligence War, with Special Guest, Bill Binney
Less than 24 hours after our Nov. 7 live "fireside chat" broadcast, YouTube said our video
was "was flagged for review" and they've made it unavailable for public viewing. While we're
in the process of appealing this, we've made our broadcast available in Vimeo.
Clearly we've struck a nerve! In this too hot for YouTube broadcast, LaRouchePAC's Barbara
Boyd is joined by William Binney (former NSA and member of the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, VIPS). They give the latest in the coup attempt against President
Donald Trump.
Mark Zaid, the attorney for the fake whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, laid out the entire
plot of what we now see unfolding before our eyes in a series of tweets, starting back in
January of 2017. Zaid tweeted: "the coup has started" and "impeachment will follow
ultimately." In July of 2017, Ciarmella said that CNN would play a key role in the coup and
that, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his
supporters." Zaid further promised that the coup would take place in a series of steps and
that as one member of RESIST, within the Administration fell, two others would take their
place.
Here's some more grit regarding Eric Ciaramella, and the coup against POTUS Trump
Facebook And YouTube Erase All Mentions Of Anti-Trump Whistleblower's Name
Not only are Facebook and YouTube's standards a form of censorship, they are an example of
partisanship on the largest social media platforms in the world.
Is Whistleblower Aid a Charity Fraud? by Larry C Johnson
There has been a lot of smoke and diversion put up with regards to alleged whistleblower
Eric Ciaramella thanks to the work of his lawyer, Mark Zaid, and the charitable foundation
supporting this effort--Whistleblower Aid. I think it is time to set the record straight and
raise some serious questions about both Ciaramella and the charity backing him.
Eric Ciaramella, according to various press reports, is a CIA intelligence analyst who also
has close ties to Democrats working against Donald Trump. Ciaramella worked at the National
Security Council on the Ukraine issue and had repeated contacts with individuals, such as DNC
operative Alexandra Chalupa, who were involved in the plot to smear Donald Trump as an agent of
Russia. It also is reported that Ciaramella was suspected of being the source for a false story
claiming that former FBI Director Comey was fired because Vladimir Putin told Trump to do it.
And, most importantly, Ciaramella was back at CIA Headquarters when Donald Trump spoke with
Ukraine's President Zelensky. He did not listen in on the call nor did he have access to the
transcript.
Here's the bottomline--Ciaramella, lacking first hand information, does not qualify as a
whistleblower. As a former intelligence analyst, like Ciaramella, I know that you must have
first hand information. What qualifies as first hand? You listened in on the conversation. You
read the transcript. Or, and no one has raised this, you have a piece of human or signals
intelligence that tells a different story from the publicized transcript. ZERO evidence for any
of this. Ciaramella's only qualification is that he does not like Trump and his policies
towards Ukraine.
Then there is the indisputable fact that the Ukrainian President is on the record, in
public, denying any pressure and denying any quid pro quo.
All of these facts justify bringing Mr. Ciaramella before Congress, putting him under oath
and getting him to explain the foundation for his claims. But Democrats and anti-Trumpers are
saying "no" and insisting that the identity of the whistleblower must be protected at all
costs. That is bunk. There is only one legitimate reason to keep the whistleblower's identity
secret--i.e., if he or she was undercover, either official or non-official. Ciaramella was not
undercover. He is no different from any other civil servant who works in any other part of the
Federal bureaucracy. He just happens to hold a Top Secret clearance.
I know several whistleblowers who have been vilified publicly by the very bureaucracies
where they exposed wrong doing--Bill Binney (NSA), Kirk Wiebe (NSA), Ed Loomis (NSA),
Russ Tice (NSA), Diane
Roark (Congress), John Kiriakou (CIA) and Peter Van Buren (State). In none of these
cases was there a public outcry to protect their identity. And there is one big difference
between these whistleblowers and Ciaramella--they had first hand knowledge about wrongdoing in
their respective organizations.
Which brings me to the not-for-profit organization that is backing Ciaramella--Whistleblower
Aid. According to Wikipedia :
In September 2017, Tye and lawyer Mark Zaid cofounded Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit law
firm.
But public records tell a different story. Whistleblower Aid is a "doing-business-as" name.
The incorporated name is Values United. It was
incorporated in Louisiana in April 2009 . The incorporation subsequently was revoked in
2013 and reinstated on 13 March 2017. Here is the Louisiana document:
Values United was granted 501 (c) (3) status on 30 March 2017 (you can find the determination
letter here .)
So, it was organized in March of 2017, not September. A minor point I suppose but a key
fact.
What do we find when we look at the 990 tax return required for not-for-profits? The DBA
name for Values United is Whistleblower Aid:
There is another oddity revealed in the tax return for Whistleblower Aid--huge liabilities.
Total assets at the end of 2017 are $133,106.00. Total liabilities? $752,823.00. Where was the
money going? Who was getting paid? And how is an organization with more than $600,000 in debt
able to stay afloat. True not-for-profits are supposed to operate according to strict oversight
and rules. Is Whistleblower Aid doing what it is chartered to do or is it acting as a partisan
political organization, something a charitable group is not allowed to do. It is worth looking
at.
and had repeated contacts with individuals, such as DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa
So, all roads, then, lead to a criminal undercover org of Taco Bell. When I thought it
couldn't get any more tragicomic, it did. Now Taco Bell's commercials chihuahua comes in mind
with "drop the Chalupa" line. I wonder what do they mean by "drop".
State attorney general offices provide charitable non-profit oversight and offer a complaint
process. George Soros has been campaigning to buy up AG offices, since they wield so much
power behind the spotlight. Someone is Louisiana needs to file an AG complaint.
Liabilities are explained on the attached schedules.
It appears the bulk of the liabilities (nearly $600k) are in the form of loans made TO
"Values United" by the principal officer and his father.
They appear to have financed the bulk of the activity for 2017 via the loans.
They must not have filed a tax return for 2018 (or the IRS hasn't posted it yet.)
Note sure what is going on, but it does appear to be strange. Hard to tell what exactly
they are spending the money on, other than nearly $300k for a flashy Media Strategy firm.
Yeah. Looks more like a vanity charity. Charity fraud shows up on the expenses side that
go to favored parties and has a lot of income that comes from "donors" that expect something
in return. Certain well known foundations by former presidents come to mind. Charitable
foundations are quite a racket.
Is it merely coincidence that it was transformed into "Whistleblower Aid" this late Spring
just when IC Inspector General Michael Atkinson was installed, the IG who changed whistle
blower policies which now no longer require firsthand knowledge ?
This sure seems like one of Chuck Schumer's "6 ways from Sunday" the IC is trying, to get
back at Trump. I wonder who funds this "charity"?
Am I mistaken or isn't this form, so conveniently revised just this past August, 2019, the
"whistleblower" form which now reflects the policy change of permitting secondhand
information?
Who backed the significant debt of this operation is an equally interesting question? . What
do the minutes of the board of directors meetings disclose. How did this significant debt
conform to its stated charitable intent, that allowed its IRS tax exempt status. How
"charitable" will it be if this organization defaults on this amount of debt? More
information, please.
Why do the names "Values United" and "Volunteers United" sound so much like a
counter-punch to "Citizens United", the anathema SCOTUS ruling to both Democrats and the big
public sector unions.
"Why do the names "Values United" and "Volunteers United" sound so much like a
counter-punch to "Citizens United", the anathema SCOTUS ruling to both Democrats and the
big public sector unions.
The post-Clinton Deomcratic Party establishment has adapted to the Citizens
United decision just fine, thank you very much. They just took their cue from Groucho Marx:
"These are my principles! You don't like them? I have others."
Out West we get two standard slurs against all conservatives (aka alt right, far right, right
wingers, Fox and Friends and white supremists:
Conservatives are tools of Citizen United and the Koch Bros. Boooo, hisss, booo!
Clinton swore the first thing she would do as POTUS was get a constitutional amendment
against Citizens United. You report an interesting change of heart. Tell me more. Why is
Citizens United now working for the Democrat Party - the post-Clinton Democrat party, soon to
become the Neo-Clinton party?
It seems to me that Trump is constantly on the back foot playing defense. He does not seem
proactive in countering his opposition and directly taking the fight to his opponents.
He didn't declassify initially to avoid accusations of obstruction of the Mueller special
counsel. Now that Mueller didn't lay the knockout punch, they've found another reason to
claim obstruction with the Ukraine quid pro quo. All along he knew that Rosenstein played him
by setting up Mueller, yet he did not fire him. Same with Wray. He's now passed the buck on
to Barr who has his own agenda and prerogatives.
With LTC Vindman's testimony out there he should be all over his insubordination and as
C-in-C should order his court martial.
The fact that none of the insiders in his administration have a paid any price for their
acts of leaking and stories of innuendo and fanning the flames to have him impeached is only
emboldening them to escalate and be even more brazen.
Many are hoping the Durham investigation will settle the score and that justice, while not
swift, is nevertheless sure. It'll be a huge disappointment (to say the least) if none of the
malefactors pay a hefty price.
A while back, it took me 2 years and lots of legal expenses to finally get satisfaction
from a flooring company, so I would expect something like SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY to take a
little longer!
Trump is always getting ahead of their game, as well as punching back defensively. He is
changing the dynamics. One must listen carefully. So little of his proactive charges filter
through the media - even WSJ and now Fox are playing mind games against Trump. Give Kellyanne
Conway some credit - she still gets ahead of the story like no one else.
Following a complaint, the Scottish Charity Regulator investigated and concluded that
certain aspects of the IOS activities could not be classed as charitable.
For Spook aficionados, interesting commentary on the alleged biological relationship to
the alleged "Whistleblower",Eric Ciaramella, and the former head of See Eye Aye
Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton:
''Here's the bottomline--Ciaramella, lacking first hand information, does not qualify as a
whistleblower.''
'If' Ciaramella is the whistleblower who set him up to be the whistleblower?
Could it be whistleblower Lt. Vindman, who was there, or his twin brother who is a lawyer in
the NSC?
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman------------Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovich- Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill ------------Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard,
Russian expert.
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman-Russian---Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Polish/Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovitch - Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill --Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard, Russian
expert.
I have read the testimonies and several things jump out. All these people are outspoken
anti Russia activist and pro Ukraine. According to their statements Russia is the ultimate
evil. Vindman, Yovanovitch and Hill all use the same description...''Ukraine needs US aid
because it is fighting for US interest and against Russian aggression'. Their testimonies
were as much or more about why we should support Ukraine then about what Trump said or didn't
say.
This Trump coup is coming from the NSC and the State Department, not the CIA this
time.
Calling All Patriots to Intelligence War, with Special Guest, Bill Binney
Less than 24 hours after our Nov. 7 live "fireside chat" broadcast, YouTube said our video
was "was flagged for review" and they've made it unavailable for public viewing. While we're
in the process of appealing this, we've made our broadcast available in Vimeo.
Clearly we've struck a nerve! In this too hot for YouTube broadcast, LaRouchePAC's Barbara
Boyd is joined by William Binney (former NSA and member of the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, VIPS). They give the latest in the coup attempt against President
Donald Trump.
Mark Zaid, the attorney for the fake whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, laid out the entire
plot of what we now see unfolding before our eyes in a series of tweets, starting back in
January of 2017. Zaid tweeted: "the coup has started" and "impeachment will follow
ultimately." In July of 2017, Ciarmella said that CNN would play a key role in the coup and
that, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his
supporters." Zaid further promised that the coup would take place in a series of steps and
that as one member of RESIST, within the Administration fell, two others would take their
place.
Here's some more grit regarding Eric Ciaramella, and the coup against POTUS Trump
Facebook And YouTube Erase All Mentions Of Anti-Trump Whistleblower's Name. Not only are
Facebook and YouTube's standards a form of censorship, they are an example of partisanship on
the largest social media platforms in the world.
article"> Ellen Ratner (sister of Bruce) was allegedly involved in some of this. Here
is what I have, mostly from the Butowsky lawsuit that was filed. Most interesting in this
data is the fact that Ellen Ratner met with Assange for 6 hours after a return flight from
Berlin. May 11 Wikileaks lawyer Michael Ratner died of cancer He had a sister Ellen Ratner, a
news analyst for Fox News and the White House correspondent for Talk Media News. Aug 26 2016
Ellen Ratner interview on Tom Hartmann. During their discussion Ellen shares news she has
heard regarding Julian Assange and his threats of releasing hacked data that will send
Hillary Clinton to prison (data that was either obtained by Russian hacker groups or DNC
staffer Seth Rich - who HRC had murdered for his betrayal). "Julian Assange is saying he's
going to do a new leak from WikiLeaks. Now, I have to tell you something, my brother Michael
was Julian Assange's attorney before he died (that's before Michael died, Julian Assange is
still alive)... and a lot of people think that what Julian Assange is actually doing is, he
has made a bet that he's going to do better under Trump than Hillary Clinton, so he's going
after Hillary Clinton." Nov 5 2016 Butowsky Lawsuit: "Mr. Butowsky stumbled into the RCH
crosshairs after Ellen Ratner, a news analyst for Fox News and the White House correspondent
for Talk Media News, contacted him in the Fall of 2016 about a meeting she had with Mr.
Assange. Ms. Ratner's brother, the late Michael Ratner, was an attorney who had represented
Mr. Assange. According to Ms. Ratner, she made a stop in London during a return flight from
Berlin, and she met with Mr. Assange for approximately six hours in the Ecuadorean embassy.
Ms. Ratner said Mr. Assange told her that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron, were responsible
for releasing the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Ms. Ratner said Mr. Assange wanted the information
relayed to Seth's parents, as it might explain the motive for Seth's murder." Dec 17 2016
Butowsky Lawsuit: "On December 17, 2016, at the instigation of Ms. Ratner, Mr. Butowsky
finally contacted Joel and Mary Rich, the parents of Seth, and he relayed the information
about Ms. Ratner's meeting with Mr. Assange. During that conversation, Mr. Rich told Mr.
Butowsky that he already knew that his sons were involved in the DNC email leak, but he and
his wife just wanted to know who murdered Seth. Mr. Rich said he was reluctant to go public
with Seth's and Aaron's role in leaking the emails because "we don't want anyone to think our
sons were responsible for getting Trump elected." Mr. Rich said he did not have enough money
to hire a private investigator, so Mr. Butowsky offered to pay for one. Mr. Rich accepted the
offer and thanked Mr. Butowsky in an email. Dec 29 2016 Butowsky Lawsuit: On December 29,
2016 at 1:51 p.m., Mr. Butowsky sent an email to Ms. Ratner from his iPad: "If the person you
met with truly said what he did, is their [sic] a reason you we aren't reporting it ?" At
3:48 p.m. that afternoon, Ms. Ratner responded as follows: "because--- it was a family
meeting---- I would have to get his permission-- will ask his new lawyer, my
sister-in-law."
e"> Go to Quantico and learn how to glow. And this term 'OCONUS lures'...that just
burns me. These terms they use to attempt to sterilize and normalize something that is
absolutely Pimping and trafficking by design. How can this legitimately be FBI and DoJ
policy? You're bringing women into the country to sex up and spy on schmucks for blackmail,
profit and control. Words mean things. It's like government 'Authorities' at all levels of
gov calling us 'civilians'? Think about that. A local cop, who is a citizen, calling you a
civilian. Like you are collateral meat in a war zone. You and the officer - are citizens of
this country. That word was inserted to separate you from your rights here. It changes the
thought and perspective of you...and the officer. And they are not the nebulous
'Authorities'! They are public servants lent certain limited powers and all the
responsibility that comes with it. Rant off, but it just bothers me...this double speak.
Words mean things and using woman for 'operations' isn't ok at all. The people that fall for
them? Just amazing dumb. As an adult, you should have formed so idea of the people you can
reasonably attract. If some 11 rated super model rolls up to you in a bar and you've been
mostly dating 5-7 range people, know that there's a reason your punching above your weight
class. Your a target. If it's too good to be true, it absolutely is. Lures are drawing a
check from our government for sex. What do we call that downtown? This should be
prosecuted...and stopped.
Seth Rich was the source of the thumb drive(s). So I guess we have to disagree. Otherwise
why was he killed? WHY would Podesta say to make an example of whoever got into the emails?
Maybe Seth complained, went to (Donna? Debbie W-S?) about the cheating of Bernie Sanders. I
don't believe a thing Mueller says. Kamphuis would know. Why was he killed?
I am amazed how the Impeachment Circus and the mainstream media continue to
ignore the facts of this story:
Joe Biden has been a favorite target for Trump-allied lawmakers. Many have adopted Trump's
unsubstantiated assertion that Biden pushed for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor,
Viktor Shokin, because he was investigating Burisma.
The CIA is emerging as a domestic political party.
...
Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest. "The CIA is not involved in domestic politics,"
he said. "Period. That's on the record."
This he asserted confidently, at an event where he had just spoken about about influence
campaigns on swing voters and implied that Hillary Clinton might be right in calling U.S.
Representative Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Even seasoned analysts, it seems, have their
blind spots.
What shifted [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] now? I'd say the answer is: this impeachment
isn't directed at Trump at all, it's about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in
the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party agenda away from
the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public
health-care and equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing
to the corporate gods.
I agree with Mr. Salutin, the impeachment is not about impeachment, although
if impeachment results, I'm sure they will take it. And I agree it's about protecting the
current Democratic Part "elites", both from scandal (Joe Biden, Clinton) and from the
challenge on the left. A risky and desperate move .
I tend to think it was Trump going after the Ukraine cesspit that precipitated the
impeachment, but other motives seem relevant. I have thought since Obama went all in with
Russiagate that the current Dem leadership does not feel it can afford to relinquish
control.
Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the
Repoops are like the Genovese. And they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes
and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth. To me Trump is like the mobster Joe
Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and
wanted to start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So
they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes
Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split when it
comes to impeachment.
Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of
the Bidens in the Ukraine affair' (original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der
Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19,
nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)
Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's
an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist Web Site: The CIA Democrats .
Craig Murray has an exclusive interview with
Randy Credico he prefaces with these remarks:
"The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the
same pack of lies that Mueller himself was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the
Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone trial
assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope
something will come out about Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has
been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving to leave their audience
with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when
in fact it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream
media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but
vital audience which is interested in the truth."
That would include MoA barflies since we crave Truth. Murray has a bit more to say prior
to the excerpt I provide, which I suggest be read, too.
What a feast of links! I've only just started, with b's Daniel Lazare piece at Stretegic
Culture.org - well done!
" ...This is what impeachment is about, not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost
the Ukraine – plus Syria, Libya, Yemen, and other countries that the Obama
administration succeeded in destroying – and why Trump should pay the supreme penalty
for suggesting that Democrats are in any way to blame..."
Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high
crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get
the entire alphabet included; ahoy all boats!
Impeachment is about controlling where the attention is focused. When things get to close to
home Pelosi says look over here at the orange head, look over there at the border but
whatever you do, do not look over https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1KfU5ifhqE
">here.
"Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture
of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair' (original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der
Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19,
nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)"
Following the release of the letter, Trump gave his two cents, arguing the list ought to be
expanded to include "Nervous Nancy Pelosi" and "Sleepy Joe Biden."
I recommend that Nervous Nancy Pelosi (who backed up Schiff's lie), Shifty Adam Schiff,
Sleepy Joe Biden, the Whistleblower (who miraculously disappeared after I released the
transcript of the call), the 2nd Whistleblower (who also disappeared), & the I.G., be
part of the list!
"... Trump's real offense is waging an un-authorized, unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous and for-real genocidal war against the human beings of Yemen. His war crimes in Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and Iraq have at least taken place in conflicts supposedly authorized by Congress, making the legal cases against actions there somewhat more complicated. ..."
"... But in Yemen, no law, only presidential orders, have authorized our military , spies , arms merchants and mercenaries to "lead from behind" in this disastrous war of the so-called "Saudi-led coalition" against the civilian population there. ..."
Americans should support the impeachment and removal of
President Donald Trump, but not for Ukrainegate . In fact, they should oppose his
impeachment on Ukrainegate grounds completely.
Trump's real offense is waging an un-authorized, unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous and
for-real genocidal war against the human beings of Yemen. His war crimes in
Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and Iraq have at least taken place in conflicts supposedly
authorized by Congress, making the legal cases against actions there somewhat more
complicated.
But in Yemen, no law, only presidential orders, have authorized our
military ,
spies , arms
merchants and
mercenaries to "lead from behind" in this disastrous war of the so-called "Saudi-led
coalition" against the civilian population there.
The previous Yemen war, the CIA and air force drone war against al
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which began in 2009, the lawyers argued, was legal
under the Authorization to Use Military Force against the group that attacked the United
States on September 11th 2001. They were, after all, involved in
the attack , and had previously bombed the USS Cole in 2000. Of course that drone
war only backfired ,
empowering the al Qaeda enemy by radicalizing the local population. It turns out a 500-pound
bomb isn't a "scalpel" in real life, like they say in Washington.
But this is not that war . This is the war that President Barack Obama and
then-Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin
Salman started back in March 2015. It's not a war against AQAP at all. In fact, from the
very beginning it's been
a war for AQAP and their allies against their deadly enemies, the Houthi movement
of Zaidi Shi'ite tribes from the north of the country who seized the capital city of Sana'a
at the end of 2014. The Houthis had been helping
the U.S. to fight
against AQAP .
Strikes against AQAP have continued as well, mostly to
bad effect . But even the blowback from that
failed policy amounts to nothing
compared to the gains
al Qaeda has made from fighting on what is now America's side in the war, mostly due to
their
association with the mercenary forces of the United Arab Emirites, a major partner in the
U.S.-led coalition.
By the time Obama switched to their side in the war, AQAP had also inspired the Ft. Hood
massacre , attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit , launched an
attempted bomb
attack on a U.S. cargo plane and massacred
the staff of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris, France in January 2015.
That same January, Obama's undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Gen.
Michael Vickers, announced that the U.S. was working with the new regime against al
Qaeda. Just two months later, Barack Obama betrayed the Houthis and sided with al Qaeda
against them.
The AUMF does not cover that.
And let's get it straight. America is the "Superpower"; Saudi Arabia is our client state.
Obama didn't have to do anything. In fact, to hear his war cabinet tell it, they can barely
remember starting the war at all.
Robert Malley, Obama's coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and Gulf Region,
recently
wrote (get this):
"Why the U.S. got entangled in this war -- and why a president so determined to keep
the country out of another Mideast military mess nonetheless got caught in this one -- makes
for a painful a story. [sic] In March 2015, Saudi Arabia came to the U.S. with a
request for support in a campaign it vowed to conduct regardless. After that, and although
events took place a mere four years ago, memories blur. In our conversations, many former
U.S. officials found it hard to recall what precisely the Saudis asked for, what specific
commitments the administration made in response, and when certain types of assistance started
to flow. Some, including one of us who attended the deliberations, recall a deeply ambivalent
president who greenlighted U.S. support but insisted it be confined to the defense of Saudi
territory and not extend to the war against the Houthis. Others don't recall hearing about
that instruction, and struggle to reconcile it with what the U.S. actually did during the war
-- including refueling coalition sorties and replenishing weapons stocks.
[laugh track]
"Yet all agree the decision ultimately came without much debate. The reason, at bottom,
was straightforward: Here was a partner (Saudi Arabia) seeking help in restoring a government
(that of President Hadi) the U.S. regarded as legitimate and a loyal ally in the war against
al-Qaeda. That government had been toppled by an insurgent group (the Houthi or Ansar Allah);
although the extent of its ties to Iran was debatable and debated, their existence was
indisputable. Plus, all this came at a time when relations between Washington and Riyadh
already were deeply damaged by disagreements over the Obama administration's response to the
Arab uprisings and, even more so, its negotiations over a nuclear deal with Tehran. As Riyadh
saw it, doing nothing would mean permitting control by a Hizbollah-like organization of its
southern border, ensconcing a perpetual threat. Rebuffing the Saudi request at any time
likely would have provoked a serious crisis in Saudi/U.S. bilateral relations. Doing so while
the U.S. was seeking a landmark agreement with the kingdom's sworn enemy could have brought
them to breaking point. That was a risk even a president skeptical of the wisdom of Saudi
policies and willing to call into question elements of the relationship was not prepared to
take.
Poor helpless President of the United States of America. Unlike, say,
Iran's nuclear weapons program , the Houthis' "existence was indisputable ." What
could Obama possibly do at that point than stab them, his actual anti-al Qaeda allies, in the
back and take MBS and Ayman al Zawahiri's side against them? It's high treason His
Royal Highness wants, it's
high treason he gets.
So this treasonous war is unauthorized and therefore un-Constitutional
. It's also a war that is in violation of the War Powers Resolution, and not only technically
speaking. Lo and behold the unbelievable fact that
both houses of the U.S. Congress have voted to invoke the War Powers Resolution, demanding an
end to the war. They even passed the same version at the same time and sent it to the
president's desk earlier this year. He 'vetoed' it . So
the unauthorized, unconstitutional, treasonous war is also in the narrow sense, illegal.
But what's this about genocide? That could fall under the War Crimes Act .
That's exactly what it is.
The
strategy of the U.S.-Saudi campaign has been to target Yemen's water, electric and sewage
systems, hospitals, markets and farms – where they bomb the grain silos, flocks of
sheep in the field, irrigation systems and whatever else they can target to destroy the basic
infrastructure supporting the lives of the civilian population, especially in the north of
the country. During the last
world's worst cholera outbreak in history before the current
one , the U.S.A. and their Saudi friends
bombed the cholera hospitals just to be sure to kill as many babies as possible.
All the while the U.S. Navy helps the Saudis and UAE keep the place under
blockade , preventing
virtually all international trade, and
limiting the availability of humanitarian aid.
The most powerful nation in world history, barely hiding behind its proxy, is decimating
the poorest, weakest country in the Middle East.
Yemen is not a country that ever attacked us or threatened us. Even the Houthis'
anti-American slogans were only adopted to
embarrass their then-enemy and later-ally, dictator Abdullah Saleh, for being so close to
the George W. Bush administration in the 2000s.
As referenced above, the Houthis were helping
the Obama government fight al Qaeda at the time he started bombing them. And he only did
it to " placate the
Saudis " over their unease about the possibility of a new (absolutely out of the
question) American slant back toward Iran while negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal.
The latest numbers from the group ACLED Data have it that
over 100,000 people have been killed in the violence of the war, while the UN recently
said that more
than 133,000 additional people had died in the war due to deprivation (starvation,
otherwise easily treatable diseases, etc.). This includes 85,000children
under 5 years old , many thousands of whom died of cholera. That is, they vomited and
defecated themselves to death.
[Insert mental image of a young child you know and love dying that way and you being
absolutely unable to do anything about it here.]
From the very beginning it was known that this very poor
country was heavily dependent on foreign food imports for their survival and that the state
of war would immediately propel masses to famine . And so
it has.
So you see, the war is un-authorized, unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous and
genocidal
all at the same time. It is as bad as Iraq War II at least. When the whole thing is finally
over, we are virtually certain to find that the "excess death rate" for the Yemeni people
during this time equates to over a million dead.
But Donald Trump could have stopped the war almost three years ago. He could stop it right
now with one simple phone call to the secretary of defense. Instead he crows about how much
money "we're" making helping Saudi's government kill.
This is the same reason why I have supported impeachment and removal against George Bush
Sr., Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama before Trump: war crimes.
Not only should Trump be removed from office for this wanton murder, he should have to
share a Supermax cell with his buddy Barack Obama
for the rest of their lives over it too.
That would be the law and justice being applied to the powerful equally like in the
theories they teach us in high school civics class about how our system is supposed to
work.
But folks. Come on now. That is not what this current impeachment scandal is at all.
America's
secret police , formerly under John "
Jabhat al Nusra " Brennan, are leading a coup against the elected leader of the national
government. Cry as they might about how uncouth Trump is,
the real motive for the entire Russiagate setup was their fear that he might actually
mean some of the good things he said about " getting along
with Russia ," his disregard
for the NATO alliance and
unwillingness to continue America's indefinite catastrophe in the Middle East.
Isolationism!
Like the fools who believed in him, all the hawks took what Trump said at face value and
went crazy. Treat the Palestinians "
fairly "?! Red Alert! DEFCON 1! Treason Summit!
But Trump has
escalated every single one of the wars he
inherited from Barack Obama in 2017. He's done everything
the Israelis want. But it's just not enough. Trump doesn't believe in America's
divine
mission to dominate the planet earth – er, "lead" it – until the end of time.
He doesn't demand the rest of us do either. His terrible
trade policies also are "
disruptive " to our system of permanent alliances around the world. That is why the "deep
state" is out to get him.
After failing
to
stop Trump's inauguration with their false accusations
that he conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 election, and chucking the
possibility that they could get his cabinet to overthrow him by invoking the 25th
amendment, the feds settled on a project to "
reign him in " at the very least by dragging out the fake Russia caper as long as they
could.
Once the special council
threw in the towel after another year of false Russiagate accusations, they switched to
Plan B. Now that it's clear that the "
whistleblower " Eric Ciaramella, formerly worked for Brennan, this entire thing should be
cancelled. It doesn't matter that Trump was
caught acting unethically with the Ukrainians, the presumption must be that Ciaramella
was acting as a spy for the CIA against the elected president, sent there to find something,
anything that could be used against Trump to take him down. Wait around a little while. It
won't take long.
(Isn't it funny how most of the media still won't say the man's name, Eric Ciaramella , after it's
already been
published . Isn't their job now to either confirm it's true or not that he's the one who
started this? Oh, no, they just love and want to protect whistleblowers now,
right? That must be what's behind all the recent
fawning coverage of Chelsea Manning's current sacrifice in federal prison.)
Opposing the U.S. coups in Ukraine in 2004 and
2014 and
U.S. support of any kind for their
Nazi-infested military forces, and being absolutely against Joe Biden and
everything about him , and his scumbag
,
crackhead son and
their roles in Ukraine after
the last coup , I am therefore also very dubious about just what a terrible crime it is
supposed to be that Trump would hold up this "vital" aid to Ukraine under these or any other
circumstances. This is the narrative, you've noticed: Americans – you – owe
Ukraine's government loyalty forever. To fail to give them the weapons they need to
restart the
horrible war against their countrymen in the east would be an unpardonable sin and
so-forth. Call it another clue as to what is really going on around here.
To allow the CIA this win – after they've
gotten away with
using torture to lie us into war in Iraq and their
presumption to challenge the authority of the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee
by spying on her and attempting to have the Department of Justice prosecute her staffers for
investigating that torture; after the revelations of their lawless NSA-like spying on
Americans in the
Vault 7 leak ; after their supporting
al Nusra in Syria for 4 years leading to the
rise of the Islamic State "caliphate" and Iraq War III; after they
lied that the president of the United States was a guilty traitor who stole the 2016
election with the help of the Kremlin – would be no victory for justice at all.
After racking up a president's head as a trophy for their wall ( a second ?), just think what
these monsters would be like then.
It's pretty
easy to tell when there's a CIA coup going on. When they
openly
boast about it, as former acting CIA director John McLaughlin
recently did , then you should be on the right side of it, against.
Any real effort to hold all politicians accountable for their crimes under the equal rule
of law should be welcomed and supported. We'll believe it when we see Obama's indictment
right next to Trump's.
"... "As the American public is now aware, in August 2019 you and/or your staff met with or talked to the whistleblower who raised an issue with President Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. Although you publicly claim nothing inappropriate was discussed , the three committees deserve to hear directly from you the substance and circumstances surrounding any discussions conducted with the whistleblower, and any instructions you issued regarding those discussions. " ..."
"... " Given that you have reneged on your public commitment to let the committees interview the whistleblower directly, you are the only individual who can provide clarity as to these conversations," the letter reads. ..."
"... Schiff lied about his office's contacts with the whistleblower - initially claiming "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower," when in fact the whistleblower, now known as CIA officer Eric Ciaramella, reached out to a committee aide who directed him to Democratic attorney Mark Zaid (who proudly obtained government security clearances for pedophiles and enjoys walking around children's theme parks alone). ..."
"... "Americans see through this sham impeachment process, despite the Democrats' efforts to retroactively legitimize it last week ," wrote Nunes. "To provide transparency to your otherwise opaque and unfair process, and after consultation with [House Oversight Committee] Ranking Member Jim Jordan and [House Foreign Affairs Committee] Ranking Member Michael McCaul, the American people deserve to hear from the following witnesses in an open setting ." ..."
"... Adam Schiff was tricked by Russian pranksters and tried to get Nude photos of Trump. Adam Schiff secretly met w/ Simpson during his investigation. Adam Schiff coached Cohen before his testimony. Adam Schiff colluded with traitor Eric Ciaramella. Adam Schiff belongs in prison. ..."
"... "Americans see through this sham impeachment process, despite the Democrats' efforts to retroactively legitimize it last week," wrote Nunes. At least this fellow is saying something. Of course nothing will come of it. The republicant's as a whole are some useless spineless sickening cowards. Hopefully this entire treasonous pack of democraps will be fully exposed. ..."
"... I think that Adam Schitt is getting closer to actually shitting his pants. He is a pathological liar, ..."
"... Why just subpoena Eric Ciaramella as a person of interest, instead of "the whistle blower"? Don't recognize him as the whistle blower, see what the response is from Schiff. ..."
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) made a formal request that House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Adam Schiff (D-CA) testify in a closed-door session as part of the impeachment inquiry against
President Trump.
"Prior to the start of your public show trial next week, at least one additional closed-door
deposition must take place," reads a Friday letter from Nunes to Schiff.
"As the American public is now aware, in August 2019 you and/or your staff met with or
talked to the whistleblower who raised an issue with President Trump's phone call with
Ukrainian President Zelensky. Although you publicly claim nothing inappropriate was discussed ,
the three committees deserve to hear directly from you the substance and circumstances
surrounding any discussions conducted with the whistleblower, and any instructions you issued
regarding those discussions. "
" Given that you have reneged on your public commitment to let the committees interview the
whistleblower directly, you are the only individual who can provide clarity as to these
conversations," the letter reads.
Schiff lied about his office's contacts with the whistleblower - initially claiming "We have
not spoken directly with the whistleblower," when in fact the whistleblower, now known as CIA
officer Eric Ciaramella, reached out to a committee aide who directed him to Democratic
attorney Mark Zaid (who proudly obtained government security clearances
for pedophiles and enjoys walking around
children's theme parks alone).
That said, Schiff maintains he hasn't personally spoken with Ciaramella, and that his
committee was only given vague information as to the nature of the complaint.
... ... ...
Republicans, meanwhile, are gearing up for the public hearings by assembling
a list of proposed witnesses - although Democrats have the final say over who can appear.
Nunes' and Republicans' effort to devise a strategy going forward comes after the House
approved rules for the impeachment inquiry process last week . While Republicans opposed the
resolution and complained the rules were unfair, Democrats still gave GOP lawmakers the
ability to subpoena witnesses with the concurrence of Democratic committee chairs. If the
chair does not consent, the minority can appeal to the full committee.
This process still gives Democrats final say over witnesses . A GOP source told Fox News
this week that it's unlikely Democrats would go along with the efforts to call Schiff -- who
is essentially leading the impeachment probe. -
Fox News
On Saturday, Nunes wrote another letter to Schiff with a list of witnesses the GOP would
like to call, including Joe Biden's son Hunter and Ciaramella .
"Americans see through this sham impeachment process, despite the Democrats' efforts to
retroactively legitimize it last week ," wrote Nunes. "To provide transparency to your
otherwise opaque and unfair process, and after consultation with [House Oversight Committee]
Ranking Member Jim Jordan and [House Foreign Affairs Committee] Ranking Member Michael McCaul,
the American people deserve to hear from the following witnesses in an open setting ."
While requesting testimony from the whistleblower, Nunes wrote that "Trump should be
afforded an opportunity to confront his accusers," particularly over what he claims are
"discrepancies" between the whistleblower's complaint and witnesses' closed-door testimony.
" It is imperative that the American people hear definitively how the whistleblower
developed his or her information , and who else the whistleblower may have fed the information
he or she gathered and how that treatment of classified information may have led to the false
narrative being perpetrated by the Democrats during this process ," Nunes wrote.
In addition to the anonymous whistleblower, whose complaint about Trump's July 25 call
with Ukraine is at the center of the impeachment inquiry, Republicans also plan to call
Hunter Biden 's former
business partner, Devon Archer.
Hunter Biden worked on the board of a natural gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch
while his father served as vice president. Joe Biden pushed in 2016 for the dismissal of a
Ukrainian prosecutor who had been accused of overlooking corruption in his own office,
threatening to withhold money if the prosecutor was not fired. -
The Hill
Last Sunday on CBS ' "Face the Nation," House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said that
Schiff is the "fist person" who should be brought in, along with his staff.
"Come to the Judiciary Committee" said Collins, following the passage of Democrats'
impeachment guidelines. "Be the first witness and take every question asked of you. Starting
with your own involvement [with] the whistleblower."
Adam Schiff was tricked by Russian pranksters and tried to get Nude photos of Trump. Adam Schiff secretly met w/ Simpson during his investigation. Adam Schiff coached Cohen before his testimony. Adam Schiff colluded with traitor Eric Ciaramella. Adam Schiff belongs in prison.
If the Repubs fail to get anything from the Demoncrat controlled house of representatives
committees, they have NUMEROUS committees in the SENATE from which to start their own
investigations. HELLOOOO... paging Mitch the bitch..... get out of your globalist shell Mr
Turtleman and take action.
"Americans see through this sham impeachment process, despite the Democrats' efforts to
retroactively legitimize it last week," wrote Nunes. At least this fellow is saying something. Of course nothing will come of it. The republicant's as a whole are some useless spineless sickening cowards. Hopefully this
entire treasonous pack of democraps will be fully exposed.
The one good thing about this whole fraud is that they can not contain all of their lies,
since the MSM no longer controls the narrative.
I think that Adam Schitt is getting closer to actually shitting his pants. He is a pathological liar, and should
be hung by the neck until dead.
Why just subpoena Eric Ciaramella as a person of interest, instead of "the whistle
blower"? Don't recognize him as the whistle blower, see what the response is from Schiff.
It's no secret who the whistle blower is, unless it's not Ciaramella. So just bring him in
and ask him some leaker questions since it's fairly certain he has, at a minimum, been
leaking classified intel to the media. They can also ask him about contact with Schiffs
committee and staff.
Chalupa, Nunes writes, can shed light on "the facts and circumstances surrounding Ukrainian
involvement in the 2016 election."
According to Nunes, Ohr told committees in 2018 that Fusion GPS sources included high
ranking Ukrainians. And Ohr, the lawmaker claims, can help illuminate "the facts and
circumstances surrounding Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election."
A controversial whistleblower who allegedly reported second-hand on President
Donald Trump's
private conversation with the Ukrainian President
Volodymyr
Zelensky visited the Obama White House on numerous occasions, according to Obama era visitor logs obtained by Judicial Watch.
Last week
Real Clear Investigation's first reported the whistleblower's name. It is allegedly CIA officer Eric Ciaramella. His name, however,
has been floating around Washington D.C. since the leak of Trump's phone call. It was considered an 'open secret' until reporter
Paul Sperry published his article. Ciaramella has never openly stated that he is the whistleblower and most news outlets are not
reporting his name publicly.
He was detailed to the National Security Counsel during the Obama Administration in 2015 and was allegedly sent back to the CIA
in 2017, after a number of people within the Trump White House suspected him of leaking information to the press, according to several
sources that spoke with SaraACarter.com .
Further, the detailed visitor logs reveal that a Ukrainian expert
Alexandra Chalupa , a contractor that was hired by the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election, visited the White
House 27 times.
Chalupa allegedly coordinated with the Ukrainians to investigate then candidate Trump and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
Manafort was forced out of his short tenure as campaign manager for Trump when stories circulated regarding business dealings with
Ukrainian officials. Manafort was later investigated and convicted by a jury on much lesser charges then originally set forth by
Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation. He was given 47 months in prison for basically failing to pay appropriate taxes and
committing bank fraud.
Both Ciaramella and Chalupa are of interest to Republican's investigating the what some conservatives have described as the second
Trump 'witch-hunt.' And many have called for the whistleblower to testify to Congress.
They are absolutely correct and within the law. There is so much information and evidence that reveals that this was no ordinary
whistleblower complaint but one that may have been based on highly partisan actions targeting Trump.
Here's just one example : Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes said its impossible to have a fair impeachment
inquiry without the testimony of the alleged whistleblower because he is a 'fact foundational witness' who had met with Intelligence
Committee Chairman
Adam
Schiff, D-CA, previously. Schiff had originally denied that he had any contact with his committee and then had to walk back his
statements when it was revealed that the whistleblower had met with the Democrats prior to filing his complaint to the Intelligence
Inspector General about the President.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, said the visitor logs reveal that there is much lawmakers or the American public don't know
about what happened during the 2016 presidential elections and moreover it raises very significant questions about the apparent partisan
nature of the whistleblower.
"Judicial Watch's analysis of Obama White House visitor logs raises additional questions about the Obama administration, Ukraine
and the related impeachment scheme targeting President Trump," said Fitton, in a press release Friday.
"Both Mr. Ciaramella and Ms. Chalupa should be questioned about the meetings documented in these visitor logs."
Read Below From Judicial Watch
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Eric Ciaramella while he was detailed to the Obama White
House:
Daria Kaleniuk: Co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded Anticorruption Action Center (AntAC) in Ukraine. She
visited on December 9, 2015
The Hill
reported that in April 2016, during the U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Embassy under Obama in Kiev, "took the rare step of
trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of both the U.S. aid and (AntAC)."
Gina Lentine: Now a senior program officer at Freedom House, she was formerly the Eurasia program coordinator at Soros funded
Open Society Foundations. She visited on March 16, 2016.
Rachel Goldbrenner: Now an NYU law professor, she was at that time an advisor to then-Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha
Power. She visited on both January 15, 2016 and August 8, 2016.
Orly Keiner: A foreign affairs officer at the State Department who is a Russia specialist. She is also the wife of State Department
Legal Advisor James P. Bair. She visited on both March 4, 2016 and June 20, 2015.
Nazar Kholodnitzky: The lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine. He visited on January 19, 2016.
On March 7, 2019, The Associated Press reported
that the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
Michael Kimmage: Professor of History at Catholic University of America, at the time was with the State Department's policy
planning staff where specialized in Russia and Ukraine issues. He is a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He was also one of
the signatories to the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group Statement of Principles. He visited on October 26, 2015.
James Melville: Then-recently confirmed as Obama's Ambassador to Estonia, visited on September 9, 2015.
On June 29, 2018, Foreign Policy
reported that Melville resigned in protest of Trump.
Victoria Nuland: who at the time was assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs met with Ciaramella on
June 17, 2016.
(Judicial Watch has previously uncovered
documents revealing Nuland had an extensive involvement with Clinton-funded
dossier . Judicial Watch also released
documents revealing that Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department's "urgent" gathering of classified Russia investigation
information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of Trump taking office.)
Artem Sytnyk: the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau director visited on January 19, 2016.
On October 7, 2019, the Daily Wire
reported leaked tapes show Sytnyk confirming that the Ukrainians helped the Clinton campaign.
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Alexandra Chalupa, then a DNC contractor:
Charles Kupchan: From 2014 to 2017, Kupchan served as special assistant to the president and senior director for European
affairs on the staff of the National Security Council (NSC) in the Barack Obama administration. That meeting was on November 9,
2015.
Alexandra Sopko: who at the time was a special assistant and policy advisor to the director of the Office of Intergovernmental
Affairs, which was run by Valerie Jarrett. Also listed for that meeting is Alexa Kissinger, a special assistant to Jarrett. That
meeting was on June 2, 2015.
Asher Mayerson: who at the time was a policy advisor to the Office of Public Engagement under Jarrett had five visits with
Chalupa including December 18, 2015, January 11, 2016, February 22, 2016, May 13, 2016, and June 14, 2016.
Mayerson was previously an intern at the Center for American Progress. After leaving the Obama administration, he went to work
for the City of Chicago Treasurer's office.
Mayerson met with Chalupa and Amanda Stone, who was the White House deputy director of technology, on January 11, 2016.
On May 4, 2016, Chalupa emailed DNC official Luis
Miranda to inform him that she had spoken to investigative journalists about Paul Manafort in Ukraine.
"... Impeachment is a game that Democrats are playing with Donald Trump, and the game's only rule is "heads I win, tails you lose." ..."
"... : by telling the president that he was not a subject of the probe and then refusing to issue a statement to that effect, Comey was making the point: Trump might be the country's elected executive, but men like Comey were the government. Officials could leak, they could issue anonymous quotes prejudicial to the president, and all Trump could do was wait until Comey decided to clear his name. ..."
"... by the time he issued his report, the protracted investigation, and all the hype about Trump and Russia that it sustained, had done its political damage and hammered the lesson home. Republicans suffered a bloodbath in the 2018 midterms, and the next president would think twice-and then twice again-about treating an FBI director as his underling. ..."
"... On January 11, 2017, Politico ran a news story under the headline "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." The story documented Ukraine's meddling on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern summarized the findings: ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... Trump was within his rights as president to demand answers from Ukraine. And if he stood to benefit politically it was because Ukraine had already involved itself in American politics on the side of Democrats: severing those dubious ties and preventing further manipulation of U.S. elections would necessarily come at the expense of the party that Ukrainians had cultivated when Barack Obama was in power and which they had hoped to keep in power by helping Hillary Clinton ..."
"... Ukraine may have failed to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, but Democrats hope to use Ukraine to remove Trump now, either through impeachment-a longshot-or by weakening him and the GOP ahead of the 2020 election. And Democrats hope that Republican senators will be so embarrassed and perhaps divided by a trial in the Senate that they will lose control of that chamber in 2020, too. They know Trump will keep fighting, and the harder he fights, the more he refuses to play by the rigged rules of the game, the more opportunity Democrats see to frame his defensive moves as outrageous and impeachable offenses. With Nixon and Watergate, the cover-up was often said to be worse than the crime. With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies hope. ..."
With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies
hope.
Impeachment is a game that Democrats are playing with Donald Trump, and the game's only rule is "heads I win, tails you lose."
The president is familiar with these rules by now, as they're the same ones that governed the investigations into Russian meddling
in the 2016 election. FBI Director James Comey told Trump at the outset that he was not a target of the investigation.
Yet anonymous quotes and other questionably sourced reports continued to appear in the press claiming that Trump was a Russian
asset-as Hillary Clinton might bluntly put it-and so the president asked Comey to say in public what he had told him in private.
Comey refused, and Trump soon fired him.
This act of self-defense, or pique, depending on your point of view, triggered calls for the appointment of a special counsel
to take over the investigation-which ballooned from an investigation that didn't center around Trump into one in which Trump's behavior
toward Comey was grounds for investigating the president. Comey had made a power play: by telling the president that he was not
a subject of the probe and then refusing to issue a statement to that effect, Comey was making the point: Trump might be the country's
elected executive, but men like Comey were the government. Officials could leak, they could issue anonymous quotes prejudicial to
the president, and all Trump could do was wait until Comey decided to clear his name.
Other politicians might play by those rules out the desire for self-preservation. Trump chose not to. And so, an ex-FBI
director, who may have had hopes of becoming director once again, took over the investigation. Comey would not go unavenged. Mueller
ultimately found nothing criminal or meriting a recommendation of impeachment in Trump's behavior. But by the time he issued
his report, the protracted investigation, and all the hype about Trump and Russia that it sustained, had done its political damage
and hammered the lesson home. Republicans suffered a bloodbath in the 2018 midterms, and the next president would think twice-and
then twice again-about treating an FBI director as his underling.
The Ukraine corruption that is at the heart of the Democrats' impeachment project involves the same logic if somewhat different
players. On January 11, 2017, Politico ran a news story under the headline "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." The
story documented Ukraine's meddling on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Kenneth P. Vogel and David
Stern summarized the findings:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only
to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico
investigation found.
If a foreign power involves itself is a U.S. election like that, shouldn't America ask questions? And shouldn't aid money to that
foreign power be held up until those questions were answered-not least because withholding those funds might be necessary to compel
cooperation with the investigation and to get the foreign interest to mend its ways? The questions Trump had to ask in this case,
however, involving what ties Ukrainians had to prominent Democratic Party figures, could and would, of course, be portrayed by Democrats
and the media sympathetic to them as a kind of election interference in its own right. Why, Trump was demanding a quid pro quo from
Kiev-the funds in return for information about the Democrats or an investigation that would embarrass a possible 2020 nominee.
Again, as Trump's enemies would have it, he loses if he acts (by firing Comey, by urging Kiev to look into questionable behavior
by or benefiting Democrats), and he loses if he doesn't act (and simply accepts mischaracterizations of the Russia investigation
in the press or Kiev's intrigues with Democrats). Trump has a predilection to defy his enemies-something they might now have come
to count on-so rather than taking the beating they want to mete out to him, he hits back, and then they cry foul. The media intensifies
its insinuations that Trump has broken one or more laws (though just which law remains vague and hardly even argued, let alone proven),
and the president's foes reach for their institutional weapons: the special counsel provisions and now impeachment proceedings. When
Republicans do not go along with the kangaroo court, well-paid ex-conservatives are hauled out to bemoan the lost integrity of a
party whose last president misled the country into ceaseless wars in the Middle East-with these very same ex-conservatives having
led the cheers for those interventions.
Trump was within his rights as president to demand answers from Ukraine. And if he stood to benefit politically it was because
Ukraine had already involved itself in American politics on the side of Democrats: severing those dubious ties and preventing further
manipulation of U.S. elections would necessarily come at the expense of the party that Ukrainians had cultivated when Barack Obama
was in power and which they had hoped to keep in power by helping Hillary Clinton.
Ukrainians are only acting in self-interest here:
they understandably want to enlist U.S. power in every way possible as a check upon Russia. The prospect of American politics taking
a turn toward rapprochement with Russia stirs Ukraine to take one side in our elections and Russia to take another. This is an old
familiar pattern in American politics-as old as the Washington and Adams administrations, when revolutionary France and counter-revolutionary
England had interests in our elections, and America's ideological factions were inclined to favor one power or another. Neutrality
was the course that George Washington urged, and by and large, it was the one that won out, even when the French-sympathizing Thomas
Jefferson and James Madison came to power.
A lesson from George Washington would stand the leaders in Washington, DC in good stead today. But Democrats in Congress have
other ideas: Ukraine may have failed to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, but Democrats hope to use Ukraine to remove Trump now,
either through impeachment-a longshot-or by weakening him and the GOP ahead of the 2020 election. And Democrats hope that Republican
senators will be so embarrassed and perhaps divided by a trial in the Senate that they will lose control of that chamber in 2020,
too. They know Trump will keep fighting, and the harder he fights, the more he refuses to play by the rigged rules of the game, the
more opportunity Democrats see to frame his defensive moves as outrageous and impeachable offenses. With Nixon and Watergate, the
cover-up was often said to be worse than the crime. With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough
to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies hope.
nopeace > jeremypw • 2 hours ago
The Jan 2017 piece referenced above disproves your entire post. It points out that Democrats used Ukraine n the 2016
election (long before Trump ever the Ukraine or Biden entered the race.
BTW, there wasn't just one country where the drug-abusing, bad discharged Biden-boy made gross amounts of money from countries
trying to buy influence in the Obama administration through his father. There were several, including China. The difference is
that his father admitted on video to threatening withdrawing billions in U.S. aid if the prosecutor of his son was not fired.
True quid pro quo.
"... Earlier in Stone's legal process his lawyers filed a motion to try to prove that Russia did not hack the DNC and Podesta emails. The motion revealed that CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign, never completed its report, and only gave a redacted draft to the FBI blaming Russia. The FBI was never allowed to examine the DNC server itself. ..."
"... Faced now with a criminal investigation into how the Russiagate conspiracy theory originated intelligence officers and their accomplices in the media and in the Democratic Party are mounting a defense by launching an offensive in the form of impeachment proceedings against Trump that is based on an allegation of conducting routine, corrupt U.S. foreign policy. ..."
Earlier in Stone's legal process his lawyers filed a motion to try to prove that Russia
did not hack the DNC and Podesta emails. The motion
revealed that CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign,
never completed its report, and only gave a redacted draft to the FBI blaming Russia. The FBI
was never allowed to examine the DNC server itself.
In the end, though, it doesn't matter if it were a hack or a leak by an insider. That's
because the emails WikiLeaks released were accurate. When documents check out it is
irrelevant who the source is. That's why WikiLeaks set up an anonymous drop box, copied
by big media like The Wall Street
Journal and others
. Had the emails been counterfeit and disinformation was inserted into a U.S. election by a
foreign power that would be sabotage. But that is not what happened.
The attempt to stir up the thoroughly discredited charge of collusion appears to be part of
the defense strategy of those whose reputations were thoroughly discredited by maniacally
pushing that false charge for more than two years. This includes legions of journalists. But
principal among them are intelligence agency officials who laundered this "collusion"
disinformation campaign through the mainstream media.
Faced now with a criminal
investigation into how the Russiagate conspiracy theory originated intelligence officers
and their accomplices in the media and in the Democratic Party are mounting a defense by
launching an offensive in the form of impeachment proceedings against Trump that is based on an
allegation of conducting
routine, corrupt U.S. foreign policy.
Stone may be just a footnote to this historic partisan battle that may scar the nation for a
generation. But he has the personality to be the poster boy for the Democrats' lost cause.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at[email protected]and
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
"... "John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be 'Very, Very Worried" ..."
"... If he does not go for a second term, his enemies will go after him legally and he would be without the protection of being President. The establishment would pin anything that they can (or make up) so as to teach any other future Presidential candidate that you do not become so without getting the nod from them first. So Roman that. ..."
"John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be 'Very, Very Worried"
Way back when, it was taken as mostly-gospel that Trump was surprised as anybody that he
won, and that he didn't really want the job. While it appears that he's having lots of fun
being #1, maybe he's not so worried about an impeachment, because it will get him out of the
White House, and back to making money. Impeachment could be Donald and the Repub's wet dream:
they get rid of an odious figurehead (but one who has given them everything they have
wanted), they get Mike Pence to finish off the term and run in 2020, and he can claim he was
unjustly removed from office, all the while raking in the $$ from speaking engagements, new
TV shows, merch sales, and additional influence peddling.
I've always felt that Trump's best move would be to not run again. It would be perfectly
in character for him to say "been there done that" and exit with his middle finger extended.
He's done it his whole life and his "brand" for those who ever bought it to begin with would
be even stronger. Successful impeachment might slow him up a bit but does anyone really think
he's just gonna go away with his tail between his legs after he leaves the White House? He's
shameless and unless he goes to jail he will be with us forever which, loved or hated, is the
only thing that matters to him
This of course is the true hope of the impeachers–that he will just quit–since
they know he won't really be impeached. They look fondly to the Nixon precedent.
If he does not go for a second term, his enemies will go after him legally and he
would be without the protection of being President. The establishment would pin anything that
they can (or make up) so as to teach any other future Presidential candidate that you do not
become so without getting the nod from them first. So Roman that.
From the Medium article "John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be Very, Very
Worried"
"I don't think dirt-digging would offend Bolton. What would offend Bolton is interrupting
military supplies to a country in a deadly battle with Russia. Doing something that for
whatever reason appeases Putin," Thielmann said."
The country referred to is Ukraine. I guess I've missed all the msm articles detailing all
those deadly clashes between Russian & Ukrainian military units along with casualty
figures and all that. I suppose I need to pay closer attention (or something).
UN says 12,800–13,000 killed since April 2014. So Congress bought a pile of Javelin
AT munitions, the ones with a top attack flight profile that will place a high explosive
shape-charge of molten copper through tops of young Russian tank commanders' heads, who are
sons of Putin's base, if there was a mechanized push further into Ukraine. [The political
tolerance window for which is narrowing.]
Our benevolent leader said, "Hold-on. You gotta first get your FBI to clear my campaign
and come up with some trumped-up charges against my political opponent. My FBI won't do it."
Congressional impoundment, solicitation of a bribe for personal gain, and abuse of power. In
any case, Ukraine's getting a smaller pile of missiles until next year, so, gross incompetent
moves, both domestic and abroad.
You recall that the Obama administration opposed giving Ukraine any lethal assistance?
Congress has just come up with an excellent method of giving the Russians a lot of free
Javelins if there were a serious fight. Which there continues to be no sign of.
The great bulk of (pro-government) Ukrainian casualties occurred in the course of
ill-advised and poorly conducted offensives against the breakaway republics. When it only
defends, the Ukrainian side doesn't suffer casualties. Because nobody attacks it.
I guess what I'm having trouble with is -- is there any foreign policy involving financial
or military leverage that isn't bribery and/or extortion? The Marshall Plan? Alliance for
Progress? Sanctions of any kind? Aid to Israel and Egypt? What isn't bribery and extortion?
If it doesn't involve quid pro quo, then it's charity. I just can't see what Trump is
supposed to be guilty of except making this transparent.
The distinction I've heard being made is whether the bribery (or whatever they decide to
call it) happened for personal gain or the public's/nation's gain. What's being alleged here
is that this was a case where it was for personal gain.
In other words, whatever shady tactics a public representative uses to obtain concessions
is just fine if it's to benefit those he or she represents, but not fine if it only benefits
the representative him or herself.
I think this line of argument actually makes some sense, so I'm starting to come around to
the idea of this impeachment.
Clinton, Military aid to Saudi Arabia, Saudi donation to Clinton Foundation.
Biden threat to withhold aid from Ukraine unless prosecutor fired, son gets to keep five
figure job AND stay out of Ukrainian prison.
I am pretty sure a fair case could be made for some other items in the Middle East and
South America especially when you look at post government employment and positions.
If I thought any of this would actually change business as usual in DC, I would be all for
it. But just as with Benghazi, those in charge of the investigation are trying to take out
limited targets while keeping changing SOP out of it.
It is political show and directed by a group of people who should be limited to the same
power I have, one vote.
Unfortunately what you say rings true about the usual players trying to selectively
prosecute. But at what point do (did?) we just throw our hands up and say (said?) "forget it,
let's just ignore this part of the law (constitution)" even in the face of clear evidence
that it happened?
As I learn more, this is starting to look to me like a clearer case for an impeachment
trial than there was against Clinton, or even against Nixon, since bribery is very
specifically mentioned in the constitution as a justification for impeachment (as opposed to
the less specific "high crimes and misdemeanors", which I presume is what those other two
cases fell under).
If that's the case, then Trump's team has to show that the Bidens were being investigated
for corruption. I'm sure that the GOP would gladly include a show-trial of sorts into
impeachment proceedings to demonstrate this was the case even if it wasn't.
This whole thing is ridiculous and will only serve to boost Trump, especially when the Dems
(again) force-feed a conservative through the convention as their nominee.
Right, one of his possibly effective lines of defense could be that he indeed made that
request for the benefit of the country, and that it was just an unfortunate coincidence that
it was regarding a political opponent. And he would have some backing evidence in the form of
his other unusual requests like pressuring Sweden to release the rapper and all that.
I also agree that this whole thing could possibly boost him, but not necessarily. It may
well enrage his base, but it may turn away people in the middle who are still open to solid
arguments and evidence.
I don't think the whole thing is ridiculous anymore, and feel that Pelosi decided that she
finally had something substantial to start impeachment after talking about it for so
long.
The only things he is guilty of, is being an uncouth D.C. outsider that relishes pulling
festering scabs off of the tony eastcoast pearl-clutchers, and giving the one-finger salute
to California liberals ("I • Drink • Your • Impeachment • MILKSHAKE !,
Nancy .. I DRINK IT UP siffft !!) .. when he's not bullchinashopping the Brunch Crowd,
swilling the Dom Perrier before making off with the Belgian Waffles.
Mhmmm, it's not a joke. As it seems received wisdom here @NC that trump will be
re-elected, & liberal Dems don't get it & lefty can't get elected, what harm is there
in holding trump accountable for something, whether you understand it or not, for something
that he is actually responsible for?
It matters not if every other president is equally guilty which they are not. There are
prices to be paid.
"To the extent that Democrats any longer seriously discuss national security in the context
of US-Russian relations, it mostly involves vilifying both Trump and Russian leader Vladimir
Putin. "
We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under
President Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National
Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy
and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this operation " Intelgate
," and it has since been well documented by other writers, including Lee
Smith in his new book . Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain leading, and
equally Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed such
transgressions. This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will leave
power, but these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain.
§ We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press"
cannot be fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream
media -- leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to
cover and report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of
Russiagate allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The
New York Times seem
eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and
his appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's
critics accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and the
Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert Mueller
report.
Jeffrey Harrison says: November 6, 2019 at 9:30 pm
There are no more "honorable members of the Senate", Mr. Cohen. The members of both houses
of Congress are partisan hacks who know nothing of how to run a country or exist in a
multipolar world, they only know how to get elected.
Facebook Scrubs All References To Alleged Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella
by
Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/08/2019 - 16:45
0
SHARES
Facebook announced on Friday that it would be removing an posts which name alleged Trump-Ukraine
whistleblower
Eric Ciaramella
.
"
We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower's name and will
revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures
in the debate
," Facebook said in a statement in which they claim it violates their
"coordinating harm" policy which prohibits content 'outing of witness, informant, or activist.'
On Wednesday, the social media giant removed ads naming Ciaramella which had been viewed several
hundred thousand times according to the
Washington Post
.
On Friday,
Breitbart
'
s Allum Bohkari reported that the news outlet's posts containing references to
Ciaramella had been scrubbed from the site.
Wednesday evening, Facebook removed Breitbart posts
reporting
on the fact other respected news outlets have reported the identity of the alleged
whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. Any Facebook user who attempts to click on that article on
Facebook is now given a message that says, "this content isn't available at the moment."
To be clear, Breitbart did not "out" the alleged whistleblower but did provide
additional relevant reporting about him
; he is, after all, a public figure, having
served on the National Security Council
. Moreover, his name has been used in the
Mueller report (p283)
and Ambassador Bill Taylor's
testimony
.
Administrators of Breitbart News' Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday
evening stating that Breitbart's page is "at risk of being unpublished" but were not given any
details as to why, or even which posts were allegedly at issue. -
Breitbart
"
There is no overarching protection for the identity of the whistleblower under federal
law
," said attorney Dan Meyer, the former executive director of the intelligence community
whistleblower program, adding "Congress has never provided that protection."
I guess what I'm having trouble with is -- is there any foreign policy involving financial
or military leverage that isn't bribery and/or extortion? The Marshall Plan? Alliance for
Progress? Sanctions of any kind? Aid to Israel and Egypt?
What isn't bribery and extortion?
If it doesn't involve quid pro quo, then it's charity.
I just can't see what Trump is supposed to be guilty of except making this
transparent.
Schumer's concern for the welfare of whistleblowers may appear somewhat belated and
unconvincing, given his previous pronouncements about Snowden, Assange and Manning, but I
suppose we should all welcome a sinner come to repentance (or whatever the kosher equivalent
is.)
Seamus Padraig
Chuck is now the ' shomer ' (guardian) of wistleblowers.
This is Pelosi attempt to score some political points for coming elections, but it can backfire in Republicans in the Senate deside
to wipe the floor with her and Schiff.
It would be totally ridiculous, unprecedented, and farcical for the losing party to impeach a president
There was definitely treason all right, by elements of the CIA, FBI, and DNC, working with MI5 and Ukrainian oligarchs, to first
interfere in the 2016 election in favor of Clinton, and after the surprise loss, to overturn the results with the ridiculous Russia-gate
(and now Ukraine-gate) hoaxes.
The Democrats will destroy themselves.Wikipedia: "Hoist with his own petard" is a phrase from a speech in Hamlet that has become
proverbial. The phrase's meaning is literally that the bomb-maker...is blown up ("hoisted" off the ground) by his own bomb, and
indicates an ironic reversal, or poetic justice.
So if Trump's behavior is all kosher, I guess the DNC should hold a press conference tomorrow to officially ask every foreign
country to search for dirt on Trump, his kids, Kushner, and their companies. They have been sleazing around a lot of countries
making "deals" for a long long time.
If it is okay to ask foreign countries for help with domestic elections, the Dems should get all over that right away. Hmmmm,
I wonder if Trump has offended any foreign countries in the last couple of years, who might like to help usher him out of office...?
China, Mexico, half of Europe. Their intelligence agencies should give the DNC a call.
Hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder too, I guess. Unless you can define how the Federal Bribery Statute has historically been
applied to US presidents dealing for foreign leaders. I'm sure the readers would be interested in seeing you make that case.
Asking for cooperation from an ally in exposing corruption has never been "charged" any other US president. If you want examples
of other presidents' quid pro quos, just ask. Foreign aid is a political quid pro quo (as we have VP Joe Biden bragging
about on camera). It is not, however, extortion in the jurusprudential meaning of the term. It's reckless and dishonest to claim
that it is.
The Pandora's Box of criminializing heretofore normal presidential activities is one of the more egregious examples of leftwing
ideologues scorching the earth of America's government.
I sat out the last presidential election, because both candidates who were running were unacceptable to me, but Pat's analysis
has cut through all the propaganda surrounding this clumsy coup attempt to overturn the choice that American voters made for who
they wanted as their next president.
...As for the notion that Biden started the civil war in Ukraine? Nonsense. What really kick
started that was the attack on Russian speakers launched as the first order of business.
Killing a bunch of people in Odessa by setting a building on fire and trapping them inside was
motivation too.
Lee Arnold@72 speaks of democratic process. and Russian expansion. Both are imaginary. The
process in Ukraine is fascist. It's true that the open fascists are not at the top, but then,
this was true of Franco's Spain, where the Falange party was not on top either. But only a
swindler would deny Franco's Spain was fascist.
The idea there was no rebellion against the fascists in Kyiv is preposterous on the face of
it. Further, Kharkov nearly went with Donetsk and Lugansk, but the national government managed
to keep control. There is no sane scenario where a Russian invasion doesn't take Kharkov, which
shows it wasn't Russian invasion that started it. And, conclusively, incorporating Donetsk and
Lugansk means ending the war in some fashion that leaves essential control to Moscow. Whatever
military assistance Russia gives the rebels is about making sure they don't go too the left in
fighting the fascists and making sure there are no embarrassing wave of Russian-speaking
refugees from Ukrainian fascism. Endless war is not incorporation. It just means Putin is a
fool for thinking one side won't eventually collapse. Lastly, as to Crimea, the simple truth is
that the establishment of liberal democracies generally demands consolidation of the national
territory, which generally demands redrawing boundaries and ethnic cleansing. The insistence
that Ukrainian fascists have a "right" to make Russians in Crimea second-class citizens because
of old maps is not becoming.
"... Bravo Renée: I loved this article, not least because I loathe Adam Schiff with a vengeance ..."
"... The USA is a deeply divided country. Split from the top to the bottom. The 'liberal' coastal cities on collision course with the rest of the country. ..."
"... The Democratic leadership have accepted that their real chances of winning the next presidential election are small, unless the economy goes into a sharp decline and the voters turn against Trump in their millions. This isn't happening. So Trump stands a really good chance of winning in 2020. Just a year from now. ..."
"... So, if the chances of defeating Trump democratically at the coming election are looking 'problematic' and increasingly remote; the alternative is to remove him from office by impeachment where the Law is used instead of the voting system, which is far harder to control these days. ..."
"... The real scandal over Ukraine lies in Biden threatening to withhold $1 billion from the country unless the prosecutor investigating Biden Junior was sacked – something he openly and publicly bragged about. ..."
"... That's all very nice but this individual is a spy, not a "whistleblower". ..."
"... Was he part of the 'taskforce' or is he part of the diversion from that taskforce or indeed the conspiracy against Ukraine by Obama/Clinton nazi promoting Nuland & co? ..."
For those readers who care more about Donald Trump, Obama's legacy or the Republican/Democrat
parties rather than the Rule of Law and what remains of the US Constitution, the following scenario should be a Giant
Wake up Call.
As the result of an anonymous "whistleblower"
Complaint
filed against President Trump on August 12, the House Intel Committee conducted a series of closed door hearings that
violated
Sixth Amendment
protections while
relying on an anonymous WB.
Right away, those hearings morphed into an impeachment inquiry that took on the spectacle of a clumsy kerfuffle
not to be taken seriously – except they were.
There is an essential Ukraine backstory which began with the US initiating the overthrow of its democratically
elected President Yanukovych in 2014.
Fast forward to Russiagate followed by Ukrainegate and an impeachment inquiry with Trump telling newly elected
Ukraine President Zelensky in their now infamous July 25th conversation:
I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation in Ukraine; they say Crowdstrike. The
server they say, Ukraine has it<."
In a nutshell, possession of the CrowdStrike server is crucial to revealing the Democratic hierarchy's role in
initiating Russiagate as the Democrats are having a major snit-fit that now threatens the constitutional foundation
of the country.
On October 31st the House voted to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry based on still mysterious
Whistleblower's allegations. At the time, there was still no confirmation of who the shadowy Whistleblower was or
whether a Whistleblower even existed.
It is a fact that most whistleblowers bring the transgression
proudly forward
into the public light for the specific purpose of exposing the deeds that deserve to be exposed.
At great personal cost, they then provide a credible case for why this offense is illegal or a violation of the
public trust and deserves to be made public.
This alleged WB, however, defies the traditional definition of a WB who most often experiences the wrong-doing
first hand and from a personal vantage while revealing said wrong-doing as a function within an agency of their
employment.
This WB's identity has been protected from public disclosure by TPTB, shrouded in mystery and suspicion as if
fearful of public scrutiny or that his 'truth' would crumble under interrogation and not be greeted with unanimity.
What is clear is that this WB had no direct experience but only second-hand knowledge of events which is defined as
'hear say' evidence. While inadmissible in a Court of law, why should 'hear say' be allowed when the subject is as
profound as impeachment of a President?
Real-life CIA
whistleblower Jon Kiriakou
who served 22 months in prison, suggested this "
whistleblower is not a
whistleblower but a anonymous CIA analyst within the Democratic House staff
." When was the last time a real
whistleblower was 'protected' by the government from public exposure.
There has been no explanation as to why this informant's identity is necessarily been kept secret – and not just
from the public but from Members of Congress especially as Republican Members have been unable to question him.
There has been no further information regarding a second "Whistleblower" who allegedly came forward to corroborate
the first WB although why it is necessary to corroborate that which has already been publicly revealed remains
questionable.
In a once unimaginable example of CIA–Democratic collusion, it turns out that the identity of the alleged WB is
not such a secret after all.
Far from the public eyes of Americans, there has been a coordinated effort to stifle any exposure of his identity;
presumably to prevent any revelation of the underpinnings of exactly how this convoluted scheme of malfeasance was
organized. And as his name and political history within the Obama Administration and Democratic party are publicly
scrutinized, it makes perfect sense why the TPTB would prefer to prevent public hearings or keep the WB's identity
under wraps.
His identity should have been public knowledge weeks ago and yet it took
Real Clear Investigations
,
an alt-news website to publicly reveal what has been well known within
the DC bubble for some weeks.
The answer to the title question is that this WB is instead a very
well connected
partisan lackey and CIA operative.
The alleged WB is said to be a 33 year old
CIA analyst
by the name of Eric Ciaramella who was an Obama White House holdover at the National Security Council
until mid 2017.
Consequently, he has deep partisan ties to former VP Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan and former
National Security Advisor Susan Rice as well as the DNC establishment. And here's where it get especially
interesting; Ciaramella specializes in Russia and Ukraine, is fluent in both languages, ran the Ukraine desk at the
Obama NSC and had close association with Ukrainian DNC hyper-activist Alexandra Chalupa.
Ciaramella's bio reads like a litany of the political turmoil that has consumed the nation for the last three
years as it is reported that he had a role in initiating the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy while at the Obama
White House and worked with Biden who was the Obama point-person on Ukraine issues in 2015 and 2016 when
$3 billion USAID funding
was being embezzled.
Clearly, Ciaramella has a wealth of information to share regarding the Biden
Quid pro Quo scandal
which is currently being muzzled by the corporate media.
With Ciaramella's identity revealed, a former NSC staffer who was present during the Trump-Zelensky July 25th
conversation testified that he saw
nothing illegal
in the talk. Tim Morrison told the House Intel Committee that "
I want to be clear, I was not
concerned that anything illegal was discussed"
and that the transcript of the call which was declassified and
released by the White House "
accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call."
More recently, Mark Zaid, attorney for Ciaramella has said that his client would accept written questions from
Republicans on the House Intel Committee and that his client "
wants
to be as bipartisan
as possible throughout this process while remaining anonymous
."
Seriously? He's got to be kidding.
Did the reality of being required to testify in public just recently dawn on Ciaramella or was he not expecting
that his every word and utterance would be scrutinized before the entire world? Is he so unfamiliar with the Sixth
Amendment that he believes a Defendant's right to confront his accuser should not apply to him or in a Presidential
impeachment inquiry?
Did he actually believe he could make anonymous impeachment accusations against the President of the US without a
ripple or without having to directly face questions from House and Senate Republicans? Who did he think would
protect him from public scrutiny?
Given Ciaramella's extensive partisan history since 2015 and his national security experience with Susan Rice in
the Obama White House, it will be interesting if he receives a mention in the IG report on the abuse of FISA warrants
and whether Ciaramella's name has moved to the top of the Durham interviewee list.
Stephen Morrell
These inquiries always spiral out of the control of their instigators, and this one is becoming
positively delicious.
Seamus Padraig
Regarding the transcript of Trump's call, please tell me: what law/statute did he break? In order
for there to be a high crime or misdemeanor, there must first be
some
kind of crime or misdemeanor.
Tom
You cannot be serious! How about EXTORTION? As in holding up the money from Ukraine until they
agreed to look into his prime political opponent in the upcoming election (Biden). That's a
crime.
Or perhaps they will call it BRIBERY. That's a crime also.
Or moving on, how about receiving money from foreign interests in the form of forbidden
EMOLUMENTS, through, at a minimum, his Washington hotel or the foreign visitors spending heavily
at his gold courses? These venues generate revenue for the Trump organization, which he never
divested himself from.
Take your hands off of your ears and remove the wool from your eyes.
JudyJ
Tom
You mention "Bribery", and you mention "receiving money from foreign interests" both
in the context of Trump. I'm sorry but from where I stand there are far stronger suggestions
of that in the context of Biden and the undenied international connections of his son. You
appear to be taking the position that however serious the inferred misdemeanours (let me use
the term 'corruption') of Biden are, he does whatever he does – unlike Trump, of course – to
"put the health of the country first" (your words @ 8.41) and are by definition not deserving
of investigation. He's all heart, isn't he? Foolish of me not to see this.
Tom
Biden isn't VP any longer. The Republicans had complete control of Congress AND the
presidency for 2016/2017. If they wanted to investigate Biden, that would have been your
best the time to do it. So why do you supposed they didn't investigate Biden then? Might
it be that while Biden may have taken advantage of his political position, as so many
politicians do, what he did was not judged to be illegal. Personally, I don't give a rat's
arse about Biden one way or another.
The attempts by you and others in your camp and
Trump himself to muddy the impeachment investigation and direct attention elsewhere are so
transparent as to be almost ludicrous.
You need to focus on what is most import to the USA and the people of this country –
the clear and present danger that President Trump represents!
Seamus Padraig
Here's the
full transcript
of the call with Zelensky. Now tell me: where's the "bribery" and
"extortion" there? Trump just asked Zelensky a favor–that's all.
Tom
You never watched any mafia movies have you?
Did you know that people have been
convicted of murder and sent to death row when they never even found the body? It's called
circumstantial evidence.
The same legal concept applies to Trump's conversations. Trump thought he was being
slick by not explicitly mentioning that the Ukraine president HAD to do this favor for him
to get the allocation released to him. 'Hey, I need ya to do me a favor first'
But just as with circumstantial evidence, a direct request is not necessary. An implied
one will do just as well. You are way out of your league trying to play lawyer here!
Martin Usher
I daresay they can get him on Emoluments and exceeding Constitutional authority. Impeachment
isn't like a criminal trial, its really about whether the official went against their oath to
"protect and defend the Constitution". This is the bit that President Trump doesn't quite
understand; everyone who's part of government swears an oath to protect and defend the
Constitution (so do naturalized citizens, BTW) and its this that they're loyal to, not an
individual. The individual only holds power because the Constitution gives it to them --
temporarily. (At the time of the founding of the US this was a bit of a novelty, the idea that
you owe fealty to an abstract concept rather than an individual, and many people even in this
country still don't get it.)
Ultimately, though -- as we found with Clinton in the 90s -- its
going to come down to "Because We Can". Personally I'd rather not bother, I'd just collect the
information, put it out there and let the electorate decide what's best for the country, but I'm
not running the show.
Martin Usher
This really didn't turn into an impeachment enquiry until the issue was forced by media partisanship.
President Trump has already crossed numerous boundaries that would get a normal President into trouble
and Ukraine was just another straw for the camel to carry. Next year is an election year and its
starting to look like the Democrats could field an actual donkey and still win the Presidency.
What's probably more damning than the whistleblower's original complaint is the testimony of Marie
Yovanaovitch, the US ambassador to Ukraine who had the rug pulled out from under her earlier this
year. I don't want to comment on her role in that country or the US's role in bringing 'freedom and
democracy' (aka "total chaos and economic ruin"), its more about the way that ill informed tweets and
media punditry by Fox News commentators such as Sean Hannity are undermining the work of the State
Department. Some might say this is a good thing but I personally believe that all this screwing
around, both with foreign relations and the economy, is doing the US demonstrable harm and probably
needs to have a stop put to it sooner rather later. This is not reality TV, this is serious stuff.
Those who've read my posts on this site will know that I've never been a fan of Russiagate or
interested in a renewed Cold War, its a road to nowhere. This is why I don't see the 'hand ofPutin'
everywhere, he's not the contemporary Illuminati and probably doesn't smoke (so no smoke filled
rooms). However, if I wanted to play international zero sum I would suggest that all Putin (and Xi)
needs to do to 'win' is to do nothing, just stand well back because the inevitable meltdown is going
to get really messy.
Tim Jenkins
Bravo Renée: I loved this article, not least because I loathe Adam Schiff with a vengeance,
as does anybody with the slightest degree of scientific & analytical know how: yet you managed to
avoid any partisan accusations and mentioning his name: which would have been impossible in my case
Quality journalism Renée and the head of the House Intelligence Committee should be immediately investigated, prosecuted and may
I add, Not thrown in Prison, but Shot at Dawn, for TREASON USA
Something I used to write regularly in the Guardian, before they banned me, was
Never in the field of Human Conflict, has
so much been owed by so few to so many
MichaelK
The USA is a deeply divided country. Split from the top to the bottom. The 'liberal' coastal cities on
collision course with the rest of the country.
The Democratic leadership have accepted that their
real chances of winning the next presidential election are small, unless the economy goes into a sharp
decline and the voters turn against Trump in their millions. This isn't happening. So Trump stands a
really good chance of winning in 2020. Just a year from now.
The party top wants another 'conservative' and 'safe' candidate like Clinton so they can keep
control of the party and banish the 'dangerous left' once more. Only the party activists don't want
another 'Clinton' candidate that'll lead them towards another defeat.
So, if the chances of defeating Trump democratically at the coming election are looking
'problematic' and increasingly remote; the alternative is to remove him from office by impeachment
where the Law is used instead of the voting system, which is far harder to control these days.
This process, removing political leaders using the Law, because they are corrupt, has been used in
several countries recently, for example in Brazil, where Lula was imprisoned and unable to stand for
election after a questionable trial.
Now, it's the turn of the USA. Whether the millions of Trump supporters will simply sit back and
watch this kind of 'legal coup' unfold, is another story.
mark
I think the reason for impeachment is not a substitute for an elusive electoral victory on the part
of the democrats.
It is actually far worse than that.
It is a case of "either we get him, or he gets us."
"Either we walk over him, or he walks over us."
They are simply trying to save their skins.
The Clinton/ Biden clans and their minions are now looking at serious jail time in a
winner-takes-all, high stakes, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners zero sum game.
The Deep State, the Spooks, the Dirty Cops, Wall Street, MIC, Hollywood and the MSM, and the
Democrat establishment, tried to rig the election to prevent Trump winning.
Having failed to achieve this, they tried to sabotage and delegitimise his administration by the
Russiagate hoax, planting spies in the White House, and corrupt and politicised investigations and
prosecutions of senior officials, using perjured and fabricated "evidence" from dubious foreign
sources (Steele, Dearlove, MI6, Ukraine.)
This is now a busted flush. Russiagate has been comprehensively debunked, however much the MSM
tries to pretend otherwise. Their criminality and corruption is being steadily and methodically
exposed for all the world to see.
Trump knows that impeachment would be just the beginning, not the end. They would not be content to
remove him from office, Nixon style. They want him broken, to make an example of him. They want him
in jail, bankrupt, his businesses broken up and his assets confiscated, his children and his
friends in jail with him. They won't settle for anything less than this.
The somewhat pathetic "Ukrainegate" saga is a smokescreen that his been thrown up in desperation at
short notice to try to snatch victory from defeat. It is becoming less and less credible as more
facts emerge. It seems to be based on little more than second or third hand gossip from rabidly
anti Trump sources, and is rapidly being discredited. No matter how much the MSM tries to big this
up, it will run its course leaving the anti Trump conspiracy even more nakedly exposed.
Trump and Barr have only to keep up the pressure to turn the tables.
Not that anyone should have any sympathy for Trump and his cronies. They all belong in jail, as do
the anti Trump faction. Ideally, they should all go to jail. It's a pity they can't all lose.
If you think it's all dirty and down in the gutter now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Let dog eat dog.
George Cornell
As your namesake Twain said, the more I see of people, the more I like of dogs. This is more
akin to cannibalism? I agree that we are just seeing the opening warmup acts now. But more like
unscripted unrehearsed professional wrestling every day.
nwwoods
Jail time? DC political elites? Not gone happen.
Tim Jenkins
MK Ultra good comment, upon which I could expand, but I don't want to give the game away, because I
reckon Trump's planning, timing and strategy is unstoppable, after he wins the next election.
All
will see and pretend that they knew all along what he was doing & going to do.
I should add, I'm on record @TheGuardian, stating that he would definitely win in 2016,
well in advance and nobody believed me, though it was easy to see & calculate, with sound analysis
of the key factors. It was obvious and I switched off, long before the announcement,
that he'd won, when they were still predicting HRC, knowing I was right, on that night.
I will tell you this much: It would be very silly of him to 'fire' the FED, before the elections
😉
phree
I have to disagree with Kiriakou and the author on this one. I'm a lawyer and I've been involved in
whistleblower cases on both sides. MANY whistleblowers do not want to go public. I'd say at least 50%
in my experience. And most whistleblowers have personal interests in addition to wanting to protect
the public interest -- they are looking for a pay day.
Plus, these attacks on this whistleblower for bias or lack of first hand knowledge really miss the
point: His claims have been almost entirely verified. There clearly was a quid pro quo (not that one
is necessary) as admitted by Mulvaney (before he tried to walk it back) and Sondland, and testified
about by others involved with Ukraine at the time. Since many National Security people were aghast at
these actions (including that die hard liberal Bolton), and Guliani says everything he was doing was
on behalf of his private client, there is no reason to think that this was a matter of national
security policy.
Indeed, the memo of Trump's phone call demonstrates the quid pro quo to any reasonable person -- it
certainly would be enough to indict a gangster. Do me a "favor" if you want me to sell you missiles?
That's not enough? Really? Especially when in order to buy the missiles you need the military
assistance money Trump was blocking.
Bbbbut what about the Bidens some whimper. Investigate them through proper channels, not by
blackmail through a back channel.
So, save your hair pulling for a whistleblower who's claims turn out to be false.
Northern
Your moral condemnation is evidently selective.
Bbbut what about the quid pro quo you whimper? Why don't you find some ordinary Ukrainian
citizens and ask them which was the greater evil; being thrust into civil war by rampaging mobs of
US sponsored neo-nazis, or the neo-nazi's not getting paid on time? Go re-asses your moral compass
you fascist sympathizer.
mark
The real scandal over Ukraine lies in Biden threatening to withhold $1 billion from the country
unless the prosecutor investigating Biden Junior was sacked – something he openly and publicly
bragged about.
Tom
Biden wasn't alone. Much of the rest of Europe was making the same call because the prosecutor
himself was corrupt. And why didn't the Republicans take this up when they had full control of
Congress during 2016/2017? I bet you can't come up with any kind of sensible answer!
Tim Jenkins
Use your real name or you are talking BOLLOCKS !
nwwoods
That's all very nice but this individual is a spy, not a "whistleblower".
Tom
Doesn't matter. Is the information correct? That's what you SHOULD be focusing on but then you
won't like how that further sullies the already awful reputation of your deity Trump.
mark
Schumer's concern for the welfare of whistleblowers may appear somewhat belated and unconvincing,
given his previous pronouncements about Snowden, Assange and Manning, but I suppose we should all
welcome a sinner come to repentance (or whatever the kosher equivalent is.)
Seamus Padraig
Chuck is now the '
shomer
'
(guardian) of wistleblowers.
Dungroanin
Was he part of the 'taskforce' or is he part of the diversion from that taskforce or indeed the
conspiracy against Ukraine by Obama/Clinton nazi promoting Nuland & co?
The report is – if not a
whitewash – going to ruin as many trousers and underwear as any explosive diarrhetic fart!
From Barry's stupid peace prize – to our stupid DS outlaws.
Especially if the tories carry on as they have started this election – with masterful pratfalls,
foot-in-mouths and devious lying, cheating and hiding.
When they've been employed by the CIA I'd say very, very rarely.
Real-life CIA whistleblower Jon Kiriakou who served 22 months in prison
Did he now? 22 months in prison and sentenced on 22 October. They love their 22s. Just as Chelsea
had 22 charges laid against her, was 22 at the time of her leaking and spent 22 hours a day in prison
for some of her alleged 7 year sentence.
His Wikipedia story does not sound in the least compelling. He allegedly disclosed the torture of
Abu Zubaydah, accused of being an aide to Osama bin Laden. So if bin Laden was an agent how real is
Zubaydah?
On December 10, 2007, Kiriakou gave an interview to ABC News[16] in which he described his
participation in the capture of Abu Zubaydah, who was accused of having been an aide to Al-Qaeda
leader Osama bin Laden. Kiriakou said that he did not witness Zubaydah's interrogation, but had
been told by CIA associates that it had taken only a single brief instance of waterboarding to
extract answers:
He was able to withstand the waterboarding for quite some time. And by that I mean probably
30, 35 seconds and a short time afterwards, in the next day or so, he told his interrogator that
Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate.[17]
Following the interview, Kiriakou's accounts of Abu Zubaydah's waterboarding were widely
repeated and paraphrased,[Note 1][6] and he became a regular guest expert on news and public
affairs shows on the topics of interrogation and counter-terrorism.
In 2009, however, it was reported that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded at least 83 times,[18]
and that little or no useful additional information may have been gained by "harsh methods" of
interrogation.[19][20] Kiriakou had been under the mistaken belief that Zubaydah was waterboarded
only once, and even that single instance he had described as a form of torture while expressing
reservations about whether the value of the information obtained was worth the damage done to the
United States' reputation.[citation needed]
Kiriakou has said that he chose not to blow the whistle on torture through internal channels
because he believed he "wouldn't have gotten anywhere" because his superiors and the congressional
intelligence committees were already aware of it.[21]
OMG! Does the theatre ever stop?
Tim Jenkins
"OMG! Does the theatre ever stop?"
yep, it does actually: when you finally suss out what Bill
Binney was telling you all about; about 6 years before you profess to have taken an interest in the
events leading up to and including those that occurred on the 11th sept. 2001 and of course, the
missing D.o.D $$$TRILLIONS$$$ and what they spent the money on >>>
Like "Parallel Platforms" !
mark
What's a mere missing $21 trillion between friends?
Probably just fallen down the back of the sofa.
Along with the 140 tons of Libyan gold and the 1,500 tons of German gold and the Ukrainian
gold and the gold from WTC 7 and the Venezuelan gold ..
There's a perfectly simple explanation for everything if you look hard enough.
mark
China is the biggest gold producer in the world, with over 400 tons a year, none of which
is ever seen outside the country.
There has been speculation that their holdings are over 10,000 tons, but nobody really
knows.
This follows the historical pattern over thousands of years, China exporting silk, spices,
quality ceramics and tea, and taking silver bullion in payment. Europe was drained of
silver until the looting of the New World.
Some people believe that America has 8,300 tons, a figure unchanged since 1971. But then
again some people believe in fairies and Father Christmas.
Democrats?. You just stand
back and watch them implode. It's painful to watch some days I'll tell ya
George Cornell
Debbie does the Dems. Wasserperson Schultz , where are you when your party needs some deep
corruption?
Keeping an émigré in charge of the foreign policy towards that country. What could go wrong?
Notable quotes:
"... Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains in part its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though he has done precious little in reality. Part of Vindman's written statement (my emphasis) is revealing: ""When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration's policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to US government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine." ..."
"... Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State rather than responding to his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone on in his country of birth. President Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth's three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett – to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close to Moscow. The regime change was brought about by "mavericks" like the foul-mouthed neocon State Department officer Victoria Nuland and the footloose warmonger Senator John McCain. Vice President Joe Biden also appeared on the scene after the "wetwork" was done, with his son Hunter trailing behind him. Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet governments propped up by billions in foreign aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe. ..."
"... Colonel Vindman, who reported to noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill, who in turn reported to By Jingo We'll Go To War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was focused instead on speeding up the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective was to punish the Russians and prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any sense. ..."
"... Vindman's concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would benefit from bilking the taxpayer to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding. He does eventually go on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that "Since 2008, Russia has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security interests because Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression ." ..."
"... The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave Ukrainians serving as a bastion of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering. Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's or Spain's limiting its imperial ambitions, if they actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the United States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US Establishment when he repeats the conventional arguments. ..."
"... Alexander Vindman does not say or write that the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO is his actual objective, but his comments about "integrating with the West" and the "Euro-Atlantic community" clearly imply just that. ..."
"... A certain colonel named "Colonel" Vindman is secretly running the White House's foreign policy with a secret globalist agenda right under the Donald Trump's nose (a "colonel" who, by the way, is about as battlefield hero as Melania Trump). The outcome? The American foreign policy in shambles, a total sham, a farce on steroids, a schizo chaos of competing special interests, payola, kickbacks, quid-pro-quo big-fish-eats-small clusterfuck, foreign influence-peddling and deepstatism. ..."
"... "It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe" (Ukraine). Well done boys. Another Libya? There is a pattern here. ..."
The current
frenzy to impeach President Donald Trump sometimes in its haste reveals that which could easily be hidden about the operation
of the Deep State inside the federal government. Congress is currently obtaining testimony from a parade of witnesses to or participants
in what will inevitably be called UkraineGate, an investigation into whether Trump inappropriately sought a political quid pro quo
from Ukrainian leaders in exchange for a military assistance package.
The
prepared opening statement by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert on the National Security
Council (NSC), provides some insights into how decision making at the NSC actually works. Vindman was born in Ukraine but emigrated
to the United States with his family at age three. He was commissioned as an army infantry officer in 1998 and served in some capacity
in Iraq from 2004-5, where he was wounded by a roadside bomb and received a purple heart. Vindman, who speaks both Ukrainian and
Russian fluently, has filled a number of diplomatic and military positions in government dealing with Eastern Europe, to include
a key role in Pentagon planning on how to deal with Russia.
Vindman, Ukrainian both by birth and culturally, clearly was a major player in articulating and managing US policy towards that
country, but that is not really what his role on the NSC should have been. As more than likely the US government's sole genuine Ukrainian
expert, he should have become a source of viable options that the United States might exercise vis-à-vis its relationship with Ukraine,
and, by extension, regarding Moscow's involvement with Kiev. But that is not how his statement, which advocates for a specific policy,
reads. Rather than providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding quickly enough
to suit him, an extremely risky policy which has already created serious problems with a much more important Russia.
Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global conflict
as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains
in part its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though he has done precious
little in reality. Part of Vindman's written statement (my emphasis) is revealing: ""When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began
implementing the administration's policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false
narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to US government policy.
While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined
US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine."
Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State rather than responding to
his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone
on in his country of birth. President Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth's three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett
– to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close to Moscow. The regime change
was brought about by "mavericks" like the foul-mouthed neocon State Department officer Victoria Nuland and the footloose warmonger
Senator John McCain. Vice President Joe Biden also appeared on the scene after the "wetwork" was done, with his son Hunter trailing
behind him. Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet governments propped up by billions in foreign
aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe.
Washington inside-the-beltway and the Deep State choose to blame the mess in Ukraine on Russian President Vladimir Putin and the
established narrative also makes the absurd claim that the political situation in Kiev is somehow important to US national security.
The preferred solution is to provide still more money, which feeds the corruption and enables the Ukrainians to attack the Russians.
Colonel Vindman, who reported to noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill, who in turn reported to By Jingo We'll Go To
War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was
focused instead on speeding up the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for
Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective was to punish the Russians and
prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any sense.
Note the following additional excerpt from Vindman's prepared statement: " .I was worried about the implications for the US government's
support of Ukraine . I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted
as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained ."
Vindman's concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would benefit from bilking the taxpayer
to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding.
He does eventually go on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that "Since 2008, Russia has manifested
an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional
hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further
confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security interests because
Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression ."
The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave Ukrainians serving as a bastion
of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering. Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's or Spain's limiting its
imperial ambitions, if they actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the United
States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important
American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US
Establishment when he repeats the conventional arguments.
It hardly seems possible, but Vindman then goes on to dig himself into a still deeper hole through his statement's praise of the
train wreck that is Ukraine. He writes "In spite of being under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken major
steps towards integrating with the West . The US government policy community's view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelensky
and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize
its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity. The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working
together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community
."
Alexander Vindman does not say or write that the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO is his actual objective, but his comments
about "integrating with the West" and the "Euro-Atlantic community" clearly imply just that. The expansion of NATO up to Russia's
borders by the rascally Bill Clinton constituted one of the truly most momentous lost foreign policy opportunities of the twentieth
century. The addition of Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance would magnify that error as both are vital national security interests
for Moscow given their history and geography. Vindman should be regarded as a manifestation of the Deep State thinking that has brought
so much grief to the United States over the past twenty years. Seen in that light, his testimony, wrapped in an air of sanctimoniousness
and a uniform, should be regarded as little more than the conventional thinking that has produced foreign policy failure after failure.
Exactly 100 years ago, in 1919, a certain colonel named "Colonel" House was secretly running the White House's foreign policy
with a secret globalist agenda right under the Woodrow Wilson's nose (a "colonel" who, by the way, was neither an army officer,
nor the battlefield hero - in fact, he was about as much of a colonel as Colonel Parker). The outcome? The post-World War 1 "new
world order" (which was neither new, nor order, nor global in any sense) that was a nightmare on steroids, a humpty-dumpty Frankenstein
that gave birth to both Nazism and Bolshevism as well as Globalist Elitism, American Exceptionalism, and New Deal Neoliberalism
and was every satanist's wet dream. Short of procreating Beelzebub and Baphomet, "Colonel" House just about did 'em all.
Fast forward 100 years, back to the future: year 2019 AD. A certain colonel named "Colonel" Vindman is secretly running
the White House's foreign policy with a secret globalist agenda right under the Donald Trump's nose (a "colonel" who, by the way,
is about as battlefield hero as Melania Trump). The outcome? The American foreign policy in shambles, a total sham, a farce on
steroids, a schizo chaos of competing special interests, payola, kickbacks, quid-pro-quo big-fish-eats-small clusterfuck, foreign
influence-peddling and deepstatism.
So, yes, Karl Marx was, for once, right. History really does repeat itself. It first comes as a tragedy and then returns the
second time around as an inbred farce. Or a slapstick.
A vet with a Purple Heart can be a piece of crap just like anyone else. Neither status is akin to sainthood. In fact this guy should be ashamed of the way the US government has wronged Ukraine and he is a damned big part of it.
It is absolutely mind boggling how the Democrats get away with making up false claims over and over but the real losers are voters who are paying useless jack asses to do nothing. What has the House done ? Further testimony to the farce is Mr. Magoo , Sessions , thinking he might have some contribution to make .
And Vindman sat with his whistle up his *** while Biden played pay to play and blackmailed Ukraine into dropping the investigation of the company his under qualified over paid son sat on. Biden let his ego overtake reason and admitted on tape what he did . Held back payment to Ukraine unless a judge was off the
case .
What did Vindman do about that ? Was he in on it ? Vindman is a patsy and a gossip . Nothing more . OK except for lying about his deep Democrat attachments . The guy looks like a deer in headlights but he is just being used .
A vet with a Purple Heart can be a piece of crap just like anyone else. Neither status is akin to sainthood. In fact this guy should be ashamed of the way the US government has wronged Ukraine and he is a damned big part of it.
"... The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an "attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. ..."
"... We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under President Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. ..."
"... We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. ..."
"... Opponents of Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate say it is impermissible or unprecedented to "investigate the investigators." But the bipartisan Church Committee, based in the US Senate, did so in the mid-1970s. It exposed many abuses by US intelligence agencies, particularly by the CIA, and adopted remedies that it believed would be permanent. Clearly, they have not been. ..."
"... However well-intentioned Barr may be, he is Trump's attorney general and therefore not fully credible. As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed. It's time for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty. ..."
Almost daily for three years, Democrats and their media have told us very bad things about
Donald Trump's life, character, and presidency. Some of them are true. But in the process, we
have also learned some lamentable, even alarming, things about the Democratic Party
establishment, including self-professed liberals. Consider the following:
The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia
attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an
"attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. But there was no
"attack" in 2016, only, as I have
previously explained , ritualistic "meddling" of the kind that both Russia and America
have undertaken in the other's elections for decades. Little can be more phobic than the
allegation or belief that one has been "attacked by a hostile" entity. And yet this myth and
its false narrative persist in the Democratic Party's discourse, campaigning, and
fund-raising. We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies
under President Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of
National Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential
candidacy and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this
operation " Intelgate ," and it has
since been well documented by other writers, including
Lee Smith in his new book . Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain
leading, and equally Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed
such transgressions. This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will
leave power, but these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain. We also
learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be fully
trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream media --
leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to cover and
report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of Russiagate
allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The New York
Times seem
eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and
his appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's
critics accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and
the Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert
Mueller report. And we have learned, or should have learned, that for all the talk by
Democrats about Trump as a danger to US national security, it is their Russiagate allegations
that truly endanger it. Consider two examples. Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can
elude US missile-defense systems, make new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative
and urgent. If only for the sake of his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so. But even if
he is able to, will Trump be entrusted enough to conduct negotiations as successfully as did
his predecessors in the White House, given the "Putin puppet" and "Kremlin stooge"
accusations still being directed at him? Similarly, as I have asked repeatedly, if confronted
with a US-Russian Cuban missile–like crisis -- anywhere Washington and Moscow are
currently eyeball-to-eyeball militarily, from the Baltic region and Ukraine to Syria -- will
Trump be as free politically as was President John F. Kennedy to resolve it without war? Here
too there is an inconvenient truth: To the extent that Democrats any longer seriously discuss
national security in the context of US-Russian relations, it mostly involves vilifying both
Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. (Recall also that previous presidents were free to
negotiate with Russia's Soviet communist leaders, even encouraged to do so, whereas the
demonized Putin is an anti-communist, post-Soviet leader.)
The current state of US-Russian relations is unprecedentedly dangerous, not only due to
reasons cited here -- a new Cold War fraught with the possibility of hot war. Whether President
Trump serves one or two terms, he must be fully empowered to cope with the multiple
possibilities of a US-Russian military confrontation. That requires ridding him and our nation
of Russiagate allegations -- and that in turn requires learning how such allegations
originated.
Opponents of Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate say it is impermissible
or unprecedented to "investigate the investigators." But the bipartisan Church Committee, based
in the US Senate, did so in the mid-1970s. It exposed many abuses by US intelligence agencies,
particularly by the CIA, and adopted remedies that it believed would be permanent. Clearly,
they have not been.
However well-intentioned Barr may be, he is Trump's attorney general and therefore not
fully credible. As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed.
It's time for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back
away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on
Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. A Ukrainian-American operative who
was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian
Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul
Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. The
Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and
advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the
east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia's alleged
hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
Politico, January 11, 2017
Still, Trump critics insist the pressure the president exerted on Ukraine, and the desire to
receive dirt on Biden for 2020, was implicit.
The same month of Zaid's 2017 "coup" tweet, Sen. Charles Schumer, a leader in the Democrat
party, issued a public warning to Trump that if he took on the intelligence community, it has "
six ways from Sunday
" to "get back at you". MSNBC Host Rachel Maddow asked Schumer, "What would the intelligence
community do?" Schumer answered, "I don't know," but went on to say the intel community was
very upset with Trump.
On Aug. 15, 2016, after FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok and his FBI girlfriend Lisa
Page met with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok texted Page that they couldn't take the
risk of Trump getting elected without having "an insurance policy" in place.
Another figure, Benjamin Wittes, chose the same phrase. In October 2016, in his Lawfare
blog, Wittes
wrote : "What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald
Trump's actually winning the Presidency."
Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey . Wittes spoke to a New York Times
reporter about Comey's interactions with President Trump , right after Robert Mueller 's appointment as special
counsel.
In a 2016 blog post, Wittes wrote that his vision of an "insurance policy" against Trump
would rely on a "Coalition of All Democratic Forces" to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the
courts as a "tool" and Congress as "a partner or tool." He even mentioned impeachment -- two
weeks before Trump was elected.
Read more: What would the intelligence community's "insurance policy" against Trump look
like? Click the link below.
"... How many establishment Dems (or even non-establishment Dems) have indicated that they have any objections to arming the Ukrainians? ..."
"... The Democrats position is that arming the Ukrainians is a good and moral thing to do and that Trump is terrible for threatening to stop it, which is far simpler, far more logical and, if one ignores its flagrant immorality, far easier to 'swallow'. ..."
"... As always 'reversing the polarities' gives clarity (imagine I worked for Putin, who was arming MS-13, and then Putin put me on trial because, for whatever reason, I stopped arming MS-13 .what would we think of Putin?). ..."
... How many establishment Dems (or even non-establishment Dems) have indicated
that they have any objections to arming the Ukrainians? That would be in the region of
about 'none', I would imagine.
... ... ...
The Democrats position is that arming the Ukrainians is a good and moral thing to do and
that Trump is terrible for threatening to stop it, which is far simpler, far more logical and,
if one ignores its flagrant immorality, far easier to 'swallow'.
As always 'reversing the polarities' gives clarity (imagine I worked for Putin, who was
arming MS-13, and then Putin put me on trial because, for whatever reason, I stopped arming
MS-13 .what would we think of Putin?).
v> I keep hearing responses that this impeachment process is about 'procedure'. Are
there criminal/ prosecutable consequences for pushing forth this impeachment process on an
unfounded basis or political bias? How about false accusations and claims by Schiff? If this
is just a stall to impede the progress of the President to prevent his and our success,
especially with all the malfeasance and corruption that is being exposed the last three years
from his opposition and previous administration, can and will there be legal consequences to
Schiff and company's incompetence, ineffectivenesss, abuse, and attacks? What is it that can
be held legally against those who have been pushing this impeachment without proper basis,
just their contempt for the man with over 60 million votes who won an election rigged against
him? Will there be an impeachment in every future administration on this current basis?
60 Minutes (Of Lies) interviewed Joe Biden allowing him a platform to do damage control
about his crimes in Ukraine & spread lies against the Justice Department!
This is not an interview. They do not listen to each other. And only Bannon mentions
CrowdStrike. Cooper is trying to present he this whole thin that Trump going after Biden. Biden
is ideal opponent for Trump. And CrowdStrike is much more important
Cooper, we had the Mueller investigation, impeachment hearing after hearing, opposition to
supreme court picks etc. Aren't you interested in the truth, why can't investigations be
launched in the other direction. Honest question! Why can't democrats be investigated? As if
they could do no wrong! America has a problem within the DNC and with leftist
politics.....
ionlink " data-sessionlink="itct=CBQQtnUiEwi4paSI1tnlAhWF9ZwKHZhDBgw"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0HRyTTIyBA&t=232s"> 3:52 4:09 : Cooper: "the president
has access to--we have corruption-fighters in the Treasury-Department. He could have called
up Steve Minuchin and said, 'You know what? Give me a list of most corrupt players in
Ukraine. I'll talk to the president about it.' He didn't. The only thing he cites as a favor
is crowd-strike server Biden." Cooper exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the
organizational hierarchy of the executive branch of the federal government. Subordinate
federal officers, such as Treasury Secretary Minuchin and his "corruption-fighters," serve at
the pleasure of the president. Trump could dismiss Minuchin any time. Minuchin serves the
president. The president does not serve or take orders from his cabinet-officials. The
president is not obliged to delegate tasks to his subordinates, though he may choose to do
so, at his pleasure. The primary responsibility for enforcing law is the president's, not his
subordinates' . Again, it is not the business of the US to investigate or prosecute
corruption among Ukrainian officials. That is President Zelensky's duty. Trump''s duty is to
investigate and prosecute corruption of US officials. 5:58 : Cooper: "Democrats would
argue with you, saying, 'you know what hurts the United States is using taxpayer-money as a
weapon, against an ally, who's fighting our enemy..' It's not like it's Donald Trump's money,
saying, buying information about the Bidens." It's not only Trump's money, but he has a share
in it, as a US taxpayer. As president, he is the custodian of that aid, until it is
transferred to Ukraine. He has a duty to treat it prudently. Donald Trump prudently and
judiciously delayed transfer of the aid to Ukraine until he was reasonably sure, from
assurances from anti-corruption President Zelensky, that the aid would serve the purposed
intended, to defend Ukraine against Russia, not vanish into the pockets of corrupt Ukrainian
or US officials. That delay is rational, given the long track-record of Ukrainian corruption.
Trump did not use the aid "as a weapon." 6:28 : Cooper: "...cite some
specific thing. There's no evidence...The president hasn't cited any evidence. He's just
throwing this out and he said, 'Oh, in China too.' He hasn't cited anything. There's no
facts." Again, Cooper exhibits his fundamental misunderstanding of fundamental principles.
Trump was calling for an investigation. He has not concluded anything yet. The infamous
videotaped statements of Joe Biden that he threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine, unless
the Ukrainians fired the prosecutor who was investigating his son's gas-company and that,
within six hours, that prosecutor was fired and the aid delivered, raises suspicion of
corruption, but only suspicion. The purpose of a criminal investigation is to collect and
ascertain evidence. At the instigation of an investigation, the evidence is obviously not
collected or ascertained yet. That collection and ascertainment comes with the passage of
time and the effort of investigators. 8:51 Cooper: "I think a kid,
being on a board, I think it's shady. I think it makes no sense." Bannon: "Shady? It's
corrupt." Precisely, but only suspicion of corruption. Before, Cooper was objecting that
Trump cited no evidence, because he, Trump, only had tentative suspicion of Biden's
corruption, not conclusive evidence. In the last passage, Cooper concedes precisely the same
sort of suspicion. He thus arguably contradicted himself.
'No, you don't. It's both psychologically possible and not at all inconsistent to
object to a general strategy, and to object how the strategy is being used for personal
gain.'
Possible but not likely. How many establishment Dems (or even non-establishment Dems)
have indicated that they have any objections to arming the Ukrainians? That would be in the
region of about 'none', I would imagine. While what I assume your position is logically
consistent (although bizarre .'I think it's disgusting that the US is giving weapons to the
Ukrainians although I'm not prepared to do anything about that, but Trump, who threatened to
stop doing this, he must be impeached, because he was threatening to stop arming the
Ukrainians, which, to repeat, I approve of, for the wrong reasons.' .it's a logically
consistent but deeply weird argument), it's very obviously not the Democrats' position.
The Democrats position is that arming the Ukrainians is a good and moral thing to do and
that Trump is terrible for threatening to stop it, which is far simpler, far more logical and,
if one ignores its flagrant immorality, far easier to 'swallow'.
As always 'reversing the polarities' gives clarity (imagine I worked for Putin, who was
arming MS-13, and then Putin put me on trial because, for whatever reason, I stopped arming
MS-13 .what would we think of Putin?).
It's not even clear what motive Trump has. Biden has as much chance of being President as I
have, he won't be the Presidential candidate, this wasn't an 'attack' on him, it was an attack
on his son, who Biden could easily distance himself from even on its own terms the accusation
make absolutely no sense. It does, however, focus a laser like light on the Bidens's activities
in the Ukraine, which may not be something that the Democrats really want to happen, for all
kinds of reasons.
The current
frenzy
to impeach
President Donald Trump sometimes in its haste reveals that which could easily be
hidden about the operation of the Deep State inside the federal government.
Congress is
currently obtaining testimony from a parade of witnesses to or participants in what will inevitably
be called UkraineGate, an investigation into whether Trump inappropriately sought a political
quid
pro quo
from Ukrainian leaders in exchange for a military assistance package.
The
prepared
opening statement
by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert
on the National Security Council (NSC), provides some insights into how decision making at the NSC
actually works.
Vindman was born in Ukraine but emigrated to the United States with his
family at age three. He was commissioned as an army infantry officer in 1998 and served in some
capacity in Iraq from 2004-5, where he was wounded by a roadside bomb and received a purple heart.
Vindman, who speaks both Ukrainian and Russian fluently, has filled a number of diplomatic and
military positions in government dealing with Eastern Europe, to include a key role in Pentagon
planning on how to deal with Russia.
Vindman, Ukrainian both by birth and culturally, clearly was a major player in
articulating and managing US policy towards that country, but that is not really what his role on
the NSC should have been.
As more than likely the US government's sole genuine Ukrainian
expert, he should have become a source of viable options that the United States might exercise
vis-à-vis its relationship with Ukraine, and, by extension, regarding Moscow's involvement with
Kiev. But that is not how his statement, which advocates for a specific policy, reads. Rather than
providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding
quickly enough to suit him, an extremely risky policy which has already created serious problems
with a much more important Russia.
Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the
Deep State, which considers global conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from
the US taxpayer.
Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains in part
its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though
he has done precious little in reality. Part of Vindman's written statement (my emphasis) is
revealing: ""When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration's policy
on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false
narrative of Ukraine
inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency.
This
narrative was harmful to US government policy. While
my interagency colleagues and I
were
becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US
government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine."
Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State
rather than responding to his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision
making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone on in his country of birth. President
Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth's three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett –
to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close
to Moscow. The regime change was brought about by "mavericks" like the foul-mouthed neocon State
Department officer Victoria Nuland and the footloose warmonger Senator John McCain. Vice President
Joe Biden also appeared on the scene after the "wetwork" was done, with his son Hunter trailing
behind him. Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet
governments propped up by billions in foreign aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in
Europe.
Washington inside-the-beltway and the Deep State choose to blame the mess in Ukraine on
Russian President Vladimir Putin and the established narrative also makes the absurd claim that the
political situation in Kiev is somehow important to US national security. The preferred solution is
to provide still more money, which feeds the corruption and enables the Ukrainians to attack the
Russians.
Colonel Vindman, who reported to noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill, who in turn
reported to By Jingo We'll Go To War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring
down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was focused instead on speeding up
the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for
Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective
was to punish the Russians and prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any
sense.
Note the following additional excerpt from Vindman's prepared statement: " .I was worried about
the implications for the US government's support of Ukraine . I realized that if Ukraine pursued an
investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which
would undoubtedly
result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far
maintained
."
Vindman's concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would
benefit from bilking the taxpayer to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if
Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding. He does eventually go
on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that "Since 2008, Russia has
manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid
warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to
dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the
West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security
interests because
Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression
."
The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave
Ukrainians serving as a bastion of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering.
Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's or Spain's limiting its imperial ambitions, if they
actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the
United States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet
Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows
that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US Establishment when he
repeats the conventional arguments.
It hardly seems possible, but Vindman then goes on to dig himself into a still deeper hole
through his statement's praise of the train wreck that is Ukraine. He writes "In spite of being
under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken major steps towards
integrating
with the West
. The US government policy community's view is that the election of President
Volodymyr Zelensky and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine's
Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and
economic prosperity. The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working
together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is
integrated into the
Euro-Atlantic community
."
Alexander Vindman does not say or write that the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO is
his actual objective, but his comments about "integrating with the West" and the "Euro-Atlantic
community" clearly imply just that.
The expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders by the
rascally Bill Clinton constituted one of the truly most momentous lost foreign policy opportunities
of the twentieth century. The addition of Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance would magnify that
error as both are vital national security interests for Moscow given their history and geography.
Vindman should be regarded as a manifestation of the Deep State thinking that has
brought so much grief to the United States over the past twenty years. Seen in that light, his
testimony, wrapped in an air of sanctimoniousness and a uniform, should be regarded as little more
than the conventional thinking that has produced foreign policy failure after failure.
Exactly 100 years ago, in 1919, a
certain colonel named "Colonel"
House was secretly running the
White House's foreign policy with
a secret globalist agenda right
under the Woodrow Wilson's
nose (a "colonel" who, by the
way, was neither an army officer,
nor the battlefield hero - in
fact, he was about as much of a
colonel as Colonel Parker). The
outcome? The post-World War 1
"new world order" (which was
neither new, nor order, nor
global in any sense) that was a
nightmare on steroids, a
humpty-dumpty Frankenstein that
gave birth to both Nazism and
Bolshevism as well as
Globalist Elitism, American
Exceptionalism, and New Deal
Neoliberalism and was every
satanist's wet dream. Short of
procreating Beelzebub and
Baphomet, "Colonel" House just
about did 'em all.
Fast
forward 100 years, back to the
future: year 2019 AD. A certain
colonel named "Colonel" Vindman
is secretly running the White
House's foreign policy with a
secret globalist agenda right
under the Donald Trump's nose (a
"colonel" who, by the way, is
about as battlefield hero as
Melania Trump). The outcome? The
American foreign policy in
shambles, a total sham, a farce
on steroids, a schizo chaos of
competing special interests,
payola, kickbacks, quid-pro-quo
big-fish-eats-small clusterfuck,
foreign influence-peddling and
deepstatism.
So, yes, Karl Marx was, for
once, right. History really does
repeat itself. It first comes as
a tragedy and then returns the
second time around as an
inbred farce. Or a slapstick.
He served our nation with
distinction, and his
testimony is in line with
what we heard from the
diplomats and Sandberg who
keeps twisting himself into
a brezel.
Managed to
grab the 4th post in just a
few seconds for your Jewz
insertion. Keep up the bad
work, true professional that
you are - BTW, how much in
American money ??? Per word
or post ???
Another dipshitz, another
thread; FOAD, please soon.
The article , written by Breitbart senior investigative reporter New York Times bestselling author and Aaron Klein, details how
Ciaramella was central to the Obama administration's Ukraine policy - including the eventual signing of a $1 billion US loan guarantee
after former VP Joe Biden pressured them into firing the guy investigating an energy company paying his son to sit on their board
, Burisma Holdings.
In response to Trump Jr. tweeting Ciaramella's name, journalist Yashar Ali (who worked for Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential
campaign) contacted Don Jr., who told him " The outrage on this is BS. And those pretending that I would coordinate with The White
House to send out a Breitbart link haven't been watching my feed for a long time ."
Don Jr. then tweeted "The entire media is #Triggered that I (a private citizen) tweeted out a story naming the alleged whistleblower.
Are they going to pretend that his name hasn't been in the public domain for weeks now? Numerous people & news outlets including
Real Clear Politics already ID'd him."
Trump Jr.'s 'outing' of Ciaramella comes one day after Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said he was considering releasing the whistleblower's
name, and claimed that he may be involved in Ukraine corruption.
Ciaramella interfaced about Ukraine with individuals who played key roles in facilitating the infamous anti-Trump dossier produced
by Fusion GPS and reportedly financed by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Obama Bin Biden and the crooked clan need to get back in the game somehow so they can rip
off another 3 billion in US tax payer loans. What were they up to 44 Billion in fraudulent
loans to Ukraine?
Interesting how they want to Impeach Trump over Ukraine, don't you think?
Oleg, you followed Biden story from its very inception. Biden is not the only Dem
politician involved in the Ukrainian corruption schemes, is he?
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his
partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the
US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised
transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of
the Ukraine; the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit
of a few corruptioners, American and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its
dependence on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural gas,
sufficient for domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low;
and the Ukrainians got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to
produce that the Ukraine could provide all its households with free gas for heating and
cooking, just like Libya did. Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma)
had very high profits and very little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to
European levels, and the new president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went
sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and heating;
and huge profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering
prices, President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his
projects. He said that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be considered a
partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually
its founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners
into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He
had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it
didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney
General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin
immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand
dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the
Ukrainian tax code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six
hours to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US
taxpayers' funds won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner,
paid Biden well for this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars,
according to different sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and
installed Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma,
but he also could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could not keep
his trap shut: by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself.
Meanwhile Mr Shokin gave evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and
now it was confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers in connection with another
case, Firtash case.
US foreign policy is driven by "diaspora politics" - double traitors who first betrayed
their home country and are now betraying the US in the name of their nationalist Nazi
ideology and their desire to wage war on Russia.
My friend George Eliason has expanded on the topic.
After weeks of secretive impeachment proceedings from which House Democrats have largely excluded
Republican lawmakers, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA)
announced on Twitter
Wednesday that
his committee will hold its first public impeachment hearings next week
.
Unsurprisingly, those with the most damaging testimony will be peddled out, while witnesses who
gave exonerating testimony such as special envoy Kurt Volker and Ambassador Gordon Sondland are
notably absent from the roster.
First up? On Wednesday, November 13 the panel will hear from
Bill Taylor
- the
top US diplomat in Ukraine who told house investigators last month that he believes there was a
quid pro quo between the Trump administration and Ukraine.
Taylor notably expressed his concerns in a Sept. 9 text message to US ambassador to the EU,
Gordon Sondland, saying: "
I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with
a political campaign.
"
To which Sondland, dictating from Trump, replies "
Bill, I believe you are incorrect
about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any
kind,
" adding "I suggest we stop the back and forth by text."
Sondland, meanwhile, 'updated' his earlier testimony to clarify that he told a top Ukrainian
official that the country would need to commit to investigating former VP Joe Biden and other
Democrats in exchange for the release of nearly $400 million in US military aid.
"I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public
anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," said Sondland. That said,
Sondland also testified that his quid pro quo comments were
his
opinion,
and that President Trump specifically said he did not want one.
Also testifying next Wednesday will be State Department official George Kent
,
who testified that he was told to "lay low" on Ukraine matters, before being edged out on Ukraine
policy by Sondland according to the
New
York Times
.
Lastly,
recalled US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch will testify on Friday
. She
privately told House investigators that Rudy Giuliani and his associates led a campaign to have her
ousted based on claims that she was blocking Ukraine from investigating Burisma, the Ukrainian gas
company paying Hunter Biden to sit on its board.
A good politician should of course be sensitive to both public opinion and to potential
allies, so of course Pelosi should take into account Republicans who might want to nail
Trump. If there were enough of those in the Senate, he might even get removed from
office!
Do you suggest that this is not a pro-wrestling type of exercise, a dirty media-oriented
trick designed to increase the chances of Dem neoliberal candidate (supposedly Warren) to win
the 2020 election? And that Schiff serves any other role then reincarnation of Maddow, and want
to get to the bottom of the dirty deals between the US officials and their Ukrainian puppets
both adamant to fleece Ukrainian population via the debt trap and enrich themselves in the
process (the standard of living in Ukraine dropped probably two times after 2014 and now is on
the level of central African countries ($2 a day or so for bottom 50%) , while currency
depreciated around 300%) ?
And truth be told Warren is just a careerist with sharp elbows, who does not challenge the
establishment narrative (kind of Eisenhower republican) and while like Trump during election
campaign she attacks FIRE sector, she most probably will fold in best Obama "change we can
believe in" fashion and will continue imperial foreign policy, while giving some necessary but
limited relief to deplorables domestically in order to prevent mass protests. I want to be
wrong is this assessment, but we have what we have.
I would recommend you to read Matt Taibbi's Hate Inc., which might help to educate you about
intricacies of the US neoliberal political scene. Among other things, he provides an
interesting assessment of "MadCow" style media personalities and their assigned roles: FOX vs.
MSBNC with Maddow "a depressingly exact mirror" of Hannity. Both Sean and Rachel maintain the
bipartisan consensus for ever-increasing military budgets, for everlasting wars, for
ever-expanding surveillance, for ever-growing bailouts of and tax breaks for multinationals and
FIRE sector.
And how the range of opinions has been artificially and skillfully narrowed and emasculated
long before you get to hear it.
The idea is to manufacture fake dissent in order to smother real dissent. That's
by-and-large is what the impeachment process is about.
I can't take anyone seriously once they start denying the Russian influence operation.
Even if we abstract from a distinct neo-McCarthyism smell of such a statement, you are
completely out of touch with reality.
This is not about Russia, or Ukraine, or quid pro quo in supplying weapons to Ukraine
(it is unclear why Liberasts (note the Russian term) think that it is a good thing; it does not
change the balance of power in the region and they might ends in the hands of Ukrainian far
right; kind of Christian Taliban ) .
This is about out of control intelligence agencies (and first of all CIA) as well as
factions of neoliberals/neocons in the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and
Pentagon who want to prevent any change of the USA imperial policies.
In other words, this is about well-being of a loyal (and well paid) imperial troops who want
to preserve their franchise and money flows despite the obvious signs of weakening and/or
disintegration of the US led global neoliberal empire (China, Russia, Iran and other "axis of
resistance" states; frictions with EU, Brexit, etc ) by deposing the current "Emperor" and
installing their own puppet. Kind of Praetorian Guard ( https://www.britannica.com/topic/Praetorian-Guard
) revolt in a modern incarnation.
The hawkish mindset that liberals have embraced threatens not just their own political
fortunes but also global peace...
Last week's vote by House Democrats to formally open an impeachment inquiry of President Donald
Trump followed testimony that appeared to boost their case. Several US officials told Congress that
the Trump administration sought to leverage US military aid to pressure Ukraine into opening
politically tainted investigations.
But liberals cheering on these developments should be
mindful of their limitations -- and their potential consequences.
The available testimony does
not strike me as being as damning for Trump as it is being portrayed. More importantly, even if that
proves to be a faulty interpretation, the impeachment frenzy is enrolling liberals in a dangerous Cold
War mentality that could threaten their own election chances in 2020.
The Democrats' theory of the case is plausible: At the same time as Trump's chosen point man, EU
Ambassador Gordon Sondland, pressured Ukraine to launch politically beneficial investigations, the
president froze military aid as a tool of added leverage. But
although the available testimony
helps the impeachment case so far, we have not uncovered a smoking gun.
Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, says that Sondland told him that the military
assistance was conditioned on a Ukrainian pledge to open investigations into Burisma, the company
where Hunter Biden got his lucrative board seat, and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US
election. Taylor also offered the first known testimony that this demand was made explicit to the
Ukrainian side: According to Taylor, National Security Council aide Tim Morrison told him that
Sondland directly communicated the quid pro quo to Andriy Yermak, an aide to Ukraine's prime minister,
Volodymyr Zelensky, at a meeting in Warsaw in September 1.
Morrison corroborated Taylor's testimony in his appearance last week. But we do not yet know
whether Morrison witnessed the Sondland-Yermak conversation that he told Taylor about, or is relying
on his recollection of what Sondland told him. This would allow Sondland to claim that Morrison
misinterpreted him.
What is certain is that Morrison left some wiggle room for Trump.
His opening
statement says that he and Taylor "had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector
assistance might be conditioned on a public statement reopening the Burisma investigation" until he
spoke to Sondland in Warsaw on September 1. "Even then," he added, "I hoped that Ambassador Sondland's
strategy was exclusively his own," and not Trump's. According to CNN,
Morrison
testified
that he tried to find out whether Sondland was relaying demands to the Ukrainian side on
Trump's behalf, or was "going rogue" as a "free radical." The fact that Morrison suspected that
Sondland's "strategy was exclusively his own" means that his testimony did not directly implicate
Trump. And it leaves Trump with the leeway to claim that Sondland, and perhaps Rudolph Giuliani, were
indeed "going rogue."
It is perfectly reasonable to deduce from all of this that what Sondland relayed -- if that is what he
did -- is exactly what Trump intended. Or indeed that Sondland was acting on Trump's orders. But a case
that can only be made from inference may have limited impact beyond those who have already made up
their mind. Even if Trump knew exactly what Sondland was doing, Morrison's testimony leaves him with
the opportunity to throw Sondland under the bus. For his part, Sondland
has
said through his attorney
that he rejects Taylor's characterizations and does not recall the
Warsaw conversation that Taylor (and now Morrison) claim to have heard about.
For Taylor and Morrison's testimony to prove dispositive -- and to make a convincing case to the
broader US public and the Senate Republicans who will decide Trump's fate -- corroborating testimony or
evidence will have to emerge that Trump explicitly linked the military aid to investigations of Biden
and that this demand was explicitly communicated to the Ukrainian side.
That corroboration has yet to come from Ukraine. The Ukrainian government has said that it
did not feel pressured.
The New York Times
reported
that
Ukrainian officials were made aware that US military aid was on hold by the first week in August,
earlier than previously known. Yet communications between US and Ukrainian officials, the
Times
writes,
"did not explicitly link the assistance freeze to the push by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani for the
investigations." Nor was the aid freeze mentioned in Trump's July 25 phone call with Zelensky.
Yermak, reached via WhatsApp, did not respond to
The Nation
's request for comment. His
testimony will now be critical. As will follow-up testimony by Sondland. Perhaps Taylor and Morrison
are accurately recounting Sondland's words. Or perhaps Sondland will contradict them, or claim that
they are conflating the investigations that Trump sought from Ukraine. As I've
argued
previously
,
demanding an investigation of
documented
(
and
openly acknowledged
)
Ukrainian
meddling
in the 2016 elections is different from demanding one of a political rival.
All of this positions us for a "he said, he said" impeachment scandal:
The question of whether or not Trump is guilty of attempting to extort Ukraine could come down to
which US bureaucrat, one chooses to believe.
There is no reason to put faith in Sondland, who, in line with a longstanding tradition in
US diplomacy, owes his plush diplomatic posting to a lucrative campaign donation to the winning
presidential candidate.
But before we embrace bureaucrats Taylor, Morrison, and another key
witness, NSC official Alexander Vindman, as liberal heroes, it is worth taking stock of their
impartiality and espoused views. Despite efforts to portray them as nonpartisan civil servants, the
trio's opening statements show them to be Cold Warriors devoted to continuing the US-Russia proxy war
in Ukraine. As their testimony makes clear, that proxy war was imperiled by the very action that Trump
took -- briefly freezing the military aid that they all unabashedly support.
In
the
case of Taylor
, arming Ukraine was a condition of his willingness to serve in the job. When the
Trump administration asked him to take the position in Kiev, Taylor recalls thinking, "I could be
effective only if the US policy of strong support for Ukraine were to continue." Taylor even told
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, "If US policy toward Ukraine changed, he would not want me posted
there and I could not stay." No wonder then, that Taylor was upset when he began to hear rumblings
that US military assistance to Ukraine was in jeopardy.
Another star witness, Vindman,
offers
a similar outlook
. Russia, he says, "has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy"
necessitating "a deterrent."
To Vindman, that deterrent is "a strong and independent
Ukraine," which, he believes, is "critical to US national security interests because Ukraine is a
frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression." Morrison concurs,
declaring
that the administration's policy
"was to make sure the United States' longstanding bipartisan
commitment to strengthen Ukraine's security remained unaltered." In his view, "security sector
assistance is, therefore, essential to Ukraine."
Given their open dedication to ensuring the continuation of US military aid to Ukraine, it is
reasonable to question if the trio's interpretations of decisions and conversations about freezing
military aid were colored by their own policy preferences. As
The
Washington Post
put
it
, Vindman "told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by
the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy." While undoubtedly many Democrats and Republicans share
Vindman's foreign policy views, it should be up to the president, not unelected bureaucrats, to decide
US foreign policy.
Even if their recollections are accurate, the consequence of embracing their collective
worldview is worth considering.
We do not need wade far into the intricacies of the
Russia-Ukraine conflict to know that the position of Taylor, Vindman, and Morrison -- and by extension,
the entire liberal political and media establishment now cheering them -- is well to the right of what
the Democratic Party embodied just one administration ago.
The very US military assistance that Trump froze is the same that President Barack Obama refused to
provide during his last years in office. Obama feared, as
The New York Times
noted in 2015,
that US weapons sent to Ukraine "
would
only escalate the bloodshed
" in the Donbass and possibly
"[end]
up in the hands of thugs
" (a likely reference to far-right Ukrainians, which proved prescient).
In refusing to send that US military aid, Obama rejected intense pressure from the bipartisan DC
foreign policy establishment. This includes Taylor himself, who, as he notes in his opening statement,
unsuccessfully lobbied Obama to arm Ukraine. Taylor's contemporaneous view is captured in a December
2014 letter he wrote to
The
Washington Post
. Taylor denounced an opinion article,
co-authored by a former Obama State Department official, that had opposed sending US arms to Ukraine
and advocated an agreement between NATO and Russia to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. Backers of such
steps, Taylor wrote, are "advocating that the West appease Russia. Now is not the time for
appeasement."
The very fact that Ukrainegate now has Democrats advocating a policy that Obama rejected
should be enough to spark consideration of whether briefly not arming Ukraine is really the issue on
which to pin removing a president from office.
Moving toward impeachment over Ukraine policy
also has potential electoral consequences: In 2016, voters rejected the neoconservative worldview that
national security bureaucrats like Taylor, Vindman, and Morrison now espouse. Trump, after all,
campaigned on improving ties with Russia and falsely presented himself as an opponent of the hawkish
legacy that these star impeachment witnesses embody. On this note, the fact that John Bolton
may
become the Democrats'
next
star
witness
might also hasten some reflection.
The Cold War mindset that liberals have embraced threatens not just their own
political fortunes but also global peace.
Lost in the outrage over Trump's
potential -- and ultimately unrealized -- interruption of US military assistance to Ukraine is that Zelensky,
the new Ukrainian president, openly campaigned on
ending
the war with Russia
that this military assistance fuels. Zelensky is now
under
heavy pressure from Ukraine's far right
to abandon his pledge to make peace with Moscow. It does
not bode well for Zelensky's chances if the official opposition party of his US patron is effectively
joining hands with his country's own right-wing forces to continue the war.
The dangers extend beyond Ukraine's borders. The day after the House impeachment vote,
Russia warned that there is not enough time left to renegotiate the New START Treaty, the last
remaining accord limiting the US and Russian nuclear arsenals, before it expires in 2021.
The
treaty's demise,
The
New
York Times
notes
, would leave the world's top two nuclear powers "free to expand their
arsenals without limits" on "the most powerful weapons both sides can launch." According to Vladimir
Leontyev, Russia's top arms control official, the Kremlin hopes to renew or revise the accord, but
"the US administration is silent about it." The Russians' impression, Leontyev added, is that the
Trump White House "is organically against any restrictions being imposed on the United States."
The Russian warning, the
Times
adds, is "the latest in a sobering list of signals that the
great powers appear
headed
for a new arms race
," following Trump's
earlier
withdrawal
from another critical nuclear accord, the INF Treaty. It is also the latest
in
a
long
list
of
Trump
administration
policies
that
have
escalated
tensions
with
nuclear-armed
Russia
-- including
authorizing
the US military assistance
to Ukraine that Obama once opposed and that Democrats now seek to
impeach him over.
The fact that this list includes increasing the threat of nuclear
conflict should be sobering to any liberal who continues to push the falsehood that Trump does
Russia's bidding
-- all the more so given that the propagation of this falsehood helps
worsen, rather than reduce, those tensions.
There is another list worth being mindful of: The many Trump administration scandals that
Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, overshadows. The day after the House impeachment vote also
coincided
with the end of the comment period
for a Trump administration plan to cut food programs for
low-income Americans. According to government estimates, around 3 million recipients face the loss of
food stamp benefits and close to 1 million children are at risk of losing automatic placement in
federal school lunch programs.
"Instead of declaring a war on poverty, this president has declared war on our most vulnerable
citizens," Representative Marcia Fudge (D-OH), the chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee's
subcommittee on nutrition,
said
last month
. That is undoubtedly correct, which makes it all the more puzzling that Democrats are
preoccupied with an impeachment scandal that overshadows Trump's attacks on the vulnerable and
encourages him to escalate wars abroad. The same goes for their stance on Syria, which saw
bipartisan
opposition
to an announced US withdrawal but next to no opposition to Trump's sudden reversal with
the explicit aim of
stealing
Syria's oil
.
It is true that polls currently show that a
majority
of Americans support impeachment
.
It is also encouraging that Democratic presidential
candidates are
sidelining
the impeachment drama
to focus on serious policy issues on the campaign trail. At the same time,
it appears that Democrats are not moving the needle in the battleground states that will decide the
next election.
A new
New
York Times
/Siena College poll
of the six closest swing states that went Republican in 2016
finds that Trump's "advantage in the Electoral College relative to the nation as a whole
remains
intact or has even grown
since 2016."
With 2020 on the horizon, the dangers of the Democratic establishment's priorities cannot
be emphasized enough.
I find it hard to believe, as the author says, that a majority of
Americans support impeachment. That's because no one would know
why. It hasn't been disclosed or revealed what "crime" Trump
committed. That leaves the question: Impeach him for what exactly?
What they aren't telling you is the poll probably asks, "If Pres.
Trump was guilty of a serious felony, do you think he should be
impeached?" To which a majority would answer, "yes"
More importantly, even if that proves to be a faulty
interpretation, the impeachment frenzy is enrolling liberals in a
dangerous Cold War mentality that could threaten their own
election chances in 2020.
Are you kidding me? They already ******* lost.
We gave them a serious ear, they fucked everything up, and this is
their reaction to the world finally giving them the finger. The
worse they behave, the better. If we're lucky, we'll end up with a
civil war and subsequent ******* purge, so that our future is sealed
for the next 50-100 years.
I'm 64 years old, a veteran, but I'd still go hand-to-hand with
that ******* fat insubordinate traitor Col. Vindman. What a piece
of **** he is. He should be deported back the Ukraine. As far as
I'm concerned, he forfeited his citizenship here..........and
people say we shouldn't criticize him. ********.
Cold war and the current insane lunatism do not make a perfect match.
We are residing in an era of denial of all proven experimental
science, but it would be nice too witness, what future historians
will write about this epoch of a rock bottom of the Western
civilization after 250 years of scientific progress.
"Trump's Impeachment Lures Democrats Into A Cold War Mentality"
Liberals are always in
war mode
... incessantly pushing pushing
pushing for their destructive communist agenda. Think about it...
they're NEVER satisfied. When was the last time you ever heard of a
Leftist willingly giving an inch of ground on their ideologies or
platforms? Never. Conservatives, on the other hand, have acquiesced
so much in the last 50 years, that the term which defines them no
longer has any meaning. There's nothing left to "conserve". I mean,
John F. Kennedy was FAR more "conservative" by today's standards than
ANY mainstream Republican politician. That is why the terms
"populist" or "nationalist" are better labels for those on the right
who truly want to change things.
We like war! We're a
war-like people! We like war because we're good at it! You know
why we're good at it? Cause we get a lot of practice. This
country's only 200 years old and already, we've had 10 major wars.
We average a major war every 20 years in this country so we're
good at it! And it's a good thing we are; we're not very good at
anything else anymore! Huh? Can't build a decent car, can't make a
TV set or a VCR worth a ****, got no steel industry left, can't
educate our young people, can't get health care to our old people,
but we can bomb the **** out of your country all right! Huh?
Especially if your country is full of brown people; oh we like
that don't we? That's our hobby! That's our new job in the world:
bombing brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya, you got some
brown people in your country, tell them to watch the **** out or
we'll goddamn bomb them! Well when's the last white people you can
remember that we bombed? Can you remember the last white--- can
you remember ANY white people we've ever bombed? The Germans,
those are the only ones and that's only because they were trying
to cut in on our action. They wanted to dominate the world!
********! THAT'S OUR ******* JOB! !
The real problem is they appear to still be largely half the
country. We keep letting more of them invade...demographics is
destiny....I'm beginning to believe it's already a foregone
conclusion.
I don't know. Seems like when they're approached properly
there's plenty of motivation to walk away. Every person who
bothered to make and upload a video probably represents
hundreds or thousands of others.
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen
that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses
slowly, one by one."― Charles MacKay,
Extraordinary Popular
Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
House Democrats on Tuesday released excerpts of closed-door depositions with former US
Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker, as well as revised testimony from US Ambassador to
the EU, Gordon Sondland which was a complete reversal from what he said in text messages
revealed last month as well as prior testimony.
In them, Sondland reveals in four new pages of sworn testimony he told a top Ukrainian
official that a meeting with President Trump may be contingent upon its new
administration committing to investigations Trump wanted, according to the New York
Times.
Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the
Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the
president's personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. -New York Times
Bloomberg reports "Sondland testified that a promise by Ukraine to investigate Joe
Biden's son and the 2016 election was a condition that "would have to be complied with"
for the country's leaders to get a meeting with Trump."
"That was my understanding," he said.
SO if that is Sondland's [mis]understanding, let's compare. Read his Sept 9 text message
to Taylor.
The image of Biden and son in link, speaks truth. Take a look.
These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be
impeached and removed from office.
Which of these did Trump commit?[.]
According to his accusers in this city, his crime is as follows:
The president imperiled our "national security" by delaying, for his own reasons, a
transfer of lethal aid and Javelin missiles to Ukraine -- the very weapons President
Barack Obama refused to send to Ukraine, lest they widen and lengthen the war in the
Donbass.
Now, if Trump imperiled national security by delaying the transfer of the weapons, was
not Obama guilty of a greater crime against our national security by denying the weapons
to Ukraine altogether?
The essence of Trump's crime, it is said, was that he demanded a quid pro quo. He
passed word to incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky that if he did not hold a press
conference to announce an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, he, Zelensky, would
not get the arms we had promised, nor the Oval Office meeting that Zelensky
requested.
Again, where is the body of the crime? [.]
By the way, what was Biden doing approving a $1 billion loan guarantee to Petro
Poroshenko's regime, which was so corrupt that it ferociously fought not to fire a
prosecutor whose dismissal all of Europe was demanding?
Should Biden be nominated and elected, a special prosecutor would have to be appointed
to investigate this smelly deal, as well as the $1 billion Hunter got for his equity fund
from the Chinese after his father visited the Middle Kingdom.[.]
The Democratic operative attorney representing the anti-Trump whistleblower vowed to "
get rid
of Trump
", and said that the "
#coup has started
" in 2017 tweets.
Mark Zaid, the John Podesta, Clinton and Schumer-linked attorney who founded the anti-Trump
nonprofit 'Whistleblower Aid' in 2017, tweeted "It's very scary.
We will get rid of him, and
this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters. We have to.
"
As
Fox News
reports, Zaid remarked in July 2017 "
I predict @CNN will play a key role
in @realdDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.
"
The posts, which came shortly after President Trump fired then-acting Attorney General Sally
Yates for failing to defend federal laws in court, are likely to fuel Republican concerns that the
whistleblower's complaint is tainted with partisanship.
"The whistleblower's lawyer gave away the game," the Trump campaign's communications director,
Tim Murtaugh. told Fox News. "It was always the Democrats' plan to stage a coup and impeach
President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now
they've settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from
the beginning."
Trump has repeatedly accused Democrats and partisans in the intelligence community of
effectively plotting a coup against him, through selective leaks and lengthy investigations. -
Fox
News
"45 years from now we might be recalling stories regarding the impeachment of @realDonaldTrump.
I'll be old, but will be worth the wait," he tweeted in
June 2017
.
Hilariously, Zaid describes himself as a "non-partisan" attorney "handling cases involving national
security, security clearances, govt investigations, media, Freedom of Information Act, &
whistleblowing, according to
Breitbart
's Aaron Klein, who noted that Zaid's "Whistleblower Aid" organization is
heavily tied to far-left activist organizations and Democratic policies.
Whistleblower Aid was founded in September 2017 in the wake of Trump's presidency to encourage
government whistleblowers to come forward.
The group did not sit around waiting for whistleblowers. Upon its founding, Whistleblower Aid
actively sought to attract the attention of Trump administration government employees by
reportedly
blasting advertisements for its whistleblower services on Metro trains, using mobile
billboards that circled government offices for 10 hours a day, and handing out whistles on street
corners as a gimmick to gain attention.
When Whistleblower Aid was first formed, the main banner for the mission statement of its
website contained clearly anti-Trump language.
"Today our Republic is under threat. Whistleblower Aid is committed to protecting the rule of
law in the United States and around the world," read the previous statement which can still be
viewed
via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. -
Breitbart
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has called on Congressional Republicans to subpoena the anti-Trump
whistleblower, suggesting
he may be involved in corrupt business dealings in Ukraine
.
In a Tuesday interview, Paul said that the whistleblower - reported to be CIA officer Eric
Ciaramella - "
is a material witness to the possible corruption of Hunter Biden and Joe
Biden,
" and that Congress should
investigate the whistleblower's ties to the Biden
family and Burisma holdings
, the Ukrainian gas company that paid Hunter Biden to sit on
its board, according to
BuzzFeed
.
"
[The whistleblower] might have traveled with Joe Biden to Ukraine for all we know
.
We should look at his writings. We should know all of this stuff to see whether or not he has any
intersection with Burisma and with Hunter Biden," said Paul.
The president's most ardent supporters in Congress have long insisted
the real
corruption in Ukraine was done by former vice president Joe Biden
and his family rather
than by President Donald Trump. Many have also called for outing the anonymous intelligence
official who filed a whistleblower complaint alleging Trump demanded a political quid pro quo
from the Ukrainian government -- an investigation into the Biden family in exchange for hundreds
of millions of dollars in military aid. But, until now, they had not brought those two lines of
attack together. -
BuzzFeed
When asked if he has any evidence for his suppositions, Paul said "
We don't know unless
we ask.
"
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was surprised at Paul's comments, saying
"He needs to tell us. You can't ask a judge. You can't ask members [of Congress], '
Do you
want to subpoena this guy?
' He might be this, he might be that."
Both Graham and Paul do agree, however, that
the whistleblower's identity should be
officially made public
, with Paul telling reporters that he "probably will" disclose his
name.
"I'm more than willing to, and I probably will at some point. ... There is no law preventing
anybody from saying the name," said Paul.
Other lawmakers such as Sen. Mitt Romney, Roy Blunt, John Cornyn and Lisa Murkowski say he
should remain anonymous. The whistleblower's attorney, Mark Zaid, said that Paul and others are using disinformation to
distract from the substance of the allegations.
"I imagine at some point soon our client will be accused of masterminding JFK's assassination as
well," he said. "Any Member of Congress who pushes to expose the whistleblower will not only
undermine the integrity of the system but will be disgracing their office and betraying the
interests of the Constitution and the American people."
Ever since the whistleblower complaint from inside the CIA first surfaced against President Donald Trump,
a steady stream of national security and State Department officials have testified about their consternation at his dealings
with Ukraine. The dominant impression that they have left, however, is that they are blurring the line between what constitutes
unsavory behavior when it comes to pressuring Ukraine for information on domestic political opponents, on the one hand,
and what are legitimate policy disagreements. Indeed, it appears that they are, more often than not, substituting their
own political judgments for the president's when it comes to the conduct of American foreign policy-something that should
concern Democrats as much as Republicans. A whole caste of government officials seems to believe that for an American president
to aim to improve relations with Russia is an illegitimate, even treasonous, aspiration.
Today was no exception. Consider the testimony of State Department official Catherine Croft. In her brief opening statement,
she declared, "As the Director covering Ukraine, I staffed the President's December 2017 decision to provide Ukraine with
Javelin anti-tank missile systems. I also staffed his September 2017 meeting with then-President Petro Poroshenko on the
margins of the UN General Assembly. Throughout both, I heard-directly and indirectly-President Trump describe Ukraine as
a corrupt country." The implication was that Trump had no business complaining about corruption in Ukraine. But why not?
The persistence of corruption, which President Volodymyr Zelensky was elected by an overwhelming majority to combat, is
hardly a secret.
Perhaps even more revealing was Croft's declaration to the House Intelligence Committee that in November 2018 the White
House refused to approve the release of a statement condemning Russia for seizing three Ukrainian ships located close to
Crimea. It sounds damning at first glance. But once again, why shouldn't Trump have practiced restraint in this instance
if he was intent on improving relations with Russia, a platform that he was elected on? As it happens, the Zelensky campaign
depicted the ship incident as a political provocation on the part of the Poroshenko government.
The implicit assumptions that appear to guide these veteran members of the bureaucracy were even more obvious in the
case of Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman. As the media has underscored, he is the first person to testify in the impeachment
inquiry who participated in the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Initially, Trump's defenders sought to portray him as guilty of "espionage" or dual loyalty because he emigrated to America
as a toddler. But this was always preposterous. More telling is that Vindman, no less than Croft, epitomizes a mindset that
seems to regard a deviation from the strictures of the foreign policy establishment as by definition unacceptable.
In his opening statement, Vindman declared, that Ukraine is a "frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression."
He added, "the U.S. government policy community's view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the promise
of reforms will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy
and economic prosperity." But what if Trump has a different view of matters than the "U.S. government policy community's
view"? After all, Trump was elected in part on his explicit declarations that he would not rely on the experts who had plunged
America into Iraq and Libya.
Consider as well the attention that Vindman has lavished upon Trump's phone call with Zelensky. According to Vindman,
portions of the call he considered important were not included in the document kept by the government that was released
to the last month. This includes President Trump claiming there are recordings of former Vice President Joe Biden discussing
Ukrainian corruption, and President Zelensky specifically referring to Biden's son's company, Burisma Holdings. The document
released by the administration includes Zelensky talking about "the company" and Trump saying, "Biden went around bragging
that he stopped the prosecution," which is an interpretation of a video of Joe Biden describing how the Obama administration
made firing Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin a prerequisite for receiving foreign aid. Vindman's recollection
of the call does not change the substance of what was already understood. However, the changes in language are being portrayed
as more analogous to Richard Nixon editing the White House tapes than the routine process that produced a routine document.
"Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, who heard President Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's president and was alarmed, testified
that he tried and failed to add key details to the rough transcript," blared the New York Times headline.
For two months, major media outlets have described the document as a "transcript," as a shorthand term. But as the document,
and TNI's previous reporting
makes clear, it is not a transcript in the strict sense of the term. "This is what's known as a memorandum of conversation:
MEMCON. It is a standard tool that is used throughout the government and the procedures can vary from agency to agency,
or who your boss is. But generally, they're all done about the same way," explains Peter Van Buren, a former Foreign Service
Officer in the State Department.
"In my own experience in government for 24 years it's a pretty standardized practice. The idea is, for all sorts of reasons,
most interactions are not recorded. Instead, they're memorialized through this process of MEMCON. Typically, while there
are many people who may be listening in or present at a meeting, someone (or sometimes two people) are designated as official
notetakers and they take down the conversation. And they're not trying necessarily to get an exact word-for-word account,
but they're certainly trying to get an idea for idea. And in many cases when you're dealing at the White House level, they
are getting it pretty much word for word," Van Buren tells TNI.
As a participant on the phone call, Vindman would have been one of the early editors. As the process continued, officials
higher than him made changes, just like the editor of a magazine would for a writer. The precise reasons for the changes
are open-ended and probably unknowable. There exists no evidence that the changes were nefarious or anything other than
mundane word choice. The document released to the public is the official U.S. government record of what happened.
John Marshall Evans, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer and Ambassador to Armenia, narrows down what should be the
focus of this inquiry-and what it's actually becoming. "The issue is indeed not one of policy, which the President can change,
but of the purpose that was pursued in the July 25th call: whether it was in the national interest or a private gain," he
says. So far, no one has shown that Trump demanded that the Ukrainian government produce a specific result or fabricate
evidence about the Bidens.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is supposed to hold a House vote on the impeachment inquiry tomorrow, after a barrage of criticism
from Republicans for moving forward without one. Whether the open hearings and public testimony will provide any more substance
than a parade of national security bureaucrats ventilating their grievances about a president who sought to take a different
course in foreign policy is questionable.
Vindman declared, that Ukraine is a "frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression.
Complete bull. The truth is that there is no Russian aggression. What we're seeing from Russia is actually pushback against
American aggression. The US is trying to turn Ukraine into a NATO member, knowing that doing so would severely undermine Russia's
national security. The American goal is to reduce Russia's influence in world affairs, and to be in geostrategic position to relate
to Russia coercively. Little wonder, then, that Russia lashed back by taking Crimean and Donbass.
For Vindman to assert that Ukraine is "bulwark against Russian aggression" and a matter vital to the US's national interests
only goes to prove that America is under the influence of liars. The American people are being mislead about the truth.
Ukraine's on Russia's front door step. It overlaps with Russia territorially, demographically, and geopolitically. By entering
Ukraine for strategic reasons, the US has provoked and threatened Russia. There is no justification for this reckless foreign
policy move by the US.
First off, 'improving relations with Russia' does NOT mean doing whatever is best for Russia at our expense. Every foreign
policy move this president has made has only benefited Russia, not the US! Secondly, I have slowly but surely become convinced
Trump is a wholly owned subsidiary of Putin Inc. I don't know what Putin has on Trump (but I think money laundering would be a
solid guess) or if it's the promise of Putin's blessing for a Trump Tower Moscow, but whatever it is, he has Trump in his back
pocket. And lastly, if everyone has not figured out all The Donald cares about is money in his pocket they are fools. Face it,
writer, you either have bought that bag of magic beans Trump sold the electorate in the last election or you are being willfully
blind to who and what this 'man' is.
First off, 'improving relations with Russia' does NOT mean doing whatever is best for Russia at our expense.
That's confusing. How exactly is America doing something for Russia at the expense of the US? If you really believe this, then
you've been fooled by American propaganda into thinking that Ukraine is an extension of the continental US. The reality, of course,
is that Ukraine is on the other side of the world, and does not in any way matter to America's vital national interests.
In Ukraine, America is overstretching its ambitions, and is behaving like an aggressor.
Let's start with the sanctions passed by Congress on Russian oligarchs for invading the Ukraine. Somehow, they just weren't
imposed until Trump was forced to. Then there is the deliberate sabotage of all of our alliances. Now it's stabbing the kurds
in the back so Putin and Erdogan can split that area up between them. The only thing Trump, Turkey and Russia have in common are
Trump Tower Istanbul and his desire for Trump Tower Moscow. He is, quite literally selling us out.
P.S. Nice try, Russkie, but it wasn't us who invaded and seized Crimea and western Ukraine. That was you. We may stick our
noses into world affairs more than we should, but we have not stolen any land or resources of any country we are in. Get right
down to it, if it wasn't for your nukes, we'd put you down like a rabid dog. Don't think we can? Your economy is the size of our
state of Georgia and it ain't even close to the top. Just another commie basket case.
According to the survey, 73% of those polled have little to no trust in how the House
impeachment inquiry has been conducted to date, while 59% say it would "make more sense" to
wait until next year's election . The same poll found just 44% of Americans think that Trump
should be impeached and removed from office .
"Even many who would like to impeach Trump seem to feel that beating him at the polls in
2020 is actually a better strategy for ousting him from office," said Patrick Murray, director
of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.
What's more, 71% of respondents think it's unlikely the Senate would vote to remove Trump -
which, as Nancy Pelosi warned, would simply empower Republicans after Democrats can't tank
Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate whether former VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter engaged
in a quid-pro-quo to personally enrich themselves.
That said, just over half of Americans think its a good idea for the House to conduct the
inquiries, even if many of those people have 'little to no trust' in it!
Those who approve of the job Trump is doing rose to 42% from 41% in September, while 51%
disapprove, down from 53% in September.
Of those who approve, 62% can't think of anything he could do that would cause them to stop
supporting him .
Methodology: The Monmouth University Poll was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth
University Polling Institute from Oct. 30 to Nov. 3 with a national random sample of 908 adults
age 18 and older. The margin of error for the total sample is ± 3.3.
"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached
and removed from office.
Which of these did Trump commit?
According to his accusers in this city, his crime is as follows:
The president imperiled our "national security" by delaying, for his own reasons, a transfer
of lethal aid and Javelin missiles to Ukraine -- the very weapons President Barack Obama
refused to send to Ukraine, lest they widen and lengthen the war in the Donbass.
Now, if Trump imperiled national security by delaying the transfer of the weapons, was not
Obama guilty of a greater crime against our national security by denying the weapons to Ukraine
altogether?
The essence of Trump's crime, it is said, was that he demanded a quid pro quo. He passed
word to incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky that if he did not hold a press conference to
announce an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, he, Zelensky, would not get the arms we
had promised, nor the Oval Office meeting that Zelensky requested.
Again, where is the body of the crime?
Did Zelensky hold the press conference Trump demanded? No.
Did Zelensky announce Ukraine was investigating the Bidens? No.
Did Zelensky get the Oval Office meeting? Yes.
Did Zelensky get the U.S. weapons? Yes, $400 million in arms and Javelin missiles.
Where then is the crime? When was it consummated?
Or was this a thought crime, a bluff to get Zelensky to look into how Hunter Biden got a
$50,000-a-month seat on the board of the most corrupt company in Ukraine, days after Joe Biden
was in Kyiv threatening to block a $1 billion loan guarantee to the regime.
By the way, what was Biden doing approving a $1 billion loan guarantee to Petro Poroshenko's
regime, which was so corrupt that it ferociously fought not to fire a prosecutor whose
dismissal all of Europe was demanding?
Should Biden be nominated and elected, a special prosecutor would have to be appointed to
investigate this smelly deal, as well as the $1 billion Hunter got for his equity fund from the
Chinese after his father visited the Middle Kingdom.
Given last week's party-line vote in the House, where all but two Democrats voted to proceed
with the inquiry, the impeachment of President Donald Trump seems baked in the cake. Speaker
Nancy Pelosi's designation of Adam Schiff to head the investigation tells us all we need to
know about the sincerity of her pledge to make the inquiry bipartisan.
Suppose Zelensky had agreed to an investigation into how Hunter Biden, with no experience in
the energy industry, got his sweetheart deal.
Would that be impeachable for Trump? How so?
Does not the U.S. have a right to put conditions on its foreign aid and to seek guarantees
that our money will not be used as graft to grifters?
A few of those listening in on Trump's phone call with Zelensky have gone public asserting
that withholding the arms transfer to Kyiv imperiled our national security.
But if east Ukraine rises up and secedes from Kyiv, as Kyiv itself seceded from the Russian
Federation at the end of the Cold War, how does any of that endanger America's national
security? Did not George H.W. Bush himself warn, three decades ago, that a declaration of
independence by Ukraine from the Russian Federation would constitute an act of "suicidal
nationalism"?
And who does the Constitution charge with making the decisions as to whether military aid
goes to Ukraine?
The president, or some NSC staffer who sits on the Ukraine desk?
Since the U.S.-backed overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv in 2014, and Vladimir
Putin's counter-seizure of Crimea and support for pro-Russian secessionists in Donetsk and
Luhansk, there has been a debate in the USA over how to deal with this faraway problem.
Obama decided not to send lethal aid or tank-killing Javelin missiles, lest the U.S. arms
escalate a war between Russia and Ukraine that Kyiv could not win.
The Republicans argued the issue at their Cleveland convention. Trump's team won that
argument, but lethal aid and Javelin missiles were eventually sent to Kyiv. Now Trump has sent
even more weapons.
But again, the authority to make this decision resides in the Oval Office, not in the NSC,
not in the CIA, and not with those in the "deep state" who have their own settled view of what
U.S. foreign policy should be.
The authority lies with the elected president of the United States.
This impeachment battle will almost surely reach the Senate.
And in the end it will be about what it has been about since the beginning: An attempt by
the deep state and its media, bureaucratic and political allies to overturn the democratic
verdict of 2016 and to overthrow the elected president of the United States.
The establishment's coup attempt is now approaching end game.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. T
As Bette Davis said in All About Eve , "Fasten your seatbelts -- it's going to be a bumpy night."
The ride started last night with Rep. Devin Nunes' appearance on Hannity , escalated with arrests of figures tied to Rudy
Giuliani, and will possibly come to a complete halt when former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch meets with three House committees
tomorrow -- assuming the State Department allows the testimony to take place at all.
Kicking this off, Kicking this off, Kicking this off,
Nunes went on Hannity last night to claim that Yavonovitch may have been spying on Americans -- including journalists.
Sean Hannity expresses his anger over what his own sources are telling him about surveillance of John Solomon among others, although
Nunes more cautiously advises patience:
"What I can tell you is that we know what Pete Sessions, congressman from Texas now retired, we know what he had to say. We
know that there are people within that were not only Ukrainians but also Americans that worked at the State Department who have
raised concerns about this ambassador, that's why she was ultimately removed," Nunes said.
"We also have concerns that possibly they were monitoring press from different journalists and others," he continued. "That
we don't know, but, you know, we have people who have given us this information and we're going to ask these questions to the
State Department and hopefully they'll get the answers before she comes in on Friday."
Hannity then said three sources have told him there "is evidence that shows government resources were used to monitor communications"
of a journalist, The Hill's John Solomon.
"Well, what I have heard, and I want to be clear. I think there is a difference. What I've heard is that there were strange
requests, irregular requests to monitor, not just one journalist, but multiple journalists," Nunes said. "Now perhaps that was
okay. Perhaps there was some reason for that, that it can be explained away. But that's what we know and that's what we are going
to be looking into."
Keep Pete Sessions in mind as our ride progresses to its next sharp turn. Earlier today, two of Rudy Giuliani's clients -- and
donors to a PAC funding Giuliani's investigation of the Bidens --
got arrested for criminal campaign finance violations . Among the allegations are that those violations intended to mask foreign
influence on US elections:
Two Soviet-born donors to a pro-Trump fundraising committee who helped Rudy Giuliani's efforts to investigate Democrat Joe
Biden were arrested late Wednesday on criminal charges of violating campaign finance rules, including funneling Russian money
into President Trump's campaign.
Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Florida businessmen, have been under investigation by the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan,
and are expected to appear in federal court in Virginia later on Thursday, the people said. Both men were born in former Soviet
republics.
Mr. Giuliani, President Trump's private lawyer, identified the two men in May as his clients. Both men have donated to Republican
campaigns including Mr. Trump's, and in May 2018 gave $325,000 to the primary pro-Trump super PAC, America First Action, through
an LLC called Global Energy Producers, according to Federal Election Commission records.
The men were charged with four counts, including conspiracy, falsification of records and lying to the FEC about their political
donations,
according
to the indictment that outlines a conspiracy to funnel a Russian donor's money into U.S. elections.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the two have been instrumental in helping Giuliani make contacts in Ukraine. One of them
happened to be part of a meeting Giuliani had with the now-unemployed envoy Kurt Volker:
Since late 2018, Mr. Fruman and Mr. Parnas have introduced Mr. Giuliani to several current and former senior Ukrainian prosecutors
to discuss the Biden case.
Mr. Parnas in July accompanied Mr. Giuliani to a breakfast meeting with Kurt Volker, then the U.S. special representative for
Ukraine negotiations. "We had a long conversation about Ukraine," Mr. Volker wrote in his testimony to House committees last week.
During that breakfast, Mr. Giuliani mentioned the investigations he was pursuing into Mr. Biden and 2016 election interference.
The
indictment
released today has a very telling reference to a former US congressman who involved himself in the effort to oust Yovanovitch:
And now let's go back to the WSJ for some dot-connecting:
In May 2018, Pete Sessions, at the time a GOP congressman from Texas, sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asking
for her removal, saying he had been told Ms. Yovanovitch was displaying a bias against the president in private conversations.
The indictment references a congressman, identifiable as Mr. Sessions, whose assistance Mr. Parnas sought in "causing the U.S.
government to remove or recall the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine." The indictment says those efforts were conducted "at least
in part, at the request of one or more Ukrainian government officials." Mr. Sessions didn't respond to a request for comment.
Hoo boy . If nothing else, this certainly looks bad, which makes Nunes' citation of Session suspect on its face.
The Department of Justice is essentially accusing Sessions of being bought by foreign influence in going after Yovanovitch, and clearly
intends to press that case against Giuliani's associates on that basis.
Bear in mind that this is William Barr's DoJ, too. Barr got read into the case soon after taking over the Attorney General
job in February, and apparently found it convincing enough to proceed to indictment. The arrest also made it very convenient for
House Democrats to
issue subpoenas for testimony from the pair , although it likely complicates how cooperative they're willing to be. At the very
least, they'll be easy to find.
Giuliani responded by attacking the DoJ for its "extremely suspect" timing in unsealing the indictment and arresting his associates.
He promised Fox News' Catherine Herridge that he would shortly reveal how all of this is connected to his investigation into the
Bidens:
What about the "extremely suspect" timing? It turns out that the pair were
trying to leave
the country , which forced the DoJ to make the arrests now:
The two Giuliani-linked defendants, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, were detained at Dulles International Airport outside of Washington
on Wednesday and are scheduled to appear in court in Virginia at 2 p.m. ET Thursday.
Meanwhile, Yovanovitch continues to prepare for her own testimony, which is still
scheduled to take place tomorrow . The Washington Post reported late last night that she's "on board" for cooperating with the
committees, and perhaps now even more so after Nunes' allegations on Hannity last night. The State Department could still
bar her from discussing her work with Congress (she remains employed by State), but
ABC reports today that Mike Pompeo is already facing a rising level of discontent over Yovanovitch's treatment and Pompeo's lack
of a public defense for her:
Marie Yovanovitch, who was recalled early from her post this spring, is scheduled for a deposition Friday with three committees
in the House of Representatives, but it is unclear whether she will be allowed to show up after the U.S. ambassador to the European
Union was blocked by the Trump administration from testifying on Tuesday.
Either way, the manner in which Yovanovitch has been treated by Trump and the silence from Pompeo has already rankled many
rank and file at the State Department, according to half a dozen current and former officials, who are also upset by the administration's
use of career diplomats in the president's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political opponents.
So where does this ride come to a stop? How much of this is true -- all of it, none of it, or only some of it? Trump loyalists
will surely consider all of this as more evidence of a Deep State plot that now involves both the State and Justice Departments.
Trump haters will see this as another case of foreign influence on the administration and a plot to smear Trump's opponents, both
electoral and otherwise. The rest of America might just be hoping that the [expletive deleted] ride would come to an end, period
.
At this point, the mess is too complicated to suss out which conclusion reflects the truth. What does appear to true is
that we're not going to know for sure what's true for a long, long time -- and it might turn out, ironically, that the DoJ
could end up as the most credible player in Ukraine-Gate.
Right-wing media tries to smear former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
Despite grave Judicial Watch allegations about a "surveillance" campaign from right-wing figures,
the facts so far point to mere tracking of a pro-Trump disinformation campaign
UPDATE (10/24/19)
: It
turns out
that the list Marie Yovanovitch allegedly used to "spy" on conservatives was really a basic Facebook
search on CrowdTangle, a
mundane and widely-used
social media
tool that
tracks
public
social media activity.
Judicial Watch
described CrowdTangle as a "Soros-linked media tracking tool."
Representatives of right-wing group Judicial Watch have been claiming during appearances on
conservative media shows that former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "spying" on media figures
close to President Donald Trump by monitoring public statements they made on social media regarding
Ukraine.
Judicial Watch is alleging that Yovanovitch -- who recently
testified to House impeachment investigators
that Trump pressured the State Department to remove her
over baseless allegations -- was "basically running a war room" by monitoring public statements regarding
Ukraine
made by
figures in right-wing media like Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs, Trump personal lawyer Rudy
Giuliani, and Donald Trump, Jr. The list also includes former Obama ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul.
Judicial Watch also claims that the searches were looking for the following keywords: "Biden,"
"Giuliani," "Soros," and "Yovanovitch."
That Yovanovich would monitor public statements made by public figures is unsurprising given her
recent testimony
claiming that Giuliani had been criticizing her in the months before her ousting,
and the people she allegedly monitored are connected to the smear campaign Giuliani was waging. He had
accused her of privately criticizing the president and trying to protect the interests of Biden and his
son Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. The smear included accusations that
Soros was funding a conspiracy to hurt Trump's presidency and elect Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
Yovanovich said she was "incredulous" about her removal and that it was based on "unfounded and false
claims by people with clearly questionable motives" -- claims that have been
promoted publicly
by conservative media figures.
The Washington Post
reported that George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state responsible
for Ukraine, became concerned around October 2018 that Yovanovitch was the target of a "classic
disinformation operation."
NBC News
indicated that the State Department was concerned over the effort to oust Yovanovich,
reporting that the agency "attempted to ring alarm bells" regarding Giuliani's efforts to smear her:
The documents also show that Giuliani, through conservative writer John Solomon's columns in The Hill,
attempted to tie former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch to the liberal donor George Soros as part
of a massive conspiracy to take down Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort and help Hillary
Clinton win the 2016 election.
...
When State Department officials saw the disinformation campaign, they attempted to ring alarm bells
and strategized to correct the record, the documents show.
Yovanovitch, who has over 30 years of experience in foreign diplomacy, further testified that, as
The Washington Post
put it, "under Trump's leadership, U.S. foreign policy has been compromised by
self-interested actors who have badly demoralized and depleted America's diplomatic corps." The testimony
of
White House aide Fiona Hill
confirmed Yovanovitch's depiction of foreign policy under the Trump
administration.
Still, Judicial Watch is attempting to push the narrative that Yovanovitch nefariously
spied on Trump allies among right-wing media, appearing on the radio shows of Sebastian Gorka and Sean
Hannity and Fox Business host Lou Dobbs' prime-time show to spread the message. Some Fox News figures
responded with paranoia regarding their own conversations.
Judicial Watch
also shared
its report on Twitter, announcing that it is "investigating if prominent conservative figures/journalists
& persons [with ties] to @realDonaldTrump were unlawfully monitored by the State Dept in Ukraine at the
request of ousted U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, an Obama appointee."
Fox & Friends
hosted Judicial Watch
President Tom Fitton, who repeated that his "sourcing tells us that she was asking that folks like Rudy
Giuliani, Don Trump Jr., a whole list of your colleagues there at Fox, be monitored on certain phrases."
Co-host Steve Doocy invited Fitton to "go ahead and speculate for a second" about Yovanovitch's motives,
to which Fitton replied, "It looks an awful lot like an enemy's list to me." Doocy noted that Yovanovitch
is "keeping an eye on television, of all things," and he called it "particularly disturbing that, you
know, somebody in the federal government would be tracking people on TV."
FOX News contributor John Solomon revealed fired Ukrainian Ambassador Maria Yovanovich's
links to a radical Soros group. Yovanovich appeared before Congress on Friday, claiming that
she was unjustly fired just because she badmouthed the president, prevented Ukrainian officials
from coming to the US to expose Democrat corruption, and giving Ukrainian prosecutor a do not
prosecute list. Now, investigative reporter John Solomon reports on her link to a
Soros-supported group. Lutsenko told Solomon that in April 2016, Ukrainian prosecutors were
investigating an alleged anti-corruption group, AntAC, over $4.4 million that was illegally
diverted. AntAc was founded by the Obama administration and George Soros.
Trump's Little Surprise Is Making Liberals Cry! Got Yours Yet? Liberty Journalists x Ads by Revcontent Find Out More >
21,994
On Friday fired Ambassador Yovanovich testified behind closed doors in front of the
Pelosi-Schiff impeachment committee.
Yovanovich believes she was unjustly fired despite the fact that she was an Obama holdover,
was speaking out against President Trump and she was
colluding with the DNC and Hillary Campaign to undermine the US presidential election.
On Friday John Solomon told Lou Dobbs about the fired ambassador's links to a radical Soros
group operating in Ukraine.
On March 20th Solomon
published his interview with Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko alleging
Yovanovitch gave him a "do not prosecute list," back in 2016.
It will be clear once the transcripts are released, that the crew
testifying for Adam Schiff are upset about the President fulfilling his
Constitutional responsibility to run foreign policy rather than letting
them run it, about his determination to get to the bottom of Ukraine's role
in intervening in the 2016 U.S. Election, and the ongoing coup against him,
which implicates many of these very same "witnesses." The President,
knowing that Ukraine tried to take him out by intervening in the 2016
election, refused to meet with the Poroshenko government. That government
jockeyed for favor by revealing its role in the 2016 illegalities and
documenting the Biden story for Rudy Guilani and others.
When new
President Zelensky was elected, President Trump used an alternate channel
to assess him, rather than the State Department and National Security
Council operatives who were either involved in the coup against him or
refused to stand against it. That appears to have included Ukraine envoy
Kurt Volker, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
There is nothing unusual in this but it drove the unelected Mandarins,
including John Bolton, crazy, along with the considerable military
industrial complex grouping in the Congress who want permanent war with
Russia.
Here are the key players so far based on the applause provided by
Democrats and the Main Stream Media:
William B. Taylor, Jr.
Presented hearsay testimony, based on conversations with NSC John Bolton
protégé Tim Morrison, and others that somehow the President presented a
quid pro quo in his July 25th phone call with Zelensky, despite the fact
that the actual transcript of the call and repeated statements by President
Zelensky evidence no quid pro quo. Taylor's career has featured every U.S.
imperial disaster possible:
– "Economic development" coordinator for Eastern Europe, former Soviet
Union, resulting in the economic decimation of those countries and their
looting
– Coordinator for U.S. assistance of Afghanistan. Said the U.S. had the
right to stay forever until the country was secured to U.S. specifications
– Coordinator for Iraq Reconstruction. Program lost billions and left
the country destitute and mired in religious warfare.
– Ambassador to Ukraine in 2006-2009 right after the Orange Revolution,
the nation's first color revolution delivered by the British and the State
Department.
– Under Obama, Special Coordinator for Mideast "transitions" in the wake
of the Arab Spring, the program which set all of Southwest Asia on fire and
birthed the present round of Isis terrorism.
– Serves on the U.S./Ukraine Business Council with David J. Kramer as a
senior advisor. Kramer leaked the dirty Christopher Steele dossier against
Donald Trump to Buzzfeed. The Council coordinates the "investment" of
various vulture and "turnaround" funds in Ukraine. According to Breitbart's
Aaron Klein, Taylor met with a member of Adam Schiff's staff, Thomas Eager,
in Ukraine, prior to his testimony.
Marie Yovanovitch
U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine from August 18, 2016, until she was recalled,
in May of 2019. She claimed she was the victim of a smear campaign by Trump
attorney, Rudy Giuliani and Ukrainians who opposed her. But, she was at the
helm of the Embassy at the point when the Manafort black ledger smear
campaign was at full roar.
Way back in March, 2019, U.S. Embassy employees at the Ukrainian Embassy
were leaking that the Ambassador was telling Embassy employees and
Ukrainians not to pay any attention to President Donald Trump because he
was going to be impeached.
This was before a wave of articles featuring Ukraine's former prosecutor
Yuriy Lutsenko claiming that Yovanovitch had provided him with a list of
"do not prosecute" names, including those Ukrainians most involved in the
Ukrainian efforts to target and smear former Trump Campaign Advisor Paul
Manafort as a Russian agent.
Judicial Watch has just filed a FOIA request based on State Department
sources who claim that during her tenure in Ukraine, Yovanovitch ordered
the monitoring of various journalists who published negative stories about
her or who generally support President Trump.
Her resume evidences a trail of destruction. Dubbed the "Iron Lady" by
colleagues, she replaced the infamous Ambassador Geoffey Pyatt in Ukraine.
In 2002, after serving as one of the key State Department anti-Russian
diplomats, Yovanovitch played a central role in the Ukraine regime change
operation known as the "Orange Revolution." She promoted the scandal of
Ukraine selling 4 Kolchuga radar systems to Iraq in violation of the United
Nations sanctions. This led to the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Leonid
Kuchma being replaced by Washington and London's choice, Viktor
Yushschenko..
She was Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic at the time the British-U.S.
Tulip Color Revolution occurred in that country, led by the State
Department and the British.
In 2008-2011 Yovanovitch was U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, where she was
heavily involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in neighboring Azerbaijan
(a separatist operation as part of a regime-change operation).
Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman
A Ukrainian born Army veteran, Vindman joined the NSC in July of 2018,
under John Bolton, as the NSC's "Ukraine expert." He claimed that all of
his corrections to the transcript of the Zelensky/Trump call were not
accepted although he admitted that his corrections were minor and did not
change the call substantively. He testified that he discussed with
Ukrainian colleagues how to "handle Trump."
The key to who he is and why he is testifying is contained in his
opening statement:
"When I joined the NSC in the Spring of 2019, I became aware of
outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent
with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful for
U.S. government policy."
There you have it, the "interagency" dictates U.S. foreign policy, not
the President as specified in Article II of the Constitution. Vindman also
says he authored the Russia strategy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff for
managing "competition" with Russia, an undoubtedly very bellicose document.
Amidst the media fanfare claiming that Vindman represents "the ultimate
immigrant hero" story, the Republicans finally leaked something substantive
about what happened behind closed doors. Asked to cite in the transcript of
the call where the President offered a quid pro quo, Vindman apparently
testified that the entire call evidenced this, since the President was in a
"position of power" over President Zelensky. If true, foreign policy is now
being managed on the same terms as the Me Too movement.
"... NBC s uggests that the Barr investigation is a ' mysterious ' review " amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal or factual basis " while the NY Times continues to cast doubt that the investigation has a legitimate basis implying that AG Barr is attempting to " deliver a political victory for President Trump." The Times misleads its readers with: ..."
"... There is, however, one small inconvenient glitch that challenges the Democratic version of reality that does not fit their partisan spin. The news that former FBI General Counsel James Baker is actively cooperating with the BD investigation ought to send ripples through the ranks. Baker has already stated that it was a 'small group' within the agency who led the counterintelligence inquiry into the Trump campaign; notably former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. ..."
"... Baker's cooperation was not totally unexpected since he also cooperated with the Inspector General's FISA abuse investigation which is awaiting public release. ..."
"... As FBI General Counsel, Baker had a role in reviewing the FISA applications before they were submitted to the FISA court and currently remains under criminal investigation for making unauthorized leaks to the media. ..."
"... As the agency's chief legal officer, Baker had to be a first-hand participant and privy to every strategy discussion and decision (real or contemplated). It was his job to identify potential legal implications that might negatively affect the agency or boomerang back on the FBI. In other words, Baker is in a unique position to know who knew what and when did they know it. ..."
"... Adds realist Dr.Assad: "I said before whatever the Americans say has no credibility, whether they say it to an enemy or a friend, the result is the same – it is unreliable. That is why we do not waste our time on things like this. " ..."
"... I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted a formal impeachment, they would prefer that Trump just faded away quietly before the 2020 election and were in the process of collecting information to reinforce this. They got cornered into formalizing the investigation by Trump's defense team baiting them as part of their overall strategy. It really doesn't change anything. ..."
"... Whichever way you slice and/or dice it Trump is fundamentally incompetent, he's unable to fulfill the duties of the office of the President. ..."
"... The DNC is playing this with a relatively weak field of potential candidates for 2020. Much as I personally like a Sanders or Warren they're just not going to fly in a Presidential contest -- as we found from the Obama presidency the ship of state just doesn't turn on a dime, you're not going to undo decades or generations of entrenched neoconservatism and a politically divided country overnight by some kind of Second Coming pronouncements. My concern is that if we don't get our collective acts together we're going to end up with a President Romney after 2020 -- a much more reasonable choice considering the last four years but also one that's guaranteed to change nothing. We need the journey but its only going to start with a few steps. ..."
"... Interesting updates, Joerg: however, it was obvious from the beginning that the interference in the US 2016 elections were Deep State gamers, from GCHQ-Ukro-Italian secret services, which was why they manufactured the Skripal Affair as Russians, Warning & Distraction, to cover their own backsides in the media: the same Skripal that worked on the Bum Steele Dossier, writing complete & utter fiction about Trump, that Comey then used as basis for his attempt with McCabe to enact Treason U$A, on wholly false trumped up charges, which were then transposed to the Russiagate-Hoax, Mueller &&& (yawn), . Still, it's good that Sid Powell has confirmed that they have Mifsud's phone . . . Get Mifsud, Now !? Strange how such USUK Agents become untraceable, when we simple folk would be harangued to hell, even with the odd ex-judicial killing, if we prove inconvenient to their narrative. ..."
"... "American Ukrainian nationalists don't like democracy. They don't understand the concept of it and don't care to learn. But they do understand nationalist fascism where only the top of society matters. They are behind the actors of the Intelligence coup going on in the US today .This is the mentality and politics the Diaspora is pushing into American politics today. Hillary Clinton and the DNC is surrounded with this infection which even includes political advisors. ..."
"... Rest assured they all the related Diasporas are in a fight for their political lives. If Donald Trump wins, their ability to infect American politics might be broken. Many of the leadership will be investigated for attempting to overthrow the government of the United States." ..."
As the Quantum field oversees the disintegration of institutions no longer in service to the public, the Democratic party continues
to lose their marbles, perpetuating their own simulated bubble as if they alone are the nation's most trusted purveyors of truth.
Since the Mueller Report failed to deliver on the dubious Russiagate accusations, the party of Thomas Jefferson continues to remain
in search of another ethical pretense to justify continued partisan turmoil. In an effort to discredit and/or distract attention
from the Barr-Durham and IG investigations, the Dems have come up with an implausible piece of political theatre known as Ukrainegate
which has morphed into an impeachment inquiry.
The Inspector General's Report, which may soon be ready for release, will address the presentation of fabricated FBI evidence
to the FISA Court for permission to initiate a surveillance campaign on Trump Administration personnel. In addition, the Department
of Justice has confirmed that Special Investigator John Durham's probe into the origin of the
FBI's counter intelligence investigation during the 2016
election has moved from an administrative review into the criminal prosecution realm. Durham will now be able to actively pursue
candidates for possible prosecution.
The defensive assault from the Democrat hierarchy and its corporate media cohorts can be expected to reach a fevered pitch of
manic proportions as both investigations threatened not only their political future in 2020 but perhaps their very existence.
NBC s uggests that the Barr investigation is a ' mysterious ' review " amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal
or factual basis " while the
NY Times continues
to cast doubt that the investigation has a legitimate basis implying that AG Barr is attempting to " deliver a political victory
for President Trump." The Times misleads its readers with:
Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel
closed it."
when in fact, it was the Russiagate collusion allegations that Trump referred to as a hoax, rather than the Mueller investigation
per se.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va), minority leader of the Senate Intel Committee suggested that Attorney General William Barr " owes the
Committee an explanation " since the committee is completing a " three-year bipartisan investigation " that has " found nothing to
justify " Barr's expanded effort.
The Senator's gauntlet will be ever so fascinating as the public reads exactly how the Intel Committee spent three years and came
up with " nothing " as compared to what Durham and the IG reports have to say.
On the House side, prime-time whiners Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) commented that news of the Durham
investigation moving towards criminal liability " raised profound concerns that Barr has lost his independence and become a vehicle
for political revenge " and that " the Rule of Law will suffer irreparable damage ."
Since Barr has issued no determination of blame other than to assure a full, fair and rigorous investigation, it is curious that
the Dems are in premature meltdown as if they expect indictments even though the investigations are not yet complete.
There is, however, one small inconvenient glitch that challenges the Democratic version of reality that does not fit their
partisan spin. The news that former FBI General Counsel James Baker is actively cooperating with the BD investigation ought to send
ripples through the ranks. Baker has already stated that it was a 'small group' within the agency who led the counterintelligence
inquiry into the Trump campaign; notably former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Baker's cooperation was not totally unexpected since he also cooperated with the
Inspector General's FISA abuse investigation which is awaiting public release.
As FBI General Counsel, Baker had a role in reviewing the FISA applications before they were submitted to the FISA court and
currently remains under criminal investigation for making unauthorized leaks to the media.
As the agency's chief legal officer, Baker had to be a first-hand participant and privy to every strategy discussion and decision
(real or contemplated). It was his job to identify potential legal implications that might negatively affect the agency or boomerang
back on the FBI. In other words, Baker is in a unique position to know who knew what and when did they know it.
His 'cooperation' can be generally attributed to being more concerned with saving his own butt rather than the Constitution.
In any case, the information he is able to provide will be key for getting to the true origins of Russiagate and the FISA scandal.
Baker's collaboration may augur others facing possible prosecution to step up since 'cooperation' usually comes with the gift of
a lesser charge.
With a special focus on senior Obama era intel officials Durham has reportedly already interviewed up to two dozen former and
current FBI employees as well as officials in the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
From the number of interviews conducted to date it can be surmised that Durham has been accumulating all the necessary facts and
evidence as he works his way up the chain of command, prior to concentrating on top officials who may be central to the investigation.
It has also been reported that Durham expects to interview current and former intelligence officials including CIA analysts, former
CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper regarding Russian efforts to interfere in the
2016 election.
In a recent
CNN
interview , when asked if he was concerned about any wrongdoing on the part of intel officials, Clapper nervously responded:
I don't know. I don't think there was any wrongdoing. It is disconcerting to know that we are being investigated for having
done our duty and done what we were told to do by the President."
One wonders if Clapper might be a candidate for 'cooperating' along with Baker.
As CIA Director, Brennan made no secret of his efforts to nail the Trump Administration. In the summer of 2016, he formed an inter-agency
taskforce to investigate what was being reported as Russian collusion within the Trump campaign. He boasted to Rachel Maddow that
he brought NSA and FBI officials together with the CIA to ' connect the dots ."
With the addition of James Clapper's DNI, three reports were released: October, 2016, December, 2016 and January, 2017 all disseminating
the Russian-Trump collusion theory which the Mueller Report later found to be unproven.
Since 1947 when the CIA was first authorized by President Harry Truman who belatedly regretted his approval, the agency has been
operating as if they report to no one and that they never owe the public or Congress any explanation of their behaviour or activity
or how they spend the money.
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run their
own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress willing
to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast
Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member
of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31
vexarb
From a realist who deals with the real world, Syrian President Dr.Assad on why Trump is the best POTU$A:
"As for Trump, you might ask me a question and I give you an answer that might sound strange. I say that he is the best American
President, not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president. All American presidents perpetrate
all kinds of political atrocities and all crimes and yet still win the Nobel Prize and project themselves as defenders of human
rights and noble and unique American values, or Western values in general. The reality is that they are a group of criminals who
represent the interests of American lobbies, i.e. the large oil and arms companies, and others. Trump talks transparently, saying
that what we want is oil. We want money. This is the reality of American policy. What more do we need than a transparent opponent?"
vexarb
Adds realist Dr.Assad: "I said before whatever the Americans say has no credibility, whether they say it to an enemy or a friend,
the result is the same – it is unreliable. That is why we do not waste our time on things like this. "
[Note: by "the Americans" Dr.Assad means the United $tates. A figure of speech, taking the whole to denote the part.]
Martin Usher
I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted a formal impeachment, they would prefer that Trump just faded away quietly before
the 2020 election and were in the process of collecting information to reinforce this. They got cornered into formalizing the
investigation by Trump's defense team baiting them as part of their overall strategy. It really doesn't change anything.
Whichever way you slice and/or dice it Trump is fundamentally incompetent, he's unable to fulfill the duties of the office
of the President. He also refuses to distinguish between private interests and public service. His cabinet, a rag tag body of
industry insiders and special interests, are busy trying to ride roughshod over opposition, established policy and even public
opinion to grab as much as possible before the whole house of cards collapses. Its a mess, and its a mess that's quite obviously
damaging US interests. Many constituency groups will have gone along with the program because they thought they could control
things or benefit from them but as its become increasingly obvious Trump's unable to deliver they've been systematically alienated.
The DNC is playing this with a relatively weak field of potential candidates for 2020. Much as I personally like a Sanders
or Warren they're just not going to fly in a Presidential contest -- as we found from the Obama presidency the ship of state just
doesn't turn on a dime, you're not going to undo decades or generations of entrenched neoconservatism and a politically divided
country overnight by some kind of Second Coming pronouncements. My concern is that if we don't get our collective acts together
we're going to end up with a President Romney after 2020 -- a much more reasonable choice considering the last four years but
also one that's guaranteed to change nothing. We need the journey but its only going to start with a few steps.
( and as for Trump/collusion we've spent the last three years confusing money with nation states. Trump's a businessman in
a business that's notorious for laundering money from dubious sources (this doesn't mean he's involved, of course)(legal disclaimer!).
I daresay that if Russia really wanted to sink Trump they could easily do so but why would they bother when he's doing such a
great job unaided?)
Interesting updates, Joerg: however, it was obvious from the beginning that the interference in the US 2016 elections were Deep
State gamers, from GCHQ-Ukro-Italian secret services, which was why they manufactured the Skripal Affair as Russians, Warning
& Distraction, to cover their own backsides in the media: the same Skripal that worked on the Bum Steele Dossier, writing complete
& utter fiction about Trump, that Comey then used as basis for his attempt with McCabe to enact Treason U$A, on wholly false trumped
up charges, which were then transposed to the Russiagate-Hoax, Mueller &&& (yawn), . Still, it's good that Sid Powell has confirmed
that they have Mifsud's phone . . . Get Mifsud, Now !? Strange how such USUK Agents become untraceable, when we simple folk would
be harangued to hell, even with the odd ex-judicial killing, if we prove inconvenient to their narrative.
More importantly for me was the "Putin sends a clear Message to Macron and the EU" TDC, (Top dead centre) in your link: it
was a (month old) pretty good longterm objective analysis of how the alliance between Russia & China was designed to be and has
become truly rock-solid, moving forwards: and it's well discussed & documented what a moron ManuMacroni has been on the world
stage >>> great translation of Putin's statement of intent and clear talk to Macron, who is exposed for the meaningless Deep State
puppet he is >>> even, Putin had no need to mention the Gilets Jaunes, representing a degree of vision, trust & commitment far
beyond that of the failing FUKUS empires: a vision that FUKUS cannot even financially entertain, in their present economic state
of financial & moral depravity & bankruptcy.
Austerity my ass, let's keep raising national debt and keep funding bum wars & terrorism, for the MIC & National Security State,
until society burns. How utterly shameful
It should be now very clear to all that the Russian-Chinese alliance is far more than just military, in every sense: together,
the world's largest economy will plough on regardless of what Macron or any other arrogant manipulative untrustworthy Westerner
has to say! And frankly, after NATZO's broken promises in Eastern Europe, (which I have personally observed here in Bulgaria since
2004, fully expected & awaited, I might add) and the events in the Ukraine and the self-destructive EU sanctions based on media
lies & manipulations & omissions, I really do believe Putin has handled this all extremely wisely & astutely playing the long
game, like the Chinese & avoiding incredible provocation, media wise. One day, however long it takes, the average ignorant Westerner
will come to understand that they have been deceived & lied to, from the beginning, especially by their secret services; & have
been lapdogs in the arms of US Deep State Corporate Fascist NATZO CIA & GCHQ morons, in "The History of the National Security
State" and, that Julian Assange needs to be set FREE asap : and given the Seth Rich murder, which kinda' benefited Trump and his
Fake News declarations, my guess is that Trump will not want Assange charged, in the end: but, we'll see ! ? Because first the
British have to sort out the arrogant bastards in GCHQ, also in the Media and their own new 'attorney general' who will investigate
secret services role in Deep State Corporate Deeds & prosecute people like Judge Arbuthnot, for not recusing herself >>> BoJo's
job, actually, but who cares ? >>> drain UK Swampland. ? Myopic Corbyn seems to have missed the bus & significance on the Affair
Assange, completely, which is somewhat inexplicable, given the Guardian Moderators infiltration by the British Military 77th Brigade,
and their bias against Corbyn. At least, that appears to be Trump's agenda and the longer Assange remains 'Censored', the worse
that societies throughout Europe will become, until we all address Communications & Media Law, with wholly wise, tech. savvy intelligent
and independent JUDGES, not compromised by the HillBilly Clinton/Epstein Clan of NATZO CIA/GCHQ operatives. (maybe I'm not clarifying
in the best way, but hopefully you get the drift?). Only a week or so ago, the Bulgarian President was complaining about appalling
standards of journalism, too, with an obvious agenda from abroad, also in terms of ownership. (Not widely reported!) And, I'm
sure you are aware of the incredible bias & censorship in the German MSM, just like Professor Dan Ganser & myself. 😉 R.i.P Udo
Ulfkotte >>> when Secret Services dictate the News, not much point in listening to a word they have to say >>> HANG 'EM HIGH
! out to dry, in Public Eye ! They are FASCISTS ! The worst kind !
I don't say this lightly . . . after over 40 years studying their collective behaviours, in relation to the reality on the ground.
Joerg
@Tim Jenkins
Yes, You are right.
But let's look at the bigger picture.
23 Trillions(!) of $$ are missing in the Pentagon.
To that see the great James Corbett's video "Fitt's Trillions" –
https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=fitts-trillions
.
So 23 trillion $ are missing – and the congress decided not to follow that up.
Before that on 911 already 3 trillion $ (if I remember this right) were missing in the Pentagon. And surprise, surprise: On 911
the Pentagon building exploded exactly there where those accountants were placed, who tried to find out where all that money (3
trillion $) went. All accountants died. After that no one started again to find out where the money went.
Where did the stolen gold from under the Twin Towers go to? Mueller (than state attorney of NY) obviously did want to research
that.
The US is already ruled by a mighty super-syndicate – or possibly by two or three of them. So mighty they could put the classical
Mafia directly into kindergarten.
And with that much money stolen they can buy in the USA but also in Europe (and, yes, Germany) all politicians, judges and journalists.
And those who don't comply, get fired by their (also bought) boss. Or they get murdered ("suicide"), or their career gets destroyed.
There are no classical politics anymore like, let's say, 50 years ago. Here in the west it is only the super-syndicates' power
that rules.
By the way: In the end-time of the Roman Empire there were also no more free judges. They had to follow the orders of the local
criminal gang – or they got killed. And I also believe that the fall of this impressive "Indus Valley Civilisation" (2000 B.C.)
was caused by overwhelming and destructive power of Mafia/Syndicates. In the end the citizens of the Indus Valley civilisation
simply fled the area – obviously to south India. So the Tamils may very well be the descendants of the old Indus people.
With you all the way, Joerg: ironic you should mention the Tamils. I spent time alone in Jaffna, in the aftermath of genocide.
I'd better not start here & now on Sin-dication and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Suffice to say, if one wishes to speculate
on the weather & commodities, with insider knowledge of what the D.o.D. did/do with electronics like HAARP, one would not be a
particularly intelligent or moral person, scientifically speaking. And said person, would never wish to discuss the contents of
WTC 7 and that Pentagon Wing. 😉
Ta, for the linkS :). Look forward to hearing more from you.
Viele Grüsse,
Tim
Latest in series of articles by the author re USA – Ukraine connections
"American Ukrainian nationalists don't like democracy. They don't understand the concept of it and don't care to learn. But
they do understand nationalist fascism where only the top of society matters. They are behind the actors of the Intelligence coup
going on in the US today .This is the mentality and politics the Diaspora is pushing into American politics today. Hillary Clinton
and the DNC is surrounded with this infection which even includes political advisors.
Rest assured they all the related Diasporas are in a fight for their political lives. If Donald Trump wins, their ability to
infect American politics might be broken. Many of the leadership will be investigated for attempting to overthrow the government
of the United States."
"My thoughts on all this are that many of us have become distracted and failed to examine the timeline of events since 9/11. We
look at news and conflict in isolation and move on to the next without seeing what is now a clear pattern."
In terms of the Middle East you need to go back further than the fortuitous event of 9/11 – at least to 1997 and the founding
of the Project for the New American Century which was essentially the first explicit formalisation of the agenda for an imperialist
Neoliberal and Neoconservative globalist new world order deployed through the media constructed conflicts of 'good' and 'evil'
around the world and with it the call for the 'democratisation' of the Middle East under the alibi of humanitarian interventionism
against broadly socialist governments, which since the fall of communism were constructed by Neoliberal fundamentalists as being
patently heretical and ideologically illegitimate forms of government. If it is economically illogical to elect a socialist failed
form of government then one can only assume that the election must have been rigged.
I started looking at this all a few years ago when I asked myself the question 14 years after the invasion of Iraq: where was
the liberal outrage at what had subsequently taken place in the ME? The answer was that from the Invasion of Iraq onward in addition
to fully embracing the economics of Neoliberalism as the end of economic history, the progressive 'left' quietly assimilated and
reduplicated the fundamentalist illiberal political philosophy of the Neocons. The progressive 'left' both in the UK and US have
subsequently become the far Neocon 'right' in all but name and their party hosts of Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the
US remain blissfully unaware of all of this. How else can we explain why they would welcome 'Woke' Bill Kristol into their ranks?
Once one accepts this hypothesis, then an awful lot falls into place in order to explain the 'Progressive' open support for regime
change and the almost total lack of any properly liberal objections to what has taken place ever since.
One key point here is that the Neocons have nothing to do with conservatism or the right. What is striking and most informative
about the history of Neo-conservatism is that it does not have its roots in conservatism at all, but grew out of disillusioned
US left wing intellectuals who were Marxist, anti-Stalinist Trotskyites. This is important because at the heart of Neo-conservatism
is something that appeals strongly to the die hard revolutionaries of the left who hold a strong proclivity for violence, conflict
and struggle. If one looks at the type of people in the Labour party who gravitated to the 'progressive' Neoliberal imperialist
camp they all exhibit similar personality traits of sociopathic control freaks with sanctimonious Messiah complexes such as Blair.
These extremist, illiberal fundamentalists love violence and revolution and the bloodier the better. In Libya or Syria is did
not matter that Gadaffi or Assad headed socialist governments, the Neo-colonised progressives would back any form of apparent
conflict and bloody revolution in any notional struggle between any identifiable form of 'authority' or 'oppression' with any
identifiable form of 'resistance' even if those leading the 'resistance' were head chopping, misogynist, jihadist terrorists.
It makes no difference to the fundamentalist revolutionary mindset.
The original left wing who gradually morphed in the Neoconservatives took 30-40 years to make the transition for the 1960s
to 1990s. The Labour party Blairites made the same journey from 1990 to 2003. Christopher Hitchens made the same journey in his
own personal microcosm.
When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end? Does anyone else think that Adam Schiff has a screw or three
loose, and should be residing in an institution? And imagine if somehow Mike Pence became Prez. Now that would be something to
scare the bejesus out of you.
Tim Jenkins
Adam Schiff should be shot for Treason, of the highest order, along with many others, including HRC, Brennan & Clapper ; and it
should be a public execution, like in Saudi Arabia. This is war on the minds of the masses, that Schiff for brains cares nothing
for.
As for Chuck Schumer, he can have a life sentence, as long as he manages to shut his utterly unfunny dumb vulgar cousin Amy up
& keep her out of the public eye, forever 🙂
Gezzah, life may seem bad right now: but imagine if,
you were Amy Schumer's Husband and father of her child 😉
Talk about obnoxious and utterly nauseating 🙂 , with you Gezzah, all the way.
"When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end?"
I'm almost seriously thinking of buying a one way ticket to the Marquesas Islands Right in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, nowhere
near anywhere; such is the mad bad state of the World.
Need to start up a Go Fund Me page tho!
As I almost (94.6% of the time) boycott the presstitute filth masquerading as journalists (cough) so, I 99% of the time boycott
anything coming out of Hollywood, including alleged 'comedians'.
How are things in Bulgaria? What are the Fascist Stormtroopers up to, aka NATZO who all those you named have intimate connections
with.
Listening to a gorgeous Russian band called: iamthemorning. Check them out – food for the soul. Enjoy your arvo..
"The presidential election in Argentina was a game-changer and a graphic lesson. It pitted the people versus neoliberalism.
The people won – with new President Alberto Fernandez and former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK) as his VP.
Neoliberalism was represented by a PR marketing product, Mauricio Macri [a Micron look-alike]: former millionaire playboy,
president of football legends Boca Juniors, obsessed with spending cuts, who was unanimously sold by Western MSM as a New Age
paradigm.
Well, the paradigm will soon be ejected, leaving behind the usual New Age wasteland: $250 billion in foreign debt, less than
$50 billion in reserves; inflation at 55 percent; 35.4 percent of Argentine homes can't make it); and (incredible as it may seem
in an agriculturally self-sufficient nation) a food emergency."
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Denmark's Ukronazi-friendly regime has been brought to heel by Germany's common sense:
Some big natural gas news very significant for Russia, Germany and the Ukraine. The Danish pipeline sector has been stalled
for a while now by anti-Russia, pro-Ukrainian forces within the Scandiwegian NATZO-friendly regimes. But it appears that Nordstream
2 _will_ get completed and that Ukraine's gas transit chokehold on the EU will come to an end when Russia's Nordstream 2 comes
online for Europe.
-- -- -- -
Permit for the Nord Stream 2 project is reluctantly granted by the Danish Energy Agency. Nord Stream 2 AG has been granted
a permit to construct natural gas pipelines on the Danish continental shelf.
The permit is granted pursuant to the Continental Shelf Act and in accordance with Denmark's obligations under the UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea. Denmark has been put under obligation to allow the construction of transit pipelines with respect to resources
and the environment.
In my humble opinion, the Trump stuff is all total nonsense.
Donald Trump was a property speculator in New York (amongst other places) and was heavily involved with the Mafia. Likewise,
Trump was heavily involved with Jeffery Epstein.
There's so much dirt on Trump that they could get him with the snap of fingers; but of course that's not what they really want.
Trump is pure theatre; a ploy to divert the masses. 'RussiaGate', 'UkraineGate' are all utter rollocks.
Trump and Obama, and all the rest going back to the assassination of Kennedy, are just puppets.
American/ deep state policy doesn't change a jot with any of them.
Wilmers31
America is always presentation over substance, wrapper over content, and shoot the messenger if you don't like the message.
In the meantime the adults in this world outside the US have to hold it all together.
Why was for instance Hillary Clinton not in the dock for saying 'Assad must go'?? It was meddling in the highest order.
Antonym
Pretty humble for an opinion 😀
phree
I guess this just goes to show you that a person can be a member of the ACLU, even a leader apparently, and still be highly biased
in favor of Trump.
Just because a witness is "cooperating" with an investigation does not entail that the witnesses testimony or evidence will
favor any particular side.
And implying that Clapper's comments somehow shows guilt when he clearly says he knows of no wrongdoing is pretty over the
top.
I've read a lot of what's out there about the start of the initial Russia investigation, and it does seem that some of the
FBI personnel leading it (McCabe particularly) were anti-Trump.
Isn't the bigger question whether the investigation was justified based on the reports from the Australians that Trump was
getting political dirt on Hillary from Russia? Is the FBI just supposed to ignore those reports? Really?
George Cornell
Love the Clapper claim (the same Clapper who lied to Congress) says he was just doing his duty in Russiagate. As GBS said, " when
a scoundrel is doing something of which he is ashamed, he always says he is doing his duty".
mark
The Spook Organisations and the Dirty Cops are a greater threat to our way of life than any foreign army or terrorist group (most
of which they created in the first place and which they directly control.)
They are a law unto themselves and completely free of any genuine oversight or control.
This applies equally to the US and UK.
"We lie, we cheat, we steal", as Pompeo helpfully explains.
They also murder people, at home and abroad. JFK, David Kelly, Diana, Epstein.
They plant bombs and blow people up.
Many of the "terrorist atrocities" from Northern Ireland to the present day, were false flag spook operations. The same applies
with Gladio on the continent and the plethora of recent false flags.
There is also a long and inglorious history of interference in domestic politics from the Zinoviev Letter onwards. Plots to stage
a military coup against the Wilson government of the 60s and 70s, with Mountbatten as its figurehead.
The more recent Skripal Hoax.
The contrived Syrian Gas Attack Hoaxes and the White Helmets.
They would not hesitate to do the same to Corbyn if they deemed it necessary.
The CIA and FBI conspired with the UK and Ukrainian governments to prevent the election of Trump, and then to sabotage and smear
his administration once he had been elected. The UK played a major part in this through MI6 and Steele.
This is highly dangerous for this country, irrespective of your view of Trump.
Trump has repaid the favour by meddling in Brexit and interfering in UK politics. It is not in his nature to turn the other cheek.
We have spook organisations claiming for themselves a right of veto over election results and foreign policy. These people are
poor servants and terrible masters.
We see Schumer warning against crossing the spook organisations, begging the obvious question – who runs this country, you or
the spooks?
The Democrats, the Deep State, the MSM, and the Deranged Left were willing to support these conspiracies and hoaxes, and even
suspend disbelief, for the greater good. The ends justify the means. All that matters is getting rid of Trump. Anything goes.
The corrosive erosion of trust, credibility and integrity in all the institutions of the state is probably irreparable. The legislature
and the political process in general. The judiciary. The spooks and police. About 9% of Americans now believe the MSM.
The irony in all this is that it very much serves Trump's interests.
He is extremely vulnerable, having failed to keep any of his promises.
Building The Wall, Draining The Swamp, Bringing The Troops Home. Sorting out health care. Building "incredible, fantastic" infrastructure.
All the Democrats had to do was highlight these failures, find a suitable candidate, and put forward some sensible policies, and
they were home and dry.
Instead, they provided an endless series of diversions and distractions from Trump's failures by charging down every rabbit hole
they could find, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Impeachment. It couldn't work out better for Trump if he was paying them.
Expect to see the Orange Man in the White House for another 4 years.
And another even more virulent outbreak of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Tim Jenkins
Enigmatic and brilliant synopsis, m8, lol: & surely BigB could only agree 🙂
and you never even mentioned HQ.Intel.inside.Israel, today & their illegal trespass of WhatsApp, via corporate 'subsidiaries'
with 'plausible' denial of liability of spying on
everything-everything & any body, that could possibly threaten corporate fascist computerised dictatorship: distributing backdoors,
like Promis & Prism, liberally & worldwide, the Maxwells legacy . . . (yet) 🙂
No need to even discuss, until Western societies ALL get a grip on the depths of depravity that lie within the actions
and "The History of the National Security State" you have to admit, that Julian Assange could not have picked a better book to
firmly grip and signal with, than GORE Vidal's, when being manhandled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, by Spooks who would
sell their own mother, let alone nation, in their utter technological ignorance and adherence to anachronistic doctrines & mentality
!
Glad you mentioned 'good ole' cousin ChuckS.' >>> Lol, just for a laugh and a sense of perspective: yes, he is related to Amy
Queen of Vulgarity & hideous societal distraction.
What a family of wimps & morons: the 'Schumers' being perfect fodder for ridicule & intelligent humour, naturally . . . on a positive
note, mark, think yourself lucky that you are not married to or the father of Amy Schumer's child 🙂
mark
I think I'd prefer the female rhinoceros in Moscow Zoo, even if Putin has been blackmailing me with the photos ever since.
Tim Jenkins
Well, (ahem), you certainly got me all thorny & horny, more than AmyS. ever could, in her wildest dreams, or Chucks, (shucks)
🙂 talk about suckers . . . now, do tell, what was the female Rhino's name ? ! 🙂
Who cares about some BlackRhinoMail, today ?
They'll be dead and extinct, in no time with a legacy 😉
for passionate lovers of Black holes & eternal energy 🙂
Antonym
Is that the best money can buy these days in the US? I guess most of the 1% reside in the Caribbean these days, while Washington
D.C. is stuffed with semi-stiffs.
The most important thing for us and deliciously so now the election is happening is the BLOWBACK. Our DS lying murdering arses
are going to get new ones drilled by Trump and BoBos bromance exploding in full technicolor.
Think May's dementia tax and Strong and Stable were bad?
Lol. This is going to be a FUN month of early xmases.
Dungroanin,
SST is essential reading for anyone concerned with US overseas policy and the corruption of the USA itself in the service of the
security state, so, many thanks for posting this link.
Dungroanin
By sharing we disrupt the msm messages.
Bernard at MoonofAlabama is also worth a daily visitation – priceless analysis on multiple subjects.
lundiel
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run
their own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress
willing to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Pretty much a carbon copy of our own oversight. We hear even less about our security services than Americans do of theirs.
I'd have thought that events like the spy in the holdall, the spies caught by farmers in Libya, the Skripal's, and the whole over-the-top
reaction to the domestic terrorism threat and consequent successful pleas for extra funding, the obvious danger of creating terrorists
by security services, the policy of giving asylum to foreign terrorists of countries we don't like and the whole concept of the
5 eyes and GCHQ needs more than ministerial oversight, a committee of yes men/women and an intelligence services commissioner.
The dispute was not over whether the United States should continue to pursue empire but
rather how to continue to achieve it. The debates were occasioned by the rise of the
countries of the Global South, the societally wrenching experience of the Vietnam War, the
growth of power and influence of the former Soviet Union, and since its collapse, the
emergence of China as a new global economic, political and military power. In addition, the
new international economy was becoming more global, that is to say more interconnected.
Debates about strategy, tactics, surfaced between the neoliberal globalists who emphasized
so-called free trade, financial speculation, and the promotion of a neoliberal agenda that
advocated for the privatization of all public activities by states and the development of
austerity policies that would shift wealth from the many to the few. The international debt
system would be the vehicle for pressuring poor and rich countries to transform their own
economic agendas. This faction dominated United States foreign policy making for
generations, particularly from Reagan to Clinton to Obama. In political/military terms,
they have sought to push back challengers to neoliberal capitalism: Russia, China, populist
Latin American countries, and they have advocated advancing US economic interests in Asia
and Africa. Many of the institutions of the neoliberal globalists, sometimes called the
"deep state" include the CIA, NSA, and other security agencies.
On the other hand, as Targ explains, are the Trumpian, "America First" nationalist
capitalists. This faction of the ruling class, while also supporting global dominance and a
permanent war economy (military-related spending will consume 48 percent of the 2020
federal budget) favors trade restrictions, economic nationalism, building walls and
anti-immigrant policies.
Although Trump is inconsistent, bumbling and sometimes contradictory, he's departed from
the neocon's agenda by making overtures to North Korea and Russia, voicing doubts about
NATO as an expensive relic from the past that is being dangerously misused outside of
Europe, not being afraid to speak bluntly to EU allies, frequently mentioning ending our
"endless, ridiculous and costly wars," asserting that the U.S. is badly overextended and
saying "The job of our military is not to police the world."
I would add that Trump is also an "American exceptionalist" but ascribes a very
different provincial meaning to the term, something closer to a crabbed provincialism, an
insular "Shining City on a Hill," surrounded by a moat.
The constitutional power to impeach a
duly elected president was intended by the Framers of the Constitution as a neutral, non-partisan
tool of last resort to be used against only criminal incumbents in extreme cases.
It is
now being deployed as a partisan weapon that can be used routinely against presidents of a
different party from those who control the House of Representatives.
Under the views of some members of Congress, any time the House is controlled by one party, a
simple majority can properly vote to impeach. As Congresswoman
Maxine
Waters put it
:
"Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law."
She is wrong.
The Constitution is the law and she is not above it.
The recent partisan misuse of this emergency power began with the impeachment of former
President William Jefferson Clinton by the Republican-controlled House in 1998.
Clinton did
not commit an impeachable offense, even if he feloniously lied under oath about his sex life. Such
perjury, if it occurred, would satisfy the definition of a "crime," but not meet the required
Constitutional criteria of a "high crime and misdemeanor."
If President Clinton committed
a crime, it would be a low crime related to his sex life and comparable to the low felonies --
adultery and paying off an extortionist -- committed by Alexander Hamilton when he was Secretary of
the Treasury. Had Hamilton payed the extortionist from Treasury funds, as he was falsely accused of
doing, he would have been guilty of an impeachable high crime.
To be impeached, a president must commit a crime (misdemeanor is a species of crime) and
the commission of that crime must also constitute an abuse of office. An abuse of office without an
underlying crime is a political sin, but not an impeachable offense.
This very issue was debated at the Constitutional Convention, where one delegate proposed
"maladministration" as the criteria for impeachment and removal of a president. James Madison, the
Father of our Constitution, strongly objected on the ground that so vague and open-ended a
criterion would have the president serve at the will of Congress and turn us from a Republic with a
strong president into a parliamentary democracy in which the chief executive can be removed by a
simple vote of no confidence. Instead, the Convention adopted strict prerequisites for impeachment:
treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The House is no more empowered to
substitute its own criteria for those enumerated in the Constitution than the Senate would be to
change the 2/3 vote requirement for removal to a simple majority or a 3/5 super majority. Congress
is not above the law. It is bound by what the Framers accepted and cannot now apply the criterion
the framers explicitly rejected.
Those who characterize the impeachment and removal process as completely political are
wrong as a matter of constitutional law, even if they are right in describing the reality of how it
is being currently misused. Advocates of this view misquote Hamilton in Federalist #65.
Hamilton did characterize the criteria for impeachment as "political," but only in the sense
that they relate to "injuries done immediately to the society itself." He then immediately rejected
the view that the process should be partisan, based on "the comparative strength of parties,"
rather than on "the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt." He called that the "greatest
danger" and demanded "neutrality toward those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny." Those
who misquote and misunderstand Hamilton wrongly conflate the words "political," by which he meant
governmental, and "partisan, " by which he meant related to the comparative strength of parties and
factions.
It is difficult to imagine a greater breach of Hamilton's principles than the recent
House vote along party lines (with two exceptions, both opposing impeachment) to open a formal
impeachment investigation against President Trump. The vote was determined exclusively by the
"comparative strength of parties," as was the vote to impeach President Bill Clinton two decades
ago.
A partisan House vote to impeach President Trump, followed by a partisan Senate vote to acquit
him, would not only hurt the Democratic Party -- as the votes in the Clinton case hurt the
Republican Party -- it would damage our constitution and further polarize our already divided
nation.
Most important, misusing the impeachment power in a partisan manner would pose, in the
words of Hamilton, "the greatest danger" to our Constitution.
Attorneys Admit 'Whistleblower' Had Contacts With Other Presidential Candidates
by
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/04/2019 - 11:40
0
SHARES
President Trump has continued to his attacks on the Democrats' "impeachment resolution"
proceedings, and in particular the so-called 'whistleblower' and the irrelevance of his (or her)
thoughts and feelings...
" What I said on the phone call with the Ukrainian President is "perfectly" stated.
There is no reason to call witnesses to analyze my words and meaning.
This is just
another Democrat Hoax that I have had to live with from the day I got elected (and before!).
Disgraceful!"
"
The Whistleblower gave false information & dealt with corrupt politician Schiff. He
must be brought forward to testify.
Written answers not acceptable! Where is the 2nd
Whistleblower? He disappeared after I released the transcript. Does he even exist? Where is the
informant? Con!"
And, interestingly, this follows a statement from the attorneys representing the whistleblower
acknoweledging that their client "has come into contact with presidential candidates from both
parties."
In light of the ongoing efforts to mischaracterize whistleblower #1's alleged "bias" in order
to detract from the substance of the complaint, we will attempt to clarify some facts.
First
, our client has never worked for or advised a political candidate,
campaign, or party.
Second
, our client has spent their entire government career in apolitical,
civil servant positions in the Executive Branch.
Third
, in these positions our client has come into contact with presidential
candidates from both parties in their roles as elected officials – not as candidates.
Fourth
, the whistleblower voluntarily provided relevant career information
to the ICIG in order to facilitate an assessment of the credibility of the complaint.
Fifth
, as a result, the ICIG concluded – as is well known – that the
complaint was both urgent and credible.
Finally
, the whistleblower is not the story.
To date, virtually every substantive allegation has been confirmed by other sources. For that
reason the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant.
* * *
Except the motivations of the whistleblower are relevant, as Dan Bongino noted on Fox this
morning:
"
There is no Whistleblower. There is someone with an agenda against Donald Trump.
What he was blowing the whistle on didn't happen.
We have the transcript of the call.
This is all a farce and no Republican should forget that."
"This was the transfer of Burisma Group's funds for lobbying activities, as investigators
believe, personally to Joe Biden through a lobbying company. Funds in the amount of $900,000
were transferred to the U.S.-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners, which according to open
sources, in particular, the New York Times, is affiliated with Biden. The payment reference was
payment for consultative services," Derkach said.
He also publicized sums that were transferred to Burisma Group representatives, in
particular Hunter Biden, a son of the former U.S. vice president.
"According to the documents, Burisma paid no less than $16.5 million to [former Polish
President, who became an independent director at Burisma Holdings in 2014] Aleksander
Kwasniewski, [chairman of the Burisma board of independent directors] Alan Apter, [Burisma
independent director] Devon Archer and Hunter Biden [who joined the Burisma board of directors
in 2014]," Derkach said.
"Using political and economic levelers of influencing Ukrainian authorities and manipulating
the issue of providing financial aid to Ukraine, Joe Biden actively assisted closing criminal
cases into the activity of former Ukrainian Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, who is the
founder and owner of Burisma Group," he said.
"Biden's fifth visit to Kyiv on December 7-8, 2015 was devoted to making a decision on the
resignation of [then Ukrainian Prosecutor General] Viktor Shokin over the case of Zlochevsky
and Burisma. Loan guarantees worth $1 billion that the United States was to give to Ukraine was
the point of pressure. Biden himself admitted exerting pressure in his speech at the Council of
Foreign Relations in January 2018, calling Shokin 'son of a bitch who was fired'," Derkach
said.
At a press conference at the Interfax-Ukraine agency on Wednesday, he made public the
documents received from investigative journalists, including correspondence between NABU
officers and representatives of diplomatic missions of foreign states in the framework of
criminal proceedings opened under Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (High Treason).
In particular, the documents that the deputy possesses indicate that Uglava, through his
assistant Polina Chyzh, gave information to the U.S. Embassy, which, he said, is an important
part of the "puzzle" of interference in U.S. elections and international corruption.
Joe Biden's drug addict son Hunter was sitting on the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian
natural gas company and being paid by some accounts over $200,000 a month even though he had
zero experience in the field.
Then-Vice President Joe Biden, who was tasked to oversee US dealings with Ukraine,
threatened to withhold over $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine unless they fired Viktor
Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma and Hunter.
Biden bragged about shaking down Ukraine and getting Mr. Shokin fired during a 2018 speech
to the Council on Foreign Relations.
New documents unearthed by award-winning investigative reporter John Solomon destroyed the
Democrat narrative that Trump strong-armed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The new documents show that Ukraine was reopening the investigation into Burisma and the
crooked Bidens back in February -- before Zelensky was elected president.
A parade of Washington's unelected diplomatic elite has been appearing before the House
Intelligence Committee in a tiny room in the House basement, a SCIF (sensitive compartmented
information facility), walled off from the world by a blanket of electronic security to enforce
absolute, total secrecy. There, in a proceeding reminding most of the British Star Chamber,
they are making claims against a man they hate, a man whom the voters elected in 2016 to throw
them all out of any power whatsoever over the nation -- the President of the United
States. Here is how America voted.
Here is a map of US counties, colored red and blue to indicate Republican and Democratic
majorities respectively. Source: personal.umich.edu
They are claiming that President Trump withheld necessary military aid for Ukraine in
exchange for a promise by the Ukrainians to investigate Joe Biden and his cocaine-addled son,
Hunter. This is the so-called "impeachment inquiry" which follows two previous impeachment
campaigns in sequence, launched by the Democrats and the Anglo-American defense and
intelligence establishment on the day Donald Trump won the election.
In this brief we will show you that Donald Trump should have withheld military aid from the
Ukrainians, but for a reason different than that stated. And, we will demonstrate that Joe
Biden should be investigated, for supervising a coup, led by neo-Nazis in Ukraine, which has
collapsed that country. Thousands have been killed or fled the country. Many of the foreign
policy mandarins now testifying against Trump were Biden's managers of that horrific crime, and
other similar crimes, which have created America's "forever" wars.
Joe Biden otherwise
played a key role as Obama's Vice President in the 2016-2017 illegalities against candidate
and President-elect Donald Trump, actively joining a small group of "principals" (John Brennan,
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, James Clapper, Jim Comey) discussing and implementing the
intelligence feed for a propaganda campaign intended to defeat Trump by smearing him as a
Russian agent. These conversations included Susan Rice, Avril Haines, and Lisa Monaco from the
White House side, in addition to Joe Biden. Biden also played a significant role in the
attempted coverup of the White House's direct role in the 2016 foreign interference
operation against Donald Trump.
After the string of illegalities against Trump, which continued through his firing of FBI
Director James Comey, and after the brutal
Robert Mueller inquisition , which destroyed many lives but came up empty as to any crimes
by the President, we have now entered phase three of the coup against the President. As
Congressman Al Green (D-TX) and even Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have admitted: impeachment now
is necessary because, without it, Trump will win a second term. The same sentiment was
pronounced by the British House of Lords in their 2018 "UK Foreign
Policy in a Shifting World Order," in an order to their American satrapy: a second Trump
term must not happen.
Everyone who has appeared before the House Intelligence Committee so far, is up to their
ears in U.S./British regime-change operations, particularly the one conducted by the Obama
Administration in 2013-2014 in Ukraine, where Joe Biden and Victoria Nuland engineered regime
change on Russia's border, using Neo-Nazis as muscle, and creating a post-coup vassal-state
which included the very same Neo-Nazis as government officials. Joe Biden, who served as the
Obama Administration's "point man" on Ukraine, and Biden's State Department, National Endowment
for Democracy, and Atlantic Council buddies misnamed their atrocity, the "Revolution of
Dignity." Victoria Nuland, the case officer with Joe Biden for the coup, says the United States
spent $5 billion dollars in creating this fiasco. Her figures do not include substantial funds
delivered by the British government and NATO, along with George Soros and other privateers.
Like other regime-change wars, most prominently Iraq, this one installed a government of
colonial administrators, and resulted in a perfectly predictable, violent insurgency from those
sections of Ukraine that would never agree to an occupation government, particularly after
being attacked by the coup's "Right Sector" neo-Nazis. In Ukraine, this insurgency involved the
Russian-speaking population of Eastern Ukraine, the Donbass, where, after the coup, the regions
of Donetsk and Lugansk declared themselves autonomous Republics. There is plenty of evidence
that the insurgency was provoked to facilitate a full-scale ethnic cleansing of this asset-rich
area which formerly housed that nation's manufacturing capacity and skilled
workforce.
March in Kiev on anniversary of the birthday of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera (depicted
on flag), January 2015, Photo: All-Ukrainian Union
The conflict in the Donbass has killed over 13,000 people to date. And the coup resulted in
the further disintegration of Ukraine into Europe's poorest country. The operation replaced one
set of corrupt oligarchs who stole the country's riches after the collapse of the Soviet Union,
but were considered "soft" on Russia, with a different set of oligarchs who have voiced a
desire to go to war with Russia, while continuing the stealing.
Biden, Ukraine, and
Burisma
This is the context for the real Joe Biden corruption story in Ukraine and his son's
estimated $3 million dollar haul from one of the largest and most corrupt Ukrainian gas and oil
companies: Burisma . This is a story about the obsession of Joe Biden and others who went
out to cripple Russia's economy by shutting down the gas transit lines that pass from Russia,
through Ukraine, to Europe, while supplying Ukraine through Western oil companies shepherded
into the country by Biden, along with a scheme for fracking in the war-torn Donbass. They
pursued this while overtly threatening Russia with nuclear war, facilitated by their new vassal
state, Ukraine, on Russia's border -- placing the entire world in jeopardy by their madness. To
accomplish his gas gambit, Biden had to capture Burisma.
Then Vice President Joe Biden with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Secretary of
State John Kerry, Ambassador Victoria Nuland, and others in a bilateral meeting with Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko on February 7, 2015.
Many of the British and American intelligence operatives who accomplished the Ukraine
"regime change" in 2014, turned their attention, in 2016, to destroying the political candidacy
of Donald Trump, smearing him as a Manchurian candidate because he publicly stated a desire for
better relations with Russia.
When Rudy Giuliani started to investigate Kiev's role in the illegal 2016 attempt to defeat
Donald Trump, he touched a "third rail" of British and American intelligence, one that goes all
the way back to British and American adoption and support of the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists (OUN-B) led by Stepan Bandera and Mykola Lebed. Bandera was an MI-6 agent, Lebed
became CIA. Earlier, during World War II, in collaboration with the Nazis, they slaughtered
thousands of Poles and Jews -- all in the name of defeating Russia. The Right Sector groups
used by Joe Biden for the coup and subsequently installed in the government, idolize Stepan
Bandera.
Now that Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham have, as anticipated,
undertaken a full criminal investigation of the U.S., British and other intelligence figures
who led the 2016-2017 effort to defeat Donald Trump and subvert his presidency, the Ukrainian
aspect of this operation has become a very, very hot potato.
The appearance of the bogus Ukraine-aid "whistleblower" -- himself, we now know, a CIA
agent, expert in Ukraine, who previously worked with Joe Biden in the Obama White House --
represents an effort to block this story from serious investigation at all costs. It also aims
to delegitimize the entire Barr/Durham criminal investigation, as well as the imminent report
of the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Both DOJ investigations center
on illegalities in the first stage of the coup against Trump, prior to Mueller's appointment as
Special Counsel. And, most important, the bogus impeachment "inquiry" is yet another
full-spectrum information-warfare operation, using the media, fed by cascading, 24/7 bogus
headlines and leaks from the intelligence community and the Democrats in Congress, to tank the
President's standing with the American people and either impeach him or defeat him in
2020.
The Present Charade
We now know that the bogus whistleblower worked, covertly, with Congressman Adam Schiff's
staff to launder leaks about the President's July 25th phone call with incoming Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky, into a new bogus narrative about the President. This
whistleblower is represented by a law firm that has actively sought whistleblowers from the
intelligence agencies against the President, posting leaflets and billboard ads outside the
agencies and offering to cover any and all expenses.
Paul Sperry, in an October 30th
article at Real Clear Investigations , states that everyone in Washington and the national
news media "knows" that the bogus whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. If true, it only highlights
the scandal embodied in the sham impeachment proceedings being run by the Democrats, it is the
equivalent of a hand grenade. Ciaramella worked in the Obama White House with Susan Rice, John
Brennan and Joe Biden on Ukraine. He also worked with Alexandra Chalupa, who ran Ukraine's
illegal 2016 election interference in the United States on behalf of Hillary Clinton. According
to a former NSC official, he got caught leaking to the media as an Obama holdover at the NSC
under Trump, where he chaired the Ukraine desk. His leaks framed the totally bogus narrative
that Putin caused the firing of James Comey by Trump. Rather than being fired,
Ciaramella returned to the CIA and his close friends, according to Sperry's story, joined Adam
Schiff's House Intelligence Committee, a most convenient setup.
The bogus whistleblower was also assisted by a new Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, Michael Atkinson, who dubbed this bogus complaint "credible" and "urgent." Atkinson
migrated from the leadership of the National Security Division of the Justice Department -- a
central control point in Phases 1 and 2 of the coup -- to the IG post, and promptly rewrote the
rules so that whistleblower complaints could be based on total hearsay and gossip, rather than
first-hand knowledge. In Atkinson's January 2019 confirmation hearing before the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner (D-VA) charged him with a mission of protecting
whistleblowers first and foremost. This was most strange coming from a committee that has
repeatedly acquiesced in the destruction of actual whistleblowers such as Tom Drake, Bill
Binney, Jeff Sterling, and Julian Assange. It suggests that a new "insurance policy" was being
worked on already by the higher echelons of the intelligence community and the most corrupted
committee in the Senate.
Surprise: the Transcript
To the surprise of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the coup's strategists, the President
released the actual transcript of his July 25th phone conversation with President Zelensky,
which, in any reasonable culture, should have ended the entire affair. The bogus
whistleblower's gossip was proven demonstrably false by the transcript. Washington, D.C. is
not, presently, such a culture.
In the call, President Trump congratulated Zelensky on his victory in the parliamentary
elections, and Zelensky promptly announced that he would be reforming his government to clean
up its legendary and horrific corruption. The President and Zelensky discussed the fact that
the United States is shouldering the burden of support for Ukraine, while Germany and other
European countries, which have the most immediate strategic interest, are not contributing
enough.
In the portion of the call the Democrats are trying to make an impeachable crime, President
Trump said he was concerned about Ukraine's intervention into the 2016 U.S. election on behalf
of Hillary Clinton and expressed concern that Zelensky is surrounded by some of the same people
who conducted those activities. Trump asked whether the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
computer server examined by CrowdStrike is in the possession of a Ukrainian oligarch. He asks
Zelensky to work with Attorney General Barr, who is conducting the investigation into the 2016
presidential election illegalities. He characterizes this request to investigate possible
Ukrainian illegalities in the 2016 election, and to speak with Attorney General Barr, as doing
him (Trump) a "favor."
The "favor," it is clear, had nothing to do with the 2020 elections or asking Ukraine to
"attack" Democrats and Joe Biden, as repeatedly mischaracterized by Democrats and the bogus
whistleblower. Instead, it had to do with investigating the ongoing coup in the United
States which threatens this nation's very existence .
It is Zelensky who brings up Rudy Giuliani, the President's lawyer, who has been conducting
his own investigation of Ukraine's interference on behalf of Hillary Clinton since January of
2019. The President then says that he had heard that a very good prosecutor in Ukraine was shut
down by some very bad people, and that the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie
Yovanovitch, was bad news, as were the people she was dealing with. The President then relates
that Joe Biden bragged about stopping the prosecution of Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company
where Hunter Biden sat on the Board. He says that whatever Zelensky can tell Attorney General
Barr about this would be great. Zelensky responds that Marie Yovanovitch was a bad ambassador
as she admired Petro Poroshenko, the previous President, and refused to accept Zelensky's
election.
That's it. There was absolutely nothing illegal or wrong here, despite the hair-on-fire
headlines fulminated daily by the news media and Adam Schiff -- the same "walls closing in"
nonsense that occurred daily during Russiagate. There is no reference to, "if you do this, I'll
do that." In fact, the Ukrainians were not even aware that the lethal military aid they were
expecting had been placed on temporary hold.
Unfortunately, the President, after the call, approved the lethal military aid to Ukraine
which Congress' war-mongers had ordered up in their continuing destructive madness about
"Russia, Russia, Russia." The aid was issued without any requirement whatsoever that Ukraine
produce anything to meet President Trump's concerns about 2016 election interference or the
corruption surrounding Burisma and/or Joe Biden. The aid was issued without any real guarantees
in place to ensure that lethal weaponry would not be put in the hands of the various Neo-Nazis
integrated into Ukraine's National Guard and militias, and who are now arrayed against
President Zelensky himself, charging that his effort to settle the war in the Donbass is a
sell-out to Russia.
Now if the President and his supporters choose to tell the real and whole truth to the
American people about what the Ukraine issue is really all about, the impeachers, so desperate
to block this from coming to light, will have hoisted themselves on their own petard in true
Shakespearian fashion, in the best boomerang imaginable. That story, the real story about Joe
Biden, Ukraine corruption, and the Ukrainian role in the effort to fix the 2016 election for
Hillary Clinton, is what we will set forth, in summary fashion, in what follows.
Then the Ukraine whistleblower story broke in September
The problem here is that the person in question does not fit well the definition of
"whistleblower" unless you want to change the meaning of this word.
A more plausible hypothesis is that Ciaramella (if it was he) was a Brennan spy in the
West Wing, which former key FBI Russaigaters Peter Strzok and Lisa Page named
"Charlie".
If Ciaramella was a "Confidential Informant" (CI) in no way he can be called
whistleblower, because it was his responsibility to produce regular reports about Trump
administration actions and intentions for FBI, CIA or both. And that makes him and his
handlers subjects to criminal investigation.
So then the question is, if this goes on through the election, will that be a
disaster? It may depend on what evidence comes out.
IMHO the intention is to drag it till the elections in order to repeat the success of
the influence of Mueller investigation on the 2018 elections results. Kind of "Hail Mary"
pass by Pelosi. Right now even Sanders has diminished chances against Trump due,
unfortunately, to his health problems (to say nothing about the fact that DNC would
prefer Trump to Sanders any day ;-).
But please understand that the real game will start only after the Senate will open
the trial. So the last thing Pelosi wants is to get this case on the Senate floor. At
this point Senate Republicans can wipe the floor with Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, and company
with impunity as long as they wish: they can call any witnesses and request any material
they want, using help from their House colleagues, especially Nunes, who proved to be a
pretty capable politician, much superior caliber then Schiff (who is the victim of
nepotism, so to speak ;-) . Tables will be instantly turned.
They can also destroy Brennan, Marie Yovanovitch (who can be criminally prosecuted for
informing Ukrainians that they do not need to deal with Trump, just wait until
impeachment) , Taylor, Vindman (who can be court marshaled) and other initiators of
Ukrainegate.
The question only is whether they want to do it or not, because most Republicans do
not like Trump.
Warren chances in the atmosphere of impeachment hysteria are not looking good (and the
fact the she jumped into Ukrainegate bandwagon proves that she is a weak politician.)
First of all, unhinged Trump is dangerous. Not only he is a much better showman, he is
a master of playing a victim. He will try to rally voters around the flag and make his
failures less significant for his core electorate (some faction of which, for example
anti-war Republicans, and a part of blue-collar workers might not vote at all).
In other words, this impeachment game (and it is a dirty game) may play for Trump the
same role that Iraq war played for Bush II: people understood that this reformed
alcoholic is a miserable failure, but voted for him anyway out of patriotism.
Likewise, many independents who were ready to defect Trump may hold their nose and
vote for Trump because they despise neoliberal Dems dirty games more then they despise
Trump. Kind of perverted version of LEV (lessee evil voting :-)
The House Intelligence Committee chairman has lied with impunity to the American public and
to Congress. Now he's running a secret inquiry, withholding evidence from colleagues, and may
have coached the "whistleblower" behind Ukraine-gate.
H ouse Republicans on Monday will
attempt to force a vote to censure Representative Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.), the chairman of the
House Intelligence Committee. The resolution, authored by Rep. Andy Biggs (R.-Ariz.), has 170
Republican co-sponsors. (It's unclear why the remaining 27 GOP congressmen have not signed on.)
The
motion condemns Schiff for actions that "misled the American people, bring disrepute upon
the House of Representatives, and make a mockery of the impeachment process, one of this
chamber's most solemn constitutional duties." It lists several specific offenses, including
Schiff's repeated claims that he possessed solid evidence of collusion between the Trump
campaign and the Russians, and his intentional misrepresentation of the July phone call between
Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
If Schiff were a Republican, his own colleagues would have dispatched him long ago. Compare
the way Schiff's caucus is condoning his misdeeds with the way House Republicans in 2017 signed
on to a bogus House ethics inquiry into Rep. Devin Nunes (R.-Calif.), sidelining his nascent
investigation into the corrupt origins of the FBI's Trump-Russia probe for eight crucial
months. (He was cleared of any wrongdoing.)
Schiff has lied with impunity to the American public and to Congress. He is suspected of
leaking nonpublic, and in some instances, classified material to the press.
At the same time, Schiff is denying
access to his secret impeachment proceedings and withholding information from House
members. Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee sent a letter to Schiff on Friday,
accusing him of failing to furnish documents related to his "impeachment inquiry," a clear
violation of House rules. Yet Schiff remains a media darling and a hero of
#TheResistance.
Schiff's Possible Crimes
But Schiff's repeated witness tampering is not just a breach of House protocol, it is a
crime. In a bombshell article, Breitbart
reported this week that Thomas Eager, a top Schiff aide, traveled to Ukraine in late August
and met with the acting U.S. ambassador to that country. The diplomat, Bill Taylor -- who is
temporarily occupying the position following Trump's removal of the previous ambassador -- is
scheduled to testify next week before Schiff's ongoing impeachment tribunal.
According to Breitbart , Eager traveled to Ukraine from August 24 to August 31;
Eager's meeting with Taylor was the first item of business. (The trip was approved by Schiff,
according to official documents.)
The timing of the trip is suspicious for several reasons: The junket occurred during the
exact timeframe that the "whistleblower" complaint
concerning Trump's call with Ukranian President Zelensky was under consideration by the
intelligence community's inspector general. On August 28, Schiff ominously tweeted that "Trump is
withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the
Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent."
But the report had not been submitted officially to Schiff's committee. Inspector General
Michael Atkinson did not alert Schiff's committee about the complaint until September 9 over an
internal disagreement about Atkinson's assessment that the complaint was of "urgent
concern."
Coincidentally (or not), on that very same day , Taylor sent a text to Gordon
Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union.
"As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a
political campaign," Taylor wrote
to Sondland, who seemed surprised by the message. "Bill, I believe you are incorrect about
President Trump's intentions," Sondland replied. "The President has been crystal clear no quid
pro quo's of any kind." The $250 million aid package was released two
days later.
So, Schiff's lackey suddenly shows up in Ukraine at the end of August to meet with the
fill-in American ambassador while his boss is concocting his latest collusion-based impeachment
fantasy? What exactly did Eager and Taylor discuss?
Did Eager brief Taylor about the forthcoming "whistleblower" report
, which also contained false accusations that Trump "is using the power of his office to
solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election" while expressing alarm
about a delay in American financial assistance to Ukraine? After all, there was no reason for
Taylor to suggest the aid was tied to giving assistance to a political campaign since nothing
of the sort had been reported by the news media. Why did Taylor send that text on the same day
that Atkinson tattled to Schiff's committee about a hold-up of the "whistleblower"
report?
Questions for Witnesses
Another question Republicans might want to ask Taylor is whether Eager told him that the
committee already had talked to the "whistleblower" before the official report was
prepared. In another example of his bad habit of tampering with witnesses, Schiff admitted
that, despite his public protestations to the contrary, his committee had been approached
by the "whistleblower" prior to filing the complaint on August 12.
An unnamed intelligence committee aide -- could it also be Eager? -- met with the
still-anonymous "whistleblower" and advised the official how to proceed. He then notified his
boss, Schiff, who later denied the pre-report rendezvous. Schiff
told MSNBC on September 17 that "we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower." After
the New York Times contradicted that claim on October 2, Schiff was forced to backpedal,
insisting he should have been more clear. The Washington Post
awarded Schiff four Pinocchios for his initial claim and subsequent excuse.
Now that his chicanery has been exposed, Schiff also is walking back his demand that the
"whistleblower" immediately testify before his committee.
In addition to his most recent witness-tampering escapades, Schiff has a few more incidents
on the books.
During his House testimony last February, Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney,
confessed
that he had been in contact with the California Democrat in advance of the spectacle. "I spoke
to Mr. Schiff about topics that were going to be raised at the upcoming hearing," Cohen told
Rep. James Jordan (R.-Ohio).
Reports later emerged that Schiff's staff traveled to New York on four separate occasions
to meet with Cohen for more than 10 hours before his testimony, leading to legitimate questions
about coaching a congressional witness.
And then there is the allegedly serendipitous meet-up in Aspen between Schiff and Glenn
Simpson, the co-owner of Fusion GPS, as Simpson faced congressional scrutiny for his role in
facilitating the bogus Trump-Russia
collusion hoax and handling of the infamous Steele dossier. A few months after his
encounter with Schiff in the summer of 2018, Simpson
pleaded the Fifth before the House Intelligence Committee, which was controlled by
Republicans at the time.
"Americans sharply divided over whether to impeach and remove Trump from office, Post-ABC
poll finds" [
WaPo ]. "The poll finds that 49 percent of Americans say the president should be
impeached and removed from office, while 47 percent say he should not. Among Democrats,
support for removing the president from office is overwhelming, with 82 percent in favor and
13 percent opposed. Among Republicans, it is almost the reverse, with 82 percent opposed and
18 percent in favor, even as the president's approval rating reached a new low among members
of his party. Independents are closely divided, with 47 percent favoring removal and 49
percent opposed." • If one wished to be completely cynical, one might argue that the
quick release and simple story of UkraineGate was more effective than the constantly shifting
story of RussiaGate.
"Impeach Trump. Then Move On." [David Brooks, New York Times ].
"During Watergate, voters trusted federal institutions and granted the impeachment process a
measure of legitimacy. Today's voters do not share that trust and will not regard an
intra-Washington process as legitimate," • Yep. More: "I get that Democrats feel they
have to proceed with impeachment to protect the Constitution and the rule of law. But there
is little chance they will come close to ousting the president. So I hope they set a
Thanksgiving deadline. Play the impeachment card through November, have the House vote and
then move on to other things." • The Democrats were muttering about the end of the year.
No way.
UPDATE "Why the Impeachment Fight Is Even Scarier Than You Think" [ Politico
]. "Democrats and Republicans might still disagree about policy, but they are increasingly
also at odds over the very foundations of our constitutional order. Political scientists have
a term for what the United States is witnessing right now. It's called "regime cleavage," a
division within the population marked by conflict about the foundations of the governing
system itself -- in the American case, our constitutional democracy. In societies facing a
regime cleavage, a growing number of citizens and officials believe that norms, institutions
and laws may be ignored, subverted or replaced." • Seems reasonable. Here's the tell:
"Decades ago, a regime cleavage divided Chileans, with conservatives aligning against the
elected government of Salvador Allende and eventually leading to a coup that replaced him
with General Augusto Pinochet." How on earth to do you write about the coup in Chile without
mentioning the role of the intelligence community? Well, the same way you write about a
change in the Constitutional order today, without mentioning the intelligence community.
IMO there is a lot of evidence of incompetence and malfeasance in the leadership of the 17
agencies of the Intelligence Community and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A partial list
of failures and misdeeds:
1. They failed to predict the collapse of the USSR. There was a lot of scholarship on the
subject before the event and individual analysts were sure that the end was approaching for the
Soviet government but the agencies refused to believe that such a thing could happen. Why? The
IC accepted the insistence of the elected government of the US that history would continue in a
straight line forever with concomitant profits for industry.
2. They failed to predict 9/11. This failure was not "failing to connect the dots." It was
largely a failure to run clandestine HUMINT collection operations well enough to know what
al-Qa'ida was up to in detail. This was not an impossible task. The IC was offered the means of
penetration of the group and refused to take the risk of disclosure with subsequent damage to
executives careers even though it was well understood how dangerous AQ was after the East
Africa bombings.
3. They failed to infiltrate Al-Qa'ida before 9/11. Once again, this was not an impossible
task. I could tell you how, but ...
4. The FBI has repeatedly participated in DoJ efforts to "frame" persons charged in federal
courts. They helped DoJ prosecutors do that to Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. To my certain and
personal knowledge from my work as a consultant to the federal courts and an expert witness in
national security cases the FBI/DoJ have repeatedly withheld evidence from the discovery
process in which security cleared defense attorneys were due this knowledge, I have seen the
FBI bribe witnesses to testify against defendants on what amounted to a contingency basis,
i.e., no conviction, no fee.
5. And then there is the current murky situation concerning the leaders of the IC; Brennan,
Clapper etc., and the leaders of the FBI. IMO it is clear that whatever they did exactly, they
aligned themselves against Candidate/President elect Trump.
There are many, many more examples but time and space available here must limit my
recitation of these issues.
Tell me, pilgrims, why should we put up with such nonsense? Why should we pay the leaders of
these agencies for the privilege of having them abuse us? We are free men and women. Let us
send these swine to their just deserts in a world where they have to work hard for whatever
money they earn.
TTG and I are agreed that the very first thing to do is strip CIA of whatever role they
still have in the world of Covert Action. CA includes all measures short of war but more
violent than diplomacy that are taken to implement legal US foreign policy. The CIA should not
have this mission, one they have shared with the armed forces since 9/11. CIA's present mission
is to serve as the main US Clandestine Service, backed up by the military. In this role they
are supposed to recruit foreigners to spy for us but also to run a large part of CA. It is
obvious to anyone who has watched them try to do that over many decades that they simply lack
the skills needed. Watching them try, is like watching a monkey try to f---k a football. In
their efforts to comply with this mission the civilian leadership of CIA hire people who once
were soldiers but who sought other employment and they also borrow junior soldiers from Army
Special Forces. Why not cut out the "middle man" in the process and have the military run
CA?
An argument can be made that the FBI, the spawn of J. Edgar Hoover's peculiar brain (he
amassed dossiers on US politicians in order to control them) and the CIA an artifact of the
Cold War (which ALWAYS had too much power) should simply be torn down as institutions and
replaced with other government bodies more reflective of our collective nation values.
The country needs a police agency that obeys the law. The country needs a small agency to
conduct strategic level penetrations of important foreign threats.
Should existing structures like the US Marshal's Service and/or DIA be given the missions of
the CIA and FBI or should altogether new groups be constructed with better controls inflicted
on them?
Well over a decade and half ago our local Committee on Foreign Relations (parent company
Council on Foreign Relations CFT) had a guest speaker on this exact topic -what are we
getting from the millions (billions?) spent on our IC community.
He also at that time presented a compelling list of intelligence failures, and questioned
the value of this operation's continued existence. Wish I could recall who the speaker was,
other than being surprised such clearly "anti-government" position was being presented under
the auspices of the CFR.
Sir,
It seems like we've reached a juncture where burning these agencies to the ground is
necessary. You'd greatly expand the US Marshall's investigative abilities and pass the CIA's
mission over to the military. Fine. However, you've still got the DoJ involved with the
Marshalls and you've got people like Vindman in the military and you've got people like
Clinton and Kerry at State, etc. Why wouldn't the Marshalls and military, in time, become as
corrupt and incompetent as the FBI and CIA?
Then there's the lack of congressional and executive oversight (or worse, mal-direction)
that has allowed a lot of the corruption and incompetence to flourish. Our elected reps are,
for the most part, very shabby people.
So I'm not optimistic about the longer term impact, but yeah, burn them down as an object
lesson for the time being.
You could start your bill of particulars a lot earlier than 1991. The CIA systematically
overstated the capabilities of the Soviet Union over a period of 40 years. That had serious
policy implications which reach right down to the present day. Then there were the Bay of
Pigs failure and Aldrich Ames.
It is said that Greed is the root of all evil.
Uncontrolled capitalism is Greed.
Your Congress and Senate are bought by money, To become elected to any government position
usually goes to the highest bidder.
Board members get rich by share buybacks that drain the blood from your companies enriching a
few shareholders on the way. One only needs to use Boeing as example once a great innovator
and engineering company now it is like a sleigh of hands.
So of course all levels of government are corrupted
Hollywood and the media controlled by a few extremely wealthy who's agenda certainly does not
support America or the American people.
So to talk about your changing your letter agencies is to try to fix the symptoms not the
cause.
Uncontrolled capitalism is nothing more than a willing buyer meeting a willing seller. Both
are mutually greedy - one wants a high price; one wants a low price. Nothing has changed.
Maybe you are talking about class envy, Chibi.
Turning to the FBI, why should the agency exist at all? We got along fine for more than a
century without it. It didn't serve its present "elite" role until 1982 and it has been a
notable failure in that regard, as demonstrated by your list.
Presently, there are more than 30 different armed law enforcement agencies in the federal
government--everything from the Marshalls Service to Fish & Wildlife. At best the FBI is
redundant.
How can they be cleaned out when the whole government appears infiltrated with individuals
disloyal to the Constitution. And the hypocrites say this
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which I am about to enter: So help me God."
turcopolier
"No. Neocons seek world domination under their rule. The US is just a tool for them."
As far as I can see they hate National Borders as you have stated. I wouldn't be surprised
at this point that the massive illegal immigration was allowed to happen in order to destroy
the fabric of society in the United States with the eventual goal of a North American Union.
The EU is definitely the model for a "Republic" of World Governments which will only be a
mask or veil for a tyranny much as it is today. But much much worse is planned in my
opinion.
It is time individuals start deciding which Father they will follow. The "God" of this
World known as Death or the God of Life. That's the way it was put to me. And that's the way
it will be put to the inhabitants of Planet Earth. We will either have a Kingdom of Hell or a
Kingdom of Heaven. No more straddling the fence.
I will never betray him again. And look forward to meeting the Bastard on the
Battlefield.
Sometimes analysis of long serving success may reveal how the nation might proceed. A case in
point -- Morris, Jack and Benjamin Childs and their wives. Morris who?
Morris and Jack Childs were early graduates of a 1920 Soviet spy school. They returned to
the US and operated in the Illinois area with some success, especially during the Depression
years. Morris developed a heart condition during WWII and was abandoned by the Communist
Party of America. His brothers dropped extraneous activity and focused their time and
resources on helping him.
Then . . . the FBI came calling. At government expense Morris was moved to the Mayo Clinic
and Jack was instructed to solicit assistance from Party Chapters all across the US. The
money received was minimal, but donors were enthusiastically thanked.
By 1950, Morris had risen to the #2 position in the Communist Party of America, which
involved his visiting Russia for a month at a time, several times every year to discuss
budget and operations. As a communist graduate of the "heroic" age, he became a discreet
father figure for everyone in the Politburo. (All his fellow graduates had been eliminated
during the Stalin years.) His friends in Moscow learned that their confidences and expressed
annoyances were sympathetically discussed, but never shared with rivals. Ultimately, the
Kremlin asked him to visit Mao in Peking, Castro in Havana to smooth over disputes -- Morris
was the go-to friend to the Politburo.
A word about Jack and Benjamin. They established a mail-order business selling white shoes
and clothes to nurses, called "Women in White," as a cover for the income Morris enjoyed as
an invalid. Periodically, Jack would visit New York to order clothing and collect Soviet
funds, using time-consuming Soviet methods to detect whether he was being followed.
The FBI never revealed anything about the Childs. In fact, many of Morris' FBI handlers in
Chicago were never promoted from modest GS 11 and 12 positions. The very valuable
intelligence delivered by Morris was disguised by the FBI handlers in "think essays," or as
electronic intercepts.
By 1977, Morris was visibly failing. He made one last trip to Moscow and Andropov
organized a magnificent dinner for hundreds in the Kremlin. On his return to Chicago, an
unknown moving company assisted the family to relocate to Florida amid numerous well wishing
farewells. Somehow, communication with the Childs in Florida ceased -- perhaps Morris had
died.
For a fascinating read: Operation Solo: The FBI's Man in the Kremlin, by John Daniel
Barron.
As Colonel Lang said, the first step is to transfer all covert action to DoD. That's where it
belongs. The CIA grabbed onto that as it became their raison d'être with their
"capture, kill" mantra after 9/11 and it has only gotten worse since then. The majority of
their paramilitary officers are former SF soldiers and Rangers. We might as well hire these
former soldiers back into DIA and JSOC similar to the Military Intelligence Civilian Excepted
Career Program long used by the Army and DIA for HUMINT officers. Hell, we've already used
civilian HUMINTers in special mission units. I was one of them.
The CIA is largely into liaison and Embassy operations, the cocktail party circuit. The
Army and, later, the DIA relied mainly on rather scruffy and low level commercial cover
operations. In my opinion, it takes a lot more skill to develop and run HUMINT operations
using a scruffy, nobody cover than than as an Embassy official. We, the military, can do both
well. I don't know if the same can be said of most CIA officers. Although, I have to admit
the CIA does a much better job at developing cover support mechanisms. Maybe that's a niche
for them. Having said that, there are more than enough intelligence requirements to keep two
HUMINT organizations fully employed. Let DIA support DoD's requirements and let a CIA without
CA or paramilitary capabilities support DoS, Commerce Department, and DOE requirements. CIA
is always trying to hog military support. Stay in your lane!
I agree with Eric Newhill in that much of the FBI's problems lie with the DOJ and the
court system. Our adversarial system either seeks a conviction or seeks to avoid a
conviction. Truth and justice take a backseat to these goals. Maybe there should be
separation of law enforcement and counter-intelligence. I'm not sure how that would work yet,
but that whole Homeland Security mess ought to be included in our bonfire of the
Agencies.
From a mere citizen of our battered Republic, no expertise in intelligence work other than
distrusting everything the Borg wants me to believe, I say huzzah to you sir. As others said,
the rot infects all society in interlocking, Byzantine knots. But the I.C. is a good place to
start. After all, no reforms will matter if we let these maniacs pull us into thermonuclear
extinction. Priorities.
No organization is immune from the effects of men and women with huge egos and a lust for
power---not the elected government institutions, the government bureaucracy, the military, or
even the church. One consolation throughout this attempted "coup" upon Trump has been the
fact that the full weight of the military is not behind this. What happens if our foreign
intelligence is handled by the military and it becomes corrupt? Who is to stop them?
Can we talk about what is so much at stake that those inside our government would plot
against our system of government, just to ensure they get their hands on it?
'Power" is not the answer -- power to do what? Is it just money- hands on our own tax
money? Ego. Is it a guy thing? Hanging on to nice house in, Foxhall, Bethesda or Spring
Valley?
What drove this insider cabal, who already were at the peak of their power in this the
most powerful nation on the planet, to plot this alleged coup?
Given Ciaramella's rise within the Obama administration intelligence community, radio host
Rush Limbaugh frames
him as a spy
:
"He's lurking in there in the West Wing as an Obama holdover.
He's essentially a
spy for John Brennan
, and he's there to do the dirty work of the deep state." -
Rush
Limbaugh
Limbaugh cites journalist
Sharyl Attkisson
who wrote in response to Sperry's 'outing' of Ciaramella, " If the reporting
is correct, it implies
the "whistleblower" could have been worried Trump was getting close
to uncovering Democrat links to Ukraine's interference in US elections in 2016.
"
And if Ciaramella
was
a deep-state spy in the West Wing,
former FBI employees
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are potentially involved
- as pieced together by
Fox News
contributor and former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, who starts with an
April 25 letter
from Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) to Attorney General
William Barr asking about
cryptic text messages between Strzok and Page
in which
they discuss someone named "Charlie" who may be "the CI guy."
Bongino posits that Strzok and Page may be talking about Ciaramella being a "Confidential
Informant" (CI), or spy - and notes that Paul Sperry may have dropped a hint in the way he included
a "pronunciation note" regarding the whistleblower's name (pronounced
char
-a-MEL-ah)
may have referred to "Charlie" in the Strzok/Page texts.
Finally,
also discussed in Bongino's podcast, is an invitation for a series of events
sponsored by major Clinton Foundation donor ($25 million) and Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk
in the spring of 2016
. It looks to be an Ukrainian outreach type of event. Ukrainian
member of parliament Olga Bielkova is scheduled to meet with none other than Eric Ciaramella.
She hates Trump. (This can be viewed at 22:08 in the video.)
The emerging image of EC shows him to be a hyper-partisan Democrat, well-connected
within the ranks of the deep state, who was possibly spying on the Trump White House for the FBI
.
As voters see the individual behind the whistleblower complaint which has triggered an
impeachment inquiry, they will "have thoughts" about the Democrats.
Perhaps we'll find out more about Ciaramella from
John Durham
, the prosecutor
appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the "Russiagate" counterintelligence operation
against the Trump campaign. As Rush Limbaugh puts it, this is a race between impeachment and a
Durham indictment.
Several mainstream media have made claims that Joe Biden's
intervention in the Ukraine and the Ukrainian interference in
the U.S. election are "conspiracy theories" and "debunked". The
public record proves them wrong. By ignoring or even
contradicting the facts the media create an opening for Trump
to rightfully accuse them of providing "fake news".
There are some serious questions around the Biden family
involvement in the Ukraine that the media have not picked up
on.
The first regards the ownership of the company which hired
Joe Biden's son Hunter for an exorbitant amount of money while
Joe Biden ran the U.S. Ukraine policy.
The second question is about the firing of the Viktor
Shokin, the former Prosecutor General of the Ukraine. Trump
accuses Joe Biden of having intervened in favor of his son's
sponsor to get Shokin fired. The timeline below supports that
assertion.
That Lisa Page needs to be put in prison for a long ******* time.
She's been playing her **** **** games with Congress and Trump for
a couple of years, then she lies under oath. **** her, send her
away.
Who ever was running that loser SJW Charlie needs to be
indicted and thrown in prison as well.
Starting with Hillary, Obama, Biden, Holder, Brennan, Clapper,
Strock, Page, Comey, and that cankle pig Loretta Lynch...this is
good start.....and by the way, don't let that pig Donna Brazille
off either for what she did..all of these people need to pay. And
when they pay, then it is payback for Rachel Maddow...Don Lemon,
Chris Hayes, Lawrence O'Donnel, Anderson Cooper, etc.
And then...who else do I want to see BURN IN HELL...Pelosi,
Schiff, Waters, Fat **** Nadler, and that pig Shiela "Hand them an
envelope of cash" Lee. I almost forgot that piece of **** Eric
Swalwell.
You left out Criminal at Large, Debbie Wasserman Shultz. Let's
also not forget the Awan brothers. Anthony Weiner's laptop,
Seth Rich & Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious
Psychopath at Large, Hillary Rodham Clinton's 33,000 missing
emails.
I know Lieutenant Colonel Alex
Vindman from a combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision 13 in Grafenwoher, Germany.
He worked with the Russian Embassy and I was assigned to the Joint Multinational Training
Command within US Army Europe. Vindman worked coordination with the Russian 15th Peacekeeping
Brigade, and I was in charge of all Simulations planning, as well as assisting the US Army
Europe Lead Planner as the Senior Military Planner.
Share
photo credit:
Адміністрація
Президента
України
Alexander Vindman
I have a confession. I behaved badly recently, and I'm just going to admit it.
As a guest at a dinner party in Georgetown, I stormed in and started bossing everyone
around. First, I demanded that the foyer be painted a different color and wainscoting be added
to the dining room. Then I had my hosts assemble their children so I could give them all
different names. Before making my exit, I grabbed two legs of turkey off the entree platter and
stuffed them in my purse.
I have a second confession. None of that happened. But if it had, I would be exactly like
Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman.
He was born in Ukraine and raised there until age 3 1/2, when he was invited to our country.
As you've no doubt heard, he served in our military. Thank you for your service, Colonel!
Now he is the top Ukrainian adviser on the National Security Council. Of all the people who
could look out for the U.S.'s interests vis-a-vis Ukraine, we got someone who was born
there.
As such, Vindman was permitted to listen to a phone call the president of the United States
made to the president of Ukraine -- a completely unnecessary, pro forma task.
So, naturally, when he had a policy disagreement with President Trump pertaining to the
country he was born in, he thought he had a responsibility to agitate for removal proceedings
against the duly elected U.S. president, just as I might have taken issue with the carpets in
the Georgetown townhouse.
"Foreign policy is the idiot's shortcut to imagined erudition, the
last refuge of the insufferable."
For some reason, we keep hearing about Col. Vindman's valor and patriotism. I don't doubt
that he's a super swell guy. But unless I missed it in the newspapers at the time, I don't
believe he was elected president in 2016. In fact, there's a specific constitutional provision
that prevents Col. Vindman from ever being president: He wasn't born here.
Study question: Why might the framers have added that clause?
It would be bad enough if Col. Vindman's policy disagreement with the president had to do
with U.S. policy on Mexico or North Korea. But it was about the country where Col. Vindman was
born.
We're always told that Democrats don't have to prove wrongdoing by Trump -- for example,
under the emoluments clause, in his foreign policy negotiations or when he fired his FBI
director. Rather, it's claimed that Trump's conduct creates the appearance of impropriety.
Well, having a Ukrainian-born analyst butt in to ensure U.S. foreign aid flows effortlessly
to the country of his birth gives the appearance that he's concerned about fairness to Ukraine.
That's not what this is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about what's in the best
interests of the United States.
Worse, Vindman was dealing with the U.S.'s Ukrainian policy versus Russia, which Ukrainians
hate because Stalin murdered millions of them. It's like having an Armenian advise on whether
we should be hostile to Turkey.
This is not the usual dual loyalty claim insultingly attributed to Irish or Jewish Americans
who were born in this country. Lots of us have admixtures of other nationalities.
But when you were actually born in another country and that's the precise policy matter
you're sticking your nose into, people are going to wonder if it's really our national
interests you're looking out for.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 1: Immigrants are required to wait a minimum of two
(2) generations before bossing around the most successful, prosperous, free country on Earth,
and fully three (3) generations before advising on our government's policy toward the countries
of their forefathers.
We also need a constitutional amendment directed at 10th-generation Americans who fancy
themselves foreign policy experts. Foreign policy is the idiot's shortcut to imagined
erudition, the last refuge of the insufferable.
Sen. Lindsey Graham was on TV last week, bragging about how he'd been to Syria --
Afghanistan? Iraq? Who cares! -- 75 times.
Not one person who voted for Graham has the peace and contentment of Syrians on his Top Ten
Concerns list. Like everyone else, South Carolinians care about their jobs, their safety, their
neighborhoods, their country.
But Sen. Graham wouldn't sound like a deep intellectual if he went on TV and started talking
about water treatment plants, despite the fact that clean drinking water is of far greater
interest to his constituents.
It's very romantic to think of yourself as a geopolitical chess player, jetting around the
globe and staying in five-star hotels in Riyadh and Paris, chatting with dictators and
reporting back your impressions as a Master of the Universe -- I'm very concerned about the
leadership of the Kurds Richard Haas wrote a fascinating treatise about how our policy has been
deficient in the following nine ways I'll be sure to bring that up next week when I'm meeting
with the E.U.
These are the kinds of people who would join Mensa.
It would be annoying enough if government officials, whose salaries we pay, spent all their
time working on the betterment of other nations, but at least everything turned out GREAT. In
fact, however, they're never right, they always make things worse, and they never pay a price
because, again, no one cares.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 2: Elected officials may take one government-funded
boondoggle abroad for every three (3) trips they make to our southern border.
Petri Krohn's comment @37 "ERIC CIARAMELLA IS NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER - HE IS A SUSPECT"
Little mentioned is the server in Ukraine which was brought up in the phone call. Barr's
investigation has become a criminal investigation and interested in a server in Ukraine.
The impeachment farce is trying to put the focus on Biden, but the server may be what they
are trying to protect.
This impeachment show looks to be a rearguard or defensive action to try and stop the Barr
criminal investigation into russiagate.
Given Ciaramella's rise within the Obama administration intelligence community, radio host
Rush Limbaugh frames
him as a spy
:
"He's lurking in there in the West Wing as an Obama holdover.
He's essentially a
spy for John Brennan
, and he's there to do the dirty work of the deep state." -
Rush
Limbaugh
Limbaugh cites journalist
Sharyl Attkisson
who wrote in response to Sperry's 'outing' of Ciaramella, " If the reporting
is correct, it implies
the "whistleblower" could have been worried Trump was getting close
to uncovering Democrat links to Ukraine's interference in US elections in 2016.
"
And if Ciaramella
was
a deep-state spy in the West Wing,
former FBI employees
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are potentially involved
- as pieced together by
Fox News
contributor and former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, who starts with an
April 25 letter
from Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) to Attorney General
William Barr asking about
cryptic text messages between Strzok and Page
in which
they discuss someone named "Charlie" who may be "the CI guy."
Bongino posits that Strzok and Page may be talking about Ciaramella being a "Confidential
Informant" (CI), or spy - and notes that Paul Sperry may have dropped a hint in the way he included
a "pronunciation note" regarding the whistleblower's name (pronounced
char
-a-MEL-ah)
may have referred to "Charlie" in the Strzok/Page texts.
Finally,
also discussed in Bongino's podcast, is an invitation for a series of events
sponsored by major Clinton Foundation donor ($25 million) and Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk
in the spring of 2016
. It looks to be an Ukrainian outreach type of event. Ukrainian
member of parliament Olga Bielkova is scheduled to meet with none other than Eric Ciaramella.
She hates Trump. (This can be viewed at 22:08 in the video.)
The emerging image of EC shows him to be a hyper-partisan Democrat, well-connected
within the ranks of the deep state, who was possibly spying on the Trump White House for the FBI
.
As voters see the individual behind the whistleblower complaint which has triggered an
impeachment inquiry, they will "have thoughts" about the Democrats.
Perhaps we'll find out more about Ciaramella from
John Durham
, the prosecutor
appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the "Russiagate" counterintelligence operation
against the Trump campaign. As Rush Limbaugh puts it, this is a race between impeachment and a
Durham indictment.
"... This led to the formation of the Church Committee, which investigated abuses by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Senator Frank Church, commenting on the committees’ findings, warned that the NSA has the capability “to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency… operate[s] within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss.” ..."
"... The Nixon impeachment inquiry and the Iran-Contra scandals involved vast crimes, rooted, fundamentally, in the prosecution of illegal wars in pursuit of predatory US policy interests. They exposed sweeping abuses of democratic rights, from the COINTELPRO operation exposed by the Church Committee, to the revelation of the Rex 84 plan for mass detention of “subversive” elements documented by the Iran-Contra hearings. ..."
"... the present impeachment hearing is the exact opposite of the investigation of Watergate and Iran-Contra ..."
"... The broad unpopularity of war abroad has created a crisis of legitimacy for the Democrats’ impeachment drive. As might be expected, the Democrats have not mobilized significant popular support on this basis. ..."
"... And definitely any rational conclusion would not call for, as proposed by church commission, doomed to failure futile act of what amounts to harsh criticism, admonition of security and surveillance apparatus, an effective slap in a cheek proposing supposed remedial therapy that resembled instructing alcoholic to drink two not four drinks a day and call it moderation and compliance with.. US constitutional norms. ..."
"... And supposed fig leaf of FISA court pushed by Church Commission proven to never stopping any illegal spying and only confirming that US was always run by ruling elite delegating executive power to Deep State security and surveillance apparatus while POTUS belongs to stage theatrics of bourgeois liberal political puppet show. ..."
"... Unexpected benefit of Trump was that he inadvertently revealed true reality of US system of power where elections are meaningless as elected puppets have no power at all, they only may, more or less convincingly, pretend that they do if they smartly align their own blabbering with decisions already taken by ruling elite and being executed by Deep State. ..."
"... As a narcissistic oligarch Trump has pathological inability to follow, he had to reverse his decisions 99% of time after the fact. ..."
"... All is smoke and mirrors when it comes to the political establishment . It relies on ''workers being donkeys '' but alas for them the ''donkeys'' have found their political voice and for whatever the crimes of Trump, many if not most, remember the treachery of the Democrats ..."
"... Notice how the impeachment of Nixon, the Reagan Iran-Contra investigation, and now Trump's impeachment are all related to decades of insidious security state machinations tied to US imperialism and neoliberalism. ..."
"... Presidents don't get impeached or investigated for "committing social crimes" against the working-class they're only investigated, prosecuted or impeached when they lose favor with factions of the security state and the ruling class. Investigations of presidents are always internecine battles between segments of the military/surveillance/corporate state. ..."
"... If that was NOT the case, then Clinton, Bush, and Obama would have been impeached for war crimes. Trump, would be impeached not for his Ukraine phone call, but for his policies that resulted in the death of migrant children, the corruption within federal agencies, the deregulation of the EPA accelerating planetary ecocide, and for his numerous promises to the working-class about providing decent healthcare and good paying jobs, but were nothing but lies. ..."
"... The only thing that has changed over the last four decades is that the security state is now fully partnered with corporate mainstream media news and entertainment. They work seamlessly to propagandize the American public so that even liberals are convinced that being a Joe McCarthyite Russophobe is progressive ..."
In light of Thursday’s vote in the US House of Representatives to formalize the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump,
it is worth contrasting the events now unfolding in Washington to those that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon 45
years ago.
In July 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon. The direct
cause of the impeachment proceeding was the Watergate scandal, in which Nixon directed a group of burglars known as the
“White House Plumbers” to break into and wiretap the offices of the Democratic National Committee.
However, the impeachment inquiry unveiled a far broader range of crimes by the administration. Among the five articles
of impeachment debated on the committee was one that accused Nixon of “the submission to Congress of false and misleading
statements concerning the existence, scope, and nature of American bombing operations in Cambodia” in connection to the
Vietnam War.
Before Watergate, the first task of Nixon’s “plumbers” was to burglarize the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist.
The aim was to discredit the man who released the Pentagon Papers, which documented that the White House “systematically
lied, not only to the public but also to Congress,” about the conduct of the war.
This burglary, as one commentator noted, linked “Vietnam and Watergate in one continuous 1961-to-1975 story.”
“In 1973 the Senate Watergate Committee investigation revealed that the executive branch had directed national
intelligence agencies to carry out constitutionally questionable domestic security operations,” notes the official history
by the United States Senate. “In 1974 Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh published a front-page New York
Times article claiming that the CIA had been spying on anti-war activists for more than a decade, violating the
agency’s charter.”
This led to the formation of the Church Committee, which investigated abuses by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Senator Frank
Church, commenting on the committees’ findings, warned that the NSA has the capability “to make tyranny total in America,
and we must see to it that this agency… operate[s] within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over
that abyss.”
Twelve years later, another crisis erupted in Washington, which nearly led to the impeachment of Ronald Reagan, who was
only saved by the unwillingness of the Democrats to remove him.
The crisis was triggered by the revelation that the Reagan administration had concocted a scheme to sell arms to Iran
in order to buy weapons to finance an illegal war against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. According to the CIA officer
in charge of the covert war, the Contras routinely murdered “civilians and Sandinista officials in the provinces, as well
as heads of cooperatives, nurses, doctors and judges.”
The investigation revealed that the Reagan administration flagrantly violated the Boland Amendment, passed by Congress
to prohibit US government assistance to the Contras.
The Nixon impeachment inquiry and the Iran-Contra scandals involved vast crimes, rooted, fundamentally, in the
prosecution of illegal wars in pursuit of predatory US policy interests. They exposed sweeping abuses of democratic
rights, from the COINTELPRO operation exposed by the Church Committee, to the revelation of the Rex 84 plan for mass
detention of “subversive” elements documented by the Iran-Contra hearings.
One need only review this history to see that the present impeachment hearing is the exact opposite of the
investigation of Watergate and Iran-Contra. Instead of exposing and curbing the criminal activities of the US intelligence
agencies and military, it is aimed at expanding and empowering them.
House speaker Nancy Pelosi summed up the basis of the impeachment inquiry as follows: “In one phone conversation, he
[Trump] undermined our national security by withholding military assistance to a country [Ukraine] that has been voted on
by the Congress of the United States—to the benefit of the Russians.”
Trump, as former CIA Director David Petraeus recently put it, stands accused of “holding up assistance that’s
desperately needed by those who are on the front lines” of a war waged by the US-backed Ukrainian government against
forces aligned with Russia. Petraeus added, “This is World War I… it's a very hot war still going on.”
The broad unpopularity of war abroad has created a crisis of legitimacy for the Democrats’ impeachment drive. As might
be expected, the Democrats have not mobilized significant popular support on this basis. As Times columnist David
Brooks wrote, “For most [Americans], impeachment is not a priority. It’s a dull background noise… the fundamental reality
is that many Americans are indifferent.”
In fact, the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry has more in common with the impeachment of Bill Clinton by the Republicans,
in which a concocted sexual scandal was used as a cover for a right-wing agenda.
From the outset, as the World Socialist Web Site has explained, the Democrats’ opposition to Trump has had
nothing in common with the popular opposition to his fascistic administration. It is one side in a conflict within the
capitalist ruling class and the state, primarily over foreign policy questions.
From the day of Trump’s inauguration, when millions protested across the country, the Democratic Party has worked to
contain popular anger and channel it behind a pro-war agenda. It has sought to suppress opposition to Trump’s fascistic
assault on immigrants, his moves toward dictatorship, his praise for neo-Nazis, his tax cuts for the rich and his attacks
on social programs for workers and poor people.
The Democrats are neither able to nor willing to make any democratic appeal to the popular hatred of Trump. Having long
ago abandoned any program of social reform directed toward the working class, the Democratic Party has evolved into an
organization based on an alliance of the intelligence agencies, sections of finance and the affluent upper-middle class.
The current impeachment drive has no progressive or democratic content. The Democrats are attempting to impeach Trump
on false pretenses, concealing their real objectives. It has all the elements, in other words, of a palace coup.
As the Socialist Equality Party Political Committee wrote in its
statement posted October 14, “No to American
fascism! Build a mass movement to force Trump out!”:
So long as the conflict is confined to the divisions within the ruling class, there can be no democratic or
progressive outcome. Should the impeachment drive of the Democrats fail, it will strengthen Trump’s political position.
Should it succeed, it will elevate Trump’s factotum, Mike Pence, to the presidency. Moreover, impeachment will actually
strengthen the political influence of the CIA and FBI over the White House. It will legitimize a foreign policy based
on an anti-Russia hysteria that will justify a dangerous confrontation with a nuclear-armed power. Either outcome
represents an immense danger to the working class.
The fight against Trump can only take a progressive character to the extent that is completely separate from, and
hostile to, the palace coup being orchestrated by the Democrats on behalf of the intelligence agencies and the military.
It must be conducted by the working class through the expansion of the class struggle against war, dictatorship and
social inequality. It must be informed by a conscious struggle to put an end to capitalism, the source of war and
inequality, and establish a socialist society.
As author correctly point out true crimes of POTUS against life, human rights, against peace,
tranquility and prosperity committed in the name not of American people but on orders from
ruling elite he serves were never on trial and so called oversight procedures were all sham.
Example of praised Church commission that supposedly rein in CIA and NSA:
Church Committee, which investigated abuses by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Senator Frank Church,
commenting on the committees' findings, warned that the NSA has the capability "to make
tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency operate[s] within the law
and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss.
Would that shocking disclosure of a grave, existential threat to democracy not solicit the
only rational response namely abolition, dismantling and prosecution of all US security
agencies including political police called FBI?
And definitely any rational conclusion would not call for, as proposed by church
commission, doomed to failure futile act of what amounts to harsh criticism, admonition of
security and surveillance apparatus, an effective slap in a cheek proposing supposed remedial
therapy that resembled instructing alcoholic to drink two not four drinks a day and call it
moderation and compliance with.. US constitutional norms.
And supposed fig leaf of FISA court pushed by Church Commission proven to never stopping
any illegal spying and only confirming that US was always run by ruling elite delegating
executive power to Deep State security and surveillance apparatus while POTUS belongs to
stage theatrics of bourgeois liberal political puppet show.
Unexpected benefit of Trump was that he inadvertently revealed true reality of US system
of power where elections are meaningless as elected puppets have no power at all, they only
may, more or less convincingly, pretend that they do if they smartly align their own
blabbering with decisions already taken by ruling elite and being executed by Deep State.
As a narcissistic oligarch Trump has pathological inability to follow, he had to reverse his
decisions 99% of time after the fact.
Impeachment? Hollow spectacle to cover up real high crimes and misdemeanors.
All is smoke and mirrors when it comes to the political establishment . It relies on
''workers being donkeys '' but alas for them the ''donkeys'' have found their political voice
and for whatever the crimes of Trump, many if not most, remember the treachery of the
Democrats.
As this tale plays itself out, it does so in a world where the condition of the working
class may be confused somewhat, but the condition for the ruling class is ''hopeless''.
They simply have ''no'' solutions based on the free market and a nationalist perspective
that the working class could be remotely interested in .
"The Nixon impeachment inquiry and the Iran-Contra scandals involved vast crimes, rooted,
fundamentally, in the prosecution of illegal wars in pursuit of predatory US policy
interests.
One need only review this history to see that the present impeachment hearing is the exact
opposite of the investigation of Watergate and Iran-Contra. Instead of exposing and curbing
the criminal activities of the US intelligence agencies and military, it is aimed at
expanding and empowering them."
Notice how the impeachment of Nixon, the Reagan Iran-Contra investigation, and now Trump's
impeachment are all related to decades of insidious security state machinations tied to US
imperialism and neoliberalism.
Even Lewinisky's "blue dress" was not just about Bill Clinton's debauchery which was a
known fact since Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, but was used by the intelligence agencies
as leverage to ensure the continuation of military interventions in the Middle East, Eastern
Europe, and Africa as well as the implementation of extremely exploitative economic polices
in the US and abroad transferring enormous wealth to Wall Street, the big banks and the arms
industry.
Presidents don't get impeached or investigated for "committing social crimes" against
the working-class they're only investigated, prosecuted or impeached when they lose favor
with factions of the security state and the ruling class. Investigations of presidents are
always internecine battles between segments of the military/surveillance/corporate
state.
If that was NOT the case, then Clinton, Bush, and Obama would have been impeached for
war crimes. Trump, would be impeached not for his Ukraine phone call, but for his policies
that resulted in the death of migrant children, the corruption within federal agencies, the
deregulation of the EPA accelerating planetary ecocide, and for his numerous promises to the
working-class about providing decent healthcare and good paying jobs, but were nothing but
lies.
The only thing that has changed over the last four decades is that the security state
is now fully partnered with corporate mainstream media news and entertainment. They work
seamlessly to propagandize the American public so that even liberals are convinced that being
a Joe McCarthyite Russophobe is progressive .
"... The main difference is that the right of the president to have his own attorneys attend and participate at sessions of the Judiciary Committee is conditional on Trump dropping his order that executive branch officials refuse to testify before the various House probes or supply documents to them. ..."
"... Already, on Thursday, the Intelligence Committee took hours of testimony from Bolton's top deputy for Russia and Eastern Europe, Timothy Morrison. Morrison was brought on the National Security Council by Bolton with main responsibility for White House policy on weapons of mass destruction. He spearheaded the drive by the Trump administration to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which both he and Bolton vehemently opposed, in order to give the US military the green light to develop nuclear missiles that could target China from US bases like Guam, other US-controlled islands, and ships in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. ..."
"... There are other indications that Bolton is playing a key role behind the scenes in the gathering storm over impeachment. Two Democratic senators have sent a letter to US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer seeking details on the Trump administration's decision not to restore Ukrainian access to the "generalized system of preferences" (GSP), a program that benefits developing countries. The letter follows a Washington Post report October 24 that Bolton had warned Lighthizer not to seek restoration of benefits to Ukraine because Trump would not approve it, as part of his effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens. Given the content of the article, the most likely source for the leak is Bolton or one of his top aides. ..."
"... General Joseph F. Dunford, who retired only a month ago as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a statement to CNN Wednesday defending Colonel Vindman against attacks from Fox News and other ultra-right media, calling him "a professional, competent, patriotic, and loyal officer" who "has made an extraordinary contribution to the security of our nation in both peacetime and combat." ..."
"... Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan defended the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and agreed that she was the victim of a smear campaign by Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who helped engineer her recall from her post in Kiev because she was an obstacle to the effort to dig up dirt on the Bidens. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Boot focuses on two decisions that have most provoked the CIA-Pentagon-State Department axis of evil: holding up aid to Ukraine, thus undermining military operations against pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, and Trump's partial pullout of US forces in Syria. ..."
"... Boot is, of course, a fervent supporter of impeachment, because he sees that as a step towards reversing course on foreign policy and adopting a more aggressive and militaristic US role in the Middle East. His ranting only underscores the reality of the political conflict in Washington. ..."
By a near party-line vote of 232-196, the US House of Representatives voted Thursday for a
resolution laying out the procedures for the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump
that was begun September 24. The resolution sets the stage for the holding of public, televised
hearings and the likely drawing up of articles of impeachment in the course of the next
month.
Only two Democrats out of 233 in the House voted against the resolution, Jeff Van Drew of
New Jersey and Colin Peterson of Minnesota. Only one member elected as a Republican, Justin
Amash of Michigan, voted for the resolution. He left the Republican Party in July because of
his support for impeachment, and he now sits as an independent.
The sharp divisions over the resolution were reflected in the hour-long debate, in which
Republican defenders of Trump denounced the impeachment inquiry with hysterical anticommunist
rhetoric, calling it "Soviet-style" and a "show trial." Democrats wrapped themselves in the
American flag -- or displayed it on a large placard as they spoke, in the case of Speaker Nancy
Pelosi -- and denounced Trump for endangering US "national security."
The procedure laid down in the eight-page resolution, drafted Wednesday by the House Rules
Committee, gives an outsized role to the House Intelligence Committee, which is to begin public
hearings sometime in November at which many of the witnesses who have testified behind closed
doors will be asked to do so again in front of television cameras.
The Intelligence Committee, along with four other committees conducting investigations into
various aspects of President Trump's personal, business and official conduct, will report its
findings to the Judiciary Committee, which would actually draw up any articles of impeachment,
vote on them, and send them to the full House for final action.
The overall procedures, including provisions for extended questioning of witnesses by
representatives of both the majority and minority parties, conform generally to similar
measures adopted during the impeachment hearings against President Richard Nixon in 1974 and
President Bill Clinton in 1998.
The main difference is that the right of the president to have his own attorneys attend
and participate at sessions of the Judiciary Committee is conditional on Trump dropping his
order that executive branch officials refuse to testify before the various House probes or
supply documents to them.
In the event of continued presidential stonewalling of the House committees, the resolution
provides that the chair of the Judiciary Committee "shall have the discretion to impose
appropriate remedies, including by denying specific requests by the president or his counsel
under these procedures to call or question witnesses."
In other words, if Trump continues to block testimony and evidence, his attorneys will not
be allowed to cross-examine those witnesses who do appear despite the full-throated opposition
of the White House. Given that many officials and former officials of the Trump administration
have agreed to testify under subpoena, this could become a significant issue.
The special role of the House Intelligence Committee underscores the reactionary nature of
the Democrats' impeachment drive. Trump is being targeted, not for his real crimes as
president, attacking immigrants, undermining democratic rights, and asserting quasi-dictatorial
powers, but for his foreign policy actions that are opposed by a substantial section of the US
military-intelligence apparatus.
The witnesses testifying before the closed-door sessions of the Intelligence Committee are
not immigrant mothers, cruelly and in some cases permanently separated from their children, or
the victims of Trump-inspired fascist gunmen like the El Paso mass shooter. Instead, they are
an array of State Department and military officials at odds with Trump's efforts to browbeat
the government of Ukraine into supplying him with political dirt against former vice president
Joe Biden, viewed by Trump as a likely opponent in the 2020 election.
Particularly significant in that context is the announcement that the Intelligence Committee
has set a November 7 date for the testimony of John Bolton, Trump's former national security
advisor. It is not clear whether Bolton will testify, but the potential alignment of the
Democrats and one of the most notorious war criminals in the American government is a clear
demonstration of the reactionary motives of the Democrats, who are acting as front men for
rabid warmongers in the national-security state.
Already, on Thursday, the Intelligence Committee took hours of testimony from Bolton's
top deputy for Russia and Eastern Europe, Timothy Morrison. Morrison was brought on the
National Security Council by Bolton with main responsibility for White House policy on weapons
of mass destruction. He spearheaded the drive by the Trump administration to withdraw from the
Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which both he and Bolton vehemently opposed, in order
to give the US military the green light to develop nuclear missiles that could target China
from US bases like Guam, other US-controlled islands, and ships in the Pacific and Indian
Oceans.
Morrison is the highest-ranking Trump aide to provide evidence to the Intelligence
Committee, and he announced his impending departure from the White House on Wednesday night,
hours before he was sworn in as a witness. According to leaks to the press from the closed-door
hearing, Morrison largely confirmed the testimony of other witnesses, particularly Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman, that there was a direct quid pro quo involved in US policy towards Ukraine:
Trump demanded a public investigation into the Democratic Party and the Bidens, in return for
military aid and a visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House.
There are other indications that Bolton is playing a key role behind the scenes in the
gathering storm over impeachment. Two Democratic senators have sent a letter to US Trade
Representative Robert Lighthizer seeking details on the Trump administration's decision not to
restore Ukrainian access to the "generalized system of preferences" (GSP), a program that
benefits developing countries. The letter follows a Washington Post report October 24 that
Bolton had warned Lighthizer not to seek restoration of benefits to Ukraine because Trump would
not approve it, as part of his effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the
Bidens. Given the content of the article, the most likely source for the leak is Bolton or one
of his top aides.
There were further indications of support for the impeachment drive -- or at least for the
national-security officials who have come forward to testify against Trump -- from the top
levels of the military and diplomatic establishment. General Joseph F. Dunford, who retired
only a month ago as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a statement to CNN Wednesday
defending Colonel Vindman against attacks from Fox News and other ultra-right media, calling
him "a professional, competent, patriotic, and loyal officer" who "has made an extraordinary
contribution to the security of our nation in both peacetime and combat."
And in testimony Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is expected
to confirm his nomination to be US Ambassador to Russia, Deputy Secretary of State John
Sullivan defended the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and agreed that she was
the victim of a smear campaign by Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who helped engineer
her recall from her post in Kiev because she was an obstacle to the effort to dig up dirt on
the Bidens.
Asked whether it was "ever appropriate for the president to use his office to solicit
investigations into his domestic political opponents," Sullivan replied, "I don't think that
would be in accord with our values." Given Trump's frequent declarations that his telephone
conversation with Zelensky, in which he made just such a request, was "perfect," Sullivan's
statement is extraordinary. It suggests an unprecedented degree of open revolt against Trump
within the national-security establishment.
The real motives of the impeachment drive were spelled out with particular frenzy in a
column by neoconservative Max Boot, who, like Bolton, has been an all-out supporter of US
military aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and throughout the world. Writing in the
Washington Post , under the headline, "More Trump gifts to Russia," he declares,
"Trump is bringing the United States to its knees and making Russia great again."
Boot focuses on two decisions that have most provoked the CIA-Pentagon-State Department
axis of evil: holding up aid to Ukraine, thus undermining military operations against
pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, and Trump's partial pullout of US forces in
Syria.
He writes: "Russian soldiers are entering U.S. bases and taking up the joint patrolling
duties with the Turkish army that U.S. troops had been performing until recently. The fate of
Syria was settled not in Washington but in Sochi -- Putin's favorite Black Sea resort. Trump
has given Russia what it has sought for decades: a leading role in the Middle East. This is the
biggest geopolitical shift in the region since 1972 when Egypt's Anwar Sadat expelled Soviet
advisers and aligned with Washington."
Boot is, of course, a fervent supporter of impeachment, because he sees that as a step
towards reversing course on foreign policy and adopting a more aggressive and militaristic US
role in the Middle East. His ranting only underscores the reality of the political conflict in
Washington.
Ukrainegate is the new Russiagate. The 'whistleblower complaint' is the new 'dirty
dossier'. The 'former' MI6 spy Christopher Steele wrote the dossier.
The whole impeachment
show the Democrats launched is a major political mistake. The Democrats have chosen the wrong
issue, Ukraine, where they themselves have a lot of ballast
The choice of a Trump phonecall with the Ukrainian president as the item to hang the
impeachment on is especially dumb. Trump's call was less incriminating than Biden's pressure
on the Ukrainian president
to help his son's paymaster . It is also a mistake to let the Chair of the House
Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff run the impeachment
process . Schiff already
flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was reported that
two members
of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the Obama National Security
Council, had advised him.
The process will create a lot of collateral damage. It will hurt a number people involved
in it, but it will not hurt Trump with his electorate. It will not end with impeachment. I
believe, like
Noam Chomsky , that it will, in the end, even help Trump
... the Democrats try to defeat him with theater. But Trump is a much better showman than
Schiff or any other Democrat. It almost looks as if they want Trump to win.
...To me, the question remains if the Dems are a totally lost party or if this process
will be the spark that refocus them with new leadership and a set of potential president/vice
that is some Bernie/Tulsi/Warren combo which could beat Trump, IMO.
..The DS must know that Biden or Warren are not going to beat Trump, so may have decided
they can keep Trumpy corralled by an endless stream of MIC Swampers
Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was
reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the
Obama National Security Council, had advised him.
Now that the identity of the "whistleblower" is apparently known, all the
Republicans under Devin Nunes have to do is sub-poena the "whistleblower" to attend.
The House Intelligence Committee will hold public hearings, and Republicans will need
approval from at least some Democrats to call witnesses or to otherwise issue subpoenas
.
But the Democrats will look like wankers and will eventually cave, because the Senate is
in no way obligated by the impeachment reolution. Schiff is so deranged about getting Trump
that he'll fail and Trump will win in 2020. Just like 2016 was Hillary Clinton's
responsibility, 2020 will be Adam Sciff's.
Zerohedge just posted, citing the Washington Examiner, that CiaraMeLLA refuses to testify
after it became known he worked with Biden et al and was coached by Schiffty's staff. A
little cold feet, must be the snowl. And also, his Attorneys came down with rat's flu.
How they could otherwise effectively bluntly steal all what has been planned to steal ( at
whatever cost for others...)before the dollar falls, as it is currently happening in
Syria?
Plus, the phone call issue, IMO, fails to meet the criteria for impeachment as there's no
crime involved. As I've written many times, there are plenty of valid reasons--crimes--that
Trump ought to be impeached over but the Ds will never employ them just as Pelosi refused to
do her duty and allow impeachment charges to be filed against Bush/Cheney.
IMO, Gabbard and Sanders must seriously consider forming a 3rd Party to mount a challenge
to Trump as the D-Party's about to shoot itself in the head--and hopefully it won't miss.
What it is is the Corporate party will still take Trump over Sanders or Tulsi. And why is
that? That is because either one of those two, having won, will promptly defenestrate all of
the current crop of federal-trough-feeders into the street, and take over, just as Clinton
did back in the day.
Ever since it because clear that Obama did not intend to use the mandate we gave him, and
he dis-assembled the machine he built to win, I have never given the DNC a thought. Never
again.
There is no doubt that Impeachmentgate is the Act 2 of Russiagate. There is so much
continuity between the two acts, most of all that neither are/were wise. It reminds me so
much of US military interventions - no good endgame, withdraw like a dog with a tail between
your legs from a war that was lost even before it was started (Vietnam, Afghanistan etc).
Naturally, those wars were not started to win then to get rich. Now here comes a genius who
wants to actually steal the oil or something else of value instead of spending huge amounts
of money just to make the world a better place. Much better, isn't it? What a novel idea, the
wars were never before about stealing other people's property (cattle and women)!
But, one has to put himself into the shoes of the Democrats to understand why Russiagate
must continue. Firstly, as b says they got nothing, no policy, no differentiation, no
believable claim that they could do something better than the incumbent, no new spring of
hope faux agent of change like Obama. There is a chance of real change in Gabbard, but who is
crazy enough to subject the entrenched interests to real change. Secondly, they have this
spiffy Main Sewerage Media machine under their control, which can churn out an endless stream
of turds (Vindman, Ciaramella) wrapped into golden foil to pass them as voter candy. Remember
that genocide-personified Democrat Madeleine Albright: "What's the point of having this
superb military if you can't use it?" No machine runs on empty, they need to feed some crap
into the propaganda machine.
So what are the Democrats to do? B, it is easy to say Impeachmentgate is bad
electioneering, but do suggest any better approach that could return this most criminal gang
on the planet back into power and safety from prosecution.
Societies all over the world have been turned upside down, creating untold suffering en
mass by such bogus half cooked rabbit in the hat tricks....only to find its way back to the
US and sicken the American society.....Poor Americans, like poor civilians elsewhere have no
idea where its all coming from and are instead at each others' throats.
" It nearly looks as if they want Trump to win."
Nearly? it have seemed like they wanted him to win since 2016, nearly is a understatement
imho...
This bread and circus for the plebs is getting boring,, the utter stupidity in their
manuscripts and the gaggle of vassals and terrorists they support is the lowest iq and
degenerate nihilists in the world.
The Benedict option seems like the only option left, unless one wants to let the "modern
world" drive one insane or into isolation..
Careful b. You don't want to give more leash to those who think the democrats are in cahoots
with potus. As I have said before, trump has done more than any other president in memory to
pull the wool from the independent voter's eye. They will no longer vote along partisan
lines, knowing there is so little daylight, or in any case the stuff that actually matters,
between the parties.
It is a brand new world thanks to trump. Regardless of any temporary rethug policy he
manages to employ.
The bed has been thoroughly shat. No gluing humpty-dumpty, and no writing schiff's
ship.
The DNC is now, effectively, fighting on two fronts: the GOP from the Right and the
developmentists/progressives from the Left.
In this scenario, it may well be the case it will choose to use a botched impeachment to
reelect Trump and thus implode the Leftist opposition inside their own party. It isn't a
perfect strategy, but at least it buys them time (four years, to be precise).
The GOP and the Dems may have their differences, but they are both from the Capitalist
Party. The divergence is not that the USA shouldn't be an empire anymore, but how the empire
should be managed.
You're headline is perfect b. This is Theater. These are the Vagina Monologues of the Beltway
Bourgeoise.
It is the US political process that is being impeached, so to speak, to prepare us for
it's eventual dismantling.
Living in the day to day one might think this circus matters. It does not. All
actors/public figures work for hidden interests, who in turn take orders from a centralized
authority.
Frankly it is foolish and childish to pretend otherwise.
My sole exposure to straight up Octopus Media is listening to the radio, which I sometimes
turn on during long drives. Sometimes. Even then mostly I turn it off, in anger. I dislike
being taken for a fool. I have no cable, don't watch garbage movies and no longer bother
glancing at newspaper headlines as I'm passing by. There's just no point. To the best of my
ability I am self directed in my thinking.
We should all do the same. When we surf we are partly self directed, that's true, but also
here we must acknowledge EVERYTHING available is Octopus Media and Intelligence controlled,
by one means or another.
thanks b... the dems could question trumps comment that the usa plans to steal syrias oil...
that would be an actual conversation of merit here.. instead the dems have the gun pointed at
their foot and are going to hit it again with this...
@10 karlof1... there is no way sanders would consider a 3rd party run.. the guy is not
capable of independent action like that..he is another cog in the wheel happy to go along
with all the same bullshite..
the whole usa system of bullshite has to come down... trump is helping as i see it.. the
dems are too!! this is really an impeachment case against this joke called freedom and
democracy that the usa likes to cloak itself in..
We can speculate all we want about which strings the Deep State is pulling or which
dimensional chess it is playing, the bottom line is that I cannot vote either for the
"Neocon/Warmonger/Israelfirst/MIC-Wallstreet" Dim Party or the
"Neocon/Warmonger/Israelfirst/MIC-Wallstreet" Repug Party. I'll therefore, as usual and most
likely, vote for the Green Party.
I think Bashar Al-Assad gave in the last interview the best description of the US system I
have heard so far...in a nutshell...
"American politics are no different from Hollywood; it relies on the imagination. Not even
science fiction, just mere imagination. So, you can take American politics and see it in
Hollywood or else you can bring Hollywood and see it through American politics."
Yes, what were they thinking... it really is more of the same.
That said, the national Dem party leadership is getting some minor things out of it, at
the cost of I think +1% to Trump in the 2020 general election:
* Biden got a small boost. He was going to get attacked on his and Hunter's Ukraine
business anyway, they defended him. It was also a big show of support for him by the entire
House Democrat side - in the face of surprisingly weak fundraising.
* Completely drowned out TV/press coverage of everything else to do with the primary.
* This ends the chances of all the minor candidates except Buttigieg (but i bet some will
stick around anyway in hopes of a VP nomination or cabinet position)
* Public support for impeachment gained something like 8-10%, now evenly split. But this
statistic means little because it is Senate Republicans who decide, and they would be
committing political suicide given Trump's 85%+ support among Republican voters.
Besides that, it is the undecided / apathetic voters who are the real audience, and they
seem to remain unswayed. The swing-state polling is not looking great either, with FL, AZ,
and perhaps WI viewing impeachment less favorably than the national average. PA on the other
hand is neutral to very faintly supportive of impeachment.
Also with Harris looking finished, Buttigieg picked up another 10% of the "moderate" Dems
in polls. Biden will want this group of voters, so something will be happening there sooner
or later.
The House intel committee investigation will continue, maybe indefinitely. With the star
witness backing out, it does seem that they got taken for a ride (once again) by the national
security guys. And Trump's outsider status, a positive in today's electorate, is again
established.
The gateway pundit is asking if Ciaramella is the "Charlie" referred to in Strzok and Page
emails. This Charlie was the FBI appointed spy in the whitehouse. Oops, Ciaramella and his
FBI handlers might have a big problem.
At our stage of political disintegration the interesting question is what comes after Trump-
a return to business as usual? doubt it that Rubicon has been crossed,
If I understand this year's DNC rule changes, Biden needs to either keep Sanders below 15%
- the minimum threshold to get voting delegates at the convention - which is unlikely, or he
needs another "moderate" such as Buttigieg to get above 15% and then endorse him, or he needs
enough of a lead to beat Warren and Sanders together.
Otherwise, only delegates for Sanders, Warren, and Biden vote. Sanders can endorse Warren,
and their combined delegates would be enough to give Warren the nomination on the first round
of the convention (before superdelegates). To complete the nightmare scenario for the DNC,
Sanders would get to name his price for supporting Warren.
So perhaps they are hoping to scrape up all the random-other-moderate Dems, give their
supporters to Buttigieg to get him over 15%, and have him endorse Buden in the end. That
would be a semi plausible scenario...
One legitimate issue is if the government should investigate political opponents
. There is a potential for abuse in two directions: impure political tools of y
ou do it, impunity to established powers if you do not.
For example, if you desire to investigate bankers as a part of your political pr
ogram, you can bet that more than a random sample of bankers will join the ranks
of your political opponents.
Concerning the politics of the issue, a surprising percentage of Americans trust
s FBI and CIA, and centrist Democrats would like to ride on the wave of this sen
timent. But "interagency consensus" is not as popular, however illogical it may
seem. Chances are, champions of interagency consensus may gain the support of
the majority of the Democratic "base", but they will get slim picking in other d
emographics.
ERIC CIARAMELLA IS NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER - HE IS A SUSPECT
The identity of the whistleblower was publicly known already on October 10, 2019. Another
important detail about Eric Ciaramella and his activities was revealed at the same time.
John Solomon published an article in The Hill on April 25, 2019 on the origins of
Ukrainegate :
That makes the January 2016 meeting one of the earliest documented efforts to build the
now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative and one of the first to involve the Obama
administration's intervention.
The White House visitor records available online reveal that the meeting in the Eisenhower
Executive Office Building was hosted by Eric Ciaramella, the CIA "whistleblower".
BREAKING: Alleged #Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella ran the meeting that @jsolomonReports
was "one of the earliest documented efforts to build the now-debunked Trump-Russia
collusion narrative".
@AndriyUkraineTe please confirm.
United States Attorney General William Barr is investigating the origins of the
Trump-Russia collusion narrative. The New York Times reports that this investigation
has turned into a criminal investigation. Would this make Eric Ciaramella a suspect?
Pardon me for asking, but how many people died in the course of events both before and
after the coup in Ukraine? Biden abetted everyone of those deaths, as did Obama, Nuland, and
a host of other Outlaw US Empire pukes. Trump was correct in asking about Biden's level of
involvement with the Ukraine government that he helped install through his help in murdering
people. Trump hasn't used such terms yet, but there're lots of Trump folk out there plus a
few like me that don't have any reason not to review the truth about the huge crime that
Biden was responsible for as Veep. And of course, that's not the only Capital Crime that
Biden abetted as Obama's Veep.
I for one am sick and tired of not calling a spade a spade when it comes to accusing
Outlaw US Empire pukes correctly of the crimes they've committed. And as I've written often,
Trump's guilty too, but what they're trying to pin on him doesn't meet the impeachment
threshold required by the constitution. Hell, he's bent on stealing Syrian oil and trying to
illegally profit from its sale, and if that's not an impeachable crime I don't know what
is!
Occasionally on Twitter you run into a great photo of two terrorists pointing their
pistols at each others head. That's what I see happening between the D and R Parties. It
would be a boon to the nation and world if they'd pull their triggers at the same time and
die.
this political theater by the democratic Elites about impeachment will not come to a good
end. I can see it going much as B and others are imagining. A few republican senators might
abstain, or even perhaps vote against Trump, but he'll actually come out better than Clinton
in the final Senate vote.
The millionaires and billionaires that now run the democratic party will never allow a
Sanders or Gabbard to be candidate - so it's going to be either biden or Warren, I strongly
suspect.
even worse, these wankers in the democratic party and their billionaire backers (some
exceptions of course) don't even realize, they haven't the faintest idea really, nor do they
perhaps even care, how close the human race is to being totally wiped out this century by
climate catastrophe (leave alone the possibility of some nuclear war in the next 80 years).
Hell you can't even get much enthusiasm among the american people/voters because they've been
so propagandized and brainwashed by the right wing crackpots who control the US/world economy
and the media Narrative, and who believe that this capitalist-consumerist orgy of a show will
go on forever.
it's not looking good, no matter who wins at the impeachment barker circus, or in the 2020
election....
Did a quick search and found it only passed the House and now moves to the Senate. It's
one of those funding acts for Title VIII that needs to be reauthorized to stay alive, and
that's what happened. Joyce at his Twitter didn't mention Gabbard as co-sponsor, taking full
credit for its passing.
Meanwhile, The Flynn Trial continues to
produce details of entrapment, manipulation, perjury, and prosecutorial misconduct. One
commenter is surprised Trump's DoJ continues to pursue the case when it ought to be obvious
why: He spilled the beans about the formation of Daesh and its use by the Outlaw US Empire,
and IMO Barr didn't like that.
engaged Ukraine to give Russia collusion narrative an early boost
Good info, and as a sidelight...I'll play "language maven" on the quotes you use, put some
fire in "give Russia collusion narrative." Improve on what they said.
Perhaps instead we should use the current get-Trump language.
"Obama sought to induce the government of Ukraine to become involved in the 2016 presidential
election."
"Ukraine was given military gear in exchange for dirt on Obama's election opponent"
etc
i dunno; i think with the addition of federal prosecutor john durham,, the investigation's
expanding, and just might grow some legs, and grow barr an actual spine.
If it weren't the phone call to Ukraine, it would be some other petty reason to impeach
Trump. Primarily there was the move, led by CNN, right after Trump unexpectedly won the 2016
election, to hurt Trump's inauguration in January 2017. The "Impeach Trump" movement included
the Steele Dossier first showcased on CNN Jan 10, 2017 and also magazine articles such as
Vanity Fair's "Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump" on Dec 15, 2016
here
, both prior to Trump's inauguration. And it's gone on since then, culminating in this
political side show, as if "digging up dirt" on one's political appointment originated with
Trump. They couldn't come up with anything really important, any really good reason to dump
the elected president, to negate his election, sort of like with Nixon and Clinton.
"... A former federal prosecutor who sits on the committee tasked by Democrats with removing President Donald Trump from office blasted Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., as being unfit to oversee the process. Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Tex., told The Federalist on Friday that Schiff's problem isn't mere partisan political bias, it's that Schiff has a conflict of interest given his secret interactions with the anti-Trump whistleblower before his false complaint against Trump was even submitted. ..."
"... "It's more than just bias -- it's an actual legal conflict of interest," Ratcliffe told The Federalist. "Schiff is using his authority as a Chairman presiding over an impeachment inquiry to prevent the investigation and discovery of facts about his own actions or the actions of his staff." ..."
This is impeachment effort 3.0 by Schiff. After twice falsely accusing the President of
treason with Russia and obstructing justice, Democrats put Schiff in charge of impeachment 3.0
with someone who became a whistleblower after meeting with Schiff's staff.
A former federal prosecutor who sits on the committee tasked by Democrats with removing
President Donald Trump from office blasted Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., as being unfit to
oversee the process. Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Tex., told The Federalist on Friday that Schiff's
problem isn't mere partisan political bias, it's that Schiff has a conflict of interest given
his secret interactions with the anti-Trump whistleblower before his false complaint against
Trump was even submitted.
"It's more than just bias -- it's an actual legal conflict of interest," Ratcliffe told The
Federalist. "Schiff is using his authority as a Chairman presiding over an impeachment inquiry
to prevent the investigation and discovery of facts about his own actions or the actions of his
staff."
"... "He is essentially a witness in the trial over which he is presiding," Ratcliffe continued. "He has a conflict of interest because his testimony is relevant to the origins of the impeachment process that he is simultaneously conducting, directing and managing." ..."
"... Although Schiff initially claimed that he and his staff had never interacted with the anti-Trump complainant and didn't even know who he was, the New York Times reported that the whistleblower secretly coordinated with Schiff's Democratic staff, who then urged him to file a complaint against the president. ..."
"... "Despite initially denying any contact with the whistleblower, Schiff had already been briefed about at least one meeting between his staff and that individual prior to the filing of the complaint," Ratcliffe said. "Material facts about the date, nature and extent of that meeting as well as any other contacts, communication or possible coordination between Chairman Schiff, his staff and the whistleblower were never disclosed by any of those parties to ICIG Michael Atkinson -- facts confirmed in the sworn testimony of ICIG Atkinson which Chairman Schiff is refusing to release." ..."
"... Testimony by Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Michael Atkinson revealed that the whistleblower, whom Real Clear Investigations has identified as former National Security Council (NSC) staffer and current Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst Eric Ciaramella, concealed his contacts with Schiff from the ICIG in his complaint form. If the anti-Trump complainant did, in fact, refuse to disclose previous disclosures of his allegations to Congress or the news media, he could be subject to felony criminal penalties for making false statements. The final portion of the whistleblower form requires whistleblowers to attest under penalty of perjury that they have neither misstated nor concealed material facts in their complaints. ..."
"... Schiff has refused to detail the breadth of his interactions with the anti-Trump complainant or explain why he lied about his staff's collusion with the complainant. Ratcliffe told The Federalist that Schiff's behavior was an "outrageous offense to legal due process." ..."
"... "Your actions both past and present are incompatible with your duty as Chairman of this Committee, which alone in the House of Representatives has the obligation and authority to provide effective oversight of the U.S. intelligence community," they continued . "As such, we have no faith in your ability to discharge your duties in a manner consistent with your Constitutional responsibility and urge your immediate resignation as Chairman of this Committee. Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist. ..."
"The person who planted fake evidence shouldn't be the one ruling on the admissibility of fake
evidence," Ratcliffe said of Schiff on Friday. November 1, 2019 By Sean Davis A former federal prosecutor who
sits on the committee tasked by Democrats with removing President Donald Trump from office
blasted Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., as being unfit to oversee the process. Rep. John Ratcliffe,
R-Tex., told The Federalist on Friday that Schiff's problem isn't mere partisan
political bias, it's that Schiff has a conflict of interest given his secret interactions with
the anti-Trump whistleblower before his
false complaint against Trump was even submitted.
"It's more than just bias -- it's an actual legal conflict of interest," Ratcliffe told
The Federalist . "Schiff is using his authority as a Chairman presiding over an
impeachment inquiry to prevent the investigation and discovery of facts about his own actions
or the actions of his staff."
"He is essentially a witness in the trial over which he is presiding," Ratcliffe continued.
"He has a conflict of interest because his testimony is relevant to the origins of the
impeachment process that he is simultaneously conducting, directing and managing."
Although Schiff initially claimed that he and his staff had never interacted with the
anti-Trump complainant and didn't even know who he was, the New York Timesreported
that the whistleblower secretly coordinated with Schiff's Democratic staff, who then urged him
to file a complaint against the president.
"The person who planted fake evidence shouldn't be the one ruling on the admissibility of
fake evidence," Ratcliffe said on Friday.
"Despite initially denying any contact with the whistleblower, Schiff had already been
briefed about at least one meeting between his staff and that individual prior to the filing of
the complaint," Ratcliffe said. "Material facts about the date, nature and extent of that
meeting as well as any other contacts, communication or possible coordination between Chairman
Schiff, his staff and the whistleblower were never disclosed by any of those parties to ICIG
Michael Atkinson -- facts confirmed in the sworn testimony of ICIG Atkinson which Chairman
Schiff is refusing to release."
Testimony by Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Michael Atkinson revealed that
the whistleblower, whom
Real Clear Investigations has identified as former National Security Council (NSC) staffer
and current Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst Eric Ciaramella, concealed his contacts
with Schiff from the ICIG in his complaint form. If the anti-Trump complainant did, in fact,
refuse to disclose previous disclosures of his allegations to Congress or the news media, he
could be
subject to felony criminal penalties for making false statements. The final portion of the
whistleblower form requires whistleblowers to attest under penalty of perjury that they have
neither misstated nor concealed material facts in their complaints.
"I certify that all of the statements made in this complaint (including any continuation
pages) are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief," whistleblowers
are required to attest under penalty of perjury. "I understand that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1001, a false statement or concealment of a material fact is a criminal offense punishable by a
fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both."
Schiff has refused to detail the breadth of his interactions with the anti-Trump complainant
or explain why he lied about his staff's collusion with the complainant. Ratcliffe told The
Federalist that Schiff's behavior was an "outrageous offense to legal due process."
"Chairman Schiff has likewise refused to allow any inquiry by Republicans into these
material facts which may bear on the credibility and motivation of the whistleblower and
perhaps Chairman Schiff," Ratcliffe said. "Republicans have been and continue to be deprived of
the ability to investigate these material facts which can only be ascertained from the sworn
testimony of Chairman Schiff, his staff and the whistleblower."
"Chairman Schiff is a material fact witness in the same impeachment inquiry that Democrats
have authorized him to preside over," Ratcliffe continued. "It's an outrageous offense to legal
due process and any standard of fairness."
Earlier this year, all nine Republican lawmakers on the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence called on Schiff to step down as chairman due to his repeated lies about
treasonous Russian collusion by the president.
"The findings of the Special Counsel conclusively refute your past and present assertions
and have exposed you as having abused your position to knowingly promote false information,
having damaged the integrity of this Committee, and undermined faith in U.S. government
institutions," they wrote.
"Your actions both past and present are incompatible with your duty as Chairman of this
Committee, which alone in the House of Representatives has the obligation and authority to
provide effective oversight of the U.S. intelligence community," they
continued . "As such, we have no faith in your ability to discharge your duties in a manner
consistent with your Constitutional responsibility and urge your immediate resignation as
Chairman of this Committee. Sean Davis is the co-founder of The Federalist.
"... And this process or digging out neoliberal Dems and CIA machinations already started: Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the Obama National Security Council, had advised him. ..."
"... Now this process is starting to create more and more collateral damage for neoliberal Dems, as Schiff will not be able to fully block republican efforts to bring witnesses. But it will not hurt Trump with his electorate. And it will not end with impeachment. ..."
Orange Watch@45 is a little confusing. If I prefer "conduct unbecoming a president"
as an impeachment charge I'm not restricting impeachment to violations of criminal statutes.
Hatemongering is not a criminal offense, but a political and moral one.
I think the real objection is that I view insinuations Trump is treasonous as exactly the
same rotten politics as insinuations Clinton was treasonous.
Or that it is exactly as foolish to freak out over Russian interference in the 2016 election
as Ukrainian interference, or vice versa, the only distinction being one is a Democratic
bugbear and the other is a Republican.
likbez 11.03.19 at 4:15 am (no link)
steven t johnson 11.01.19 at 3:27 pm
likbez@42 doesn't realize that the legal course was for the US Justice Department to
draw up a list of requirements of the sort specified in the treaty. The US embassy in Kyiv
would then relay the request to their counterparts. If and only if the request was denied
would there be any occasion for presidents to discuss the matter, and only then would such
discussion be legally mandated. What Trump did was press Zelensky for a public announcement
of an investigate, or worse, to rig and investigation.
I respectfully disagree. Road to hell is always paved with good intentions. How you can do
it, if you know that Kiev embassy is controlled by Obama/Brennan plotters including the
ambassador, and the CIA controls Ukrainian security services? Speaking directly to president
about Crowdstike was the only way to move this investigation forward. Inclusion of Biden was
a huge, suicidal political blunder, for which Trump now is paying a price. "Full of Schiff"
commenters here emphasize it, and conveniently forget to mention Crowdstrike part and
"Manafort dirt" part of the "Ukrainian influence on 2016 elections" story. Which are far more
important.
It looks to me as if somebody within Trump administration wanted to sabotage the whole
thing. He should have been staying strictly on Russiagate investigation topic (which is a
criminal investigation now, if I understand the situation correctly), but being Trump he
can't (Rick Perry was probably a contributing factor in this stupidity). As the result it
served as a pretext for the counterattack on his Russiagate origins investigation by
Obama/Brennan faction.
But there is a silver lining in any dark cloud. If Ukrainegate is the new Russiagate then
the 'whistleblower complaint' is surprisingly similar to the 'former' MI6 spy Christopher
Steele 'dirty dossier'. It has a lot of problems. First of all Obama/Brennan faction have
chosen the issue, Ukraine, where they themselves have a lot of skeletons in the closet. The
choice of a CIA officer as a whistleblower and his complaint as the cornerstone of the
impeachment was especially dumb: the word "CIA" is a dog whistle for Trump electorate. It
also puts Brennan and Obama in undesirable spotlight.
And this process or digging out neoliberal Dems and CIA machinations already started:
Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was
reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the
Obama National Security Council, had advised him.
Now this process is starting to create more and more collateral damage for neoliberal
Dems, as Schiff will not be able to fully block republican efforts to bring witnesses. But it
will not hurt Trump with his electorate. And it will not end with impeachment.
I believe, like Noam Chomsky, that it will, in the end, help Trump and might put Warren
(forget about Biden) in disadvantage: the noise for impeachment will deafen all her proposals
and will convert 2020 election into another show. And Trump is much better showmen then
she.
That is the point that "full of Schiff" commenters, in their excitement about the new
opportunity to unseat Trump, are unable to comprehend.
"... If you think that a person who does such research as this "Structural ambiguity in the Georgian verbal noun" is a serious analyst, I have a bridge to sell. Knowing language is just a first step in knowing cultures and nations. The idea that some barely 30 years old kid can have a profound understanding of factors forming geopolitical balance by merely studying language or working in the Wold Bank is preposterous ..."
"... It is not even the issue of IQ-driven so called intelligence metric. I met many people with IQ through the roof and some of them were one of the most impressive dumbfvcks I ever encountered in my life. The issue here is deeper--you literally have brainwashed political operatives, most of them not even book-smart, who are excreted every year from the American "humanities" programs who have "credentials" but have zero actual serious skills which are imperative for a serious statesmanship. They simply do not teach this in the US, nor can it be changed because the whole machine of the US "humanities" education pulsates between two extremes: one is of a complete deconstruction of the American history and culture into one non-stop genocide by whites of everyone else or, on the other extreme, utterly delusional exceptionalist shining city on the hill narrative with latter being as false as the former one. Few common sense and objective views which exist in between are pure coincidence which are there despite a totally corrupt educational system in the US when dealing with humanities. ..."
"... That is why, US elites having "analysts" like Ciaramella will not get out of this rut because the only thing they can reproduce are such specimens as this guy perfectly honed for one thing--to exist in the self-contained system of corruption, treachery, snitching, dirty intrigue and delusion, also known as American political system. ..."
Whistle While You Work... In the CIA or in the White House. Evidently, if to believe
media frenzy, the name of the so called "whistle blower" against Trump is 33 years old Eric
Ciaramella, whose profile nails him directly as a snitch to the Brennan's cabal of putchists
who continue to rape Constitution and eradicate the last remnants of the Republic, turning it
into the Third World shithole mafia state.
OK, that clarifies it somewhat but this is not what is truly interesting about
this CIA "analyst" who, at this moment still may or may not be a blowjo...pardon me,
whistle-blower for Adan Schiff and his collection of treasonous operatives. No. The thing which
catches one's attention who have at least some serious military or intelligence background is
this:
Ciaramella grew up in Prospect, Connecticut, as one of three children. He spent time
attending Woodland Regional High School in Beacon Falls, Connecticut, and then graduated from
Chase Collegiate School, in Waterbury, Connecticut, in 2004, according to the prep school's
alumni magazine. After high school, Ciaramella attended Yale University, graduating in 2008
as a Russian and East European studies major. In 2007, he was awarded a grant by the Yale Macmillan
Center for European Union Studies to "research on the perceptions of the EU among rural
Italian residents." While at Yale, Ciaramella, who speaks Russian, Ukrainian and Arabic, led
a protest over the departure of an Arabic department professor, according
to the Yale Daily News. The student newspaper wrote, "Students convened outside Silliman
at 9 a.m., all dressed in white to symbolize their future goal of bridging the gap between
the United States and the Middle East through the use of the Arab language, said Eric
Ciaramella '08, one of the students who led the protest." Ciaramella also studied at Harvard
University, focusing on Russia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, according to the school's
website. He
received a grant in 2009 for research on "Language in the Public Sphere in Three
Post-Soviet Capital Cities," Tbilisi, Georgia; Yerevan, Armenia; Baku, Azerbaijan. Ciaramella
was additionally a corresponding author for Harvard's Department of Linguistics and wrote a
paper in 2015 titled, "Structural ambiguity in the Georgian verbal noun."Ciaramella worked at
the World Bank after college,
according to a 2011 publication by the international financial institution. In the World
Bank report, "Russia: Reshaping Economic Geography," published in June 2011, Ciaramella is
listed in the acknowledgments for making "important contributions" to the research. On a
now-deleted Linkedin profile, he described himself as being a "Consultant, Poverty
Reduction/Economic Management" at World Bank.
Ah, that's warmer. And it is an Exhibit A of a main reason why the United States
finds itself where it is today and why current American so called "elites" cannot find their
own ass with both hands in a brightly lit room. One is bound to struggle with own ass finding
when having background such as Ciaramella's, and his background with slight deviations within
narrow confines of humanities education, from Law to Political "Science", is a background of
the overwhelming majority of people who "shape" US policies both domestically and abroad.
Ciaramella is a classic product of the US Ivy League degree mills for good ol' boys and girls
and, as is expected, possesses zero required instruments for serious foreign policy analysis in
which power factor is at the center of an issue and it is beyond, wrong as they are, so called
modelling and methodology used in the US for studying this issue--a body of absolutely
overwhelming evidence of utter and humiliating, I may add, failure of American institutions
dealing with country studies. No bigger evidence exists than a wasteland of Russia Studies
field in the United States.
If you think that a person who does such research as this "Structural ambiguity in the
Georgian verbal noun" is a serious analyst, I have a bridge to sell. Knowing language is
just a first step in knowing cultures and nations. The idea that some barely 30 years old kid
can have a profound understanding of factors forming geopolitical balance by merely studying
language or working in the Wold Bank is preposterous.
It is not even the issue of IQ-driven so
called intelligence metric. I met many people with IQ through the roof and some of them were
one of the most impressive dumbfvcks I ever encountered in my life. The issue here is
deeper--you literally have brainwashed political operatives, most of them not even book-smart,
who are excreted every year from the American "humanities" programs who have "credentials" but
have zero actual serious skills which are imperative for a serious statesmanship. They simply
do not teach this in the US, nor can it be changed because the whole machine of the US
"humanities" education pulsates between two extremes: one is of a complete deconstruction of
the American history and culture into one non-stop genocide by whites of everyone else or, on
the other extreme, utterly delusional exceptionalist shining city on the hill narrative with
latter being as false as the former one. Few common sense and objective views which exist in
between are pure coincidence which are there despite a totally corrupt educational system in
the US when dealing with humanities.
That is why, US elites having "analysts" like Ciaramella will not get out of this rut because
the only thing they can reproduce are such specimens as this guy perfectly honed for one
thing--to exist in the self-contained system of corruption, treachery, snitching, dirty
intrigue and delusion, also known as American political system. In this case, forestalling any
undeniably upcoming claims from these types of guys about their "honor", duty to a country or
"democracy" it should be made patently clear that they have none, other than personal and
narrow political interests and ambitions attached to a destruction of America which, at least
nominally, was so far known as a land of laws and of the Constitution and which it is no more.
House Republicans on Thursday said that testimony from the State Department's former envoy to Ukraine, sought by
House Democrats with regards to their impeachment inquiry, won't advance the drive to impeach President Donald Trump.
Emerging from the day-long deposition, New York Republican
Lee Zeldin
said that former U.S. Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker's private Thursday testimony, "blows a hole in the
argument" presented by Democrats that Trump asked the president of Ukraine for a quid pro quo.
Volker on Thursday spent hours testifying with congressional investigators who are seeking to discover if he
played any role in Trump's efforts to obtain from Ukrainian officials information on Hunter Biden, the son of 2020
presidential hopeful
Joseph R. Biden Jr.
House Intelligence Chairman
Adam B. Schiff
briefly addressed reporters during the testimony, charging that Trump encouraging a foreign nation
to investigate his political rival was a "fundamental breach of the president's oath of office."
"It endangers our elections, it endangers our national security, it ought to be condemned by every member of this
body, Democrats and Republicans alike," Schiff said.
While Volker testified, Ohio Republican
Michael R. Turner
, an Intelligence Committee member, released a statement saying he does "not believe that
Volker's testimony advanced Schiff's impeachment agenda."
Zeldin urged the relevant congressional committees to make public a transcript of Volker's deposition, along with
text messages Volker sent to Ukrainian officials, which have become a source of intrigue in the fledgling impeachment
push.
About two-and-a-half hours into Volker's deposition,
Jim Jordan
, an Ohio Republican and founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, emerged and told reporters that
Schiff wanted to limit certain members from questioning Volker and that the California Democrat had barred State
Department lawyers from participating in the closed briefing.
Want insight more often?
Get Roll Call in your inbox
"If this is how Mr. Schiff is going to conduct these types of interviews in the future," Jordan said, "that's a
concern."
Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo
has drawn the ire of congressional Democrats this week for rejecting a subpoena and rebuffing
congressional requests to question five current and former State Department officials to testify in the impeachment
inquiry.
Trump: House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff should "resign from office"
https://g.jwpsrv.com/g/gcid-0.1.2.html?notrack
Press shift question mark to access a list of
keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard Shortcuts
Play/Pause
SPACE
Increase Volume
↑
Decrease Volume
↓
Seek Forward
→
Seek Backward
←
Captions On/Off
c
Fullscreen/Exit Fullscreen
f
Mute/Unmute
m
Seek %
0-9
Off
Automated Captions - en-US
facebook
twitter
Email
Link
Copied
Live
00:00
02:34
02:34
Jordan praised Volker, calling him "impressive." Turner called Volker "an incredible diplomat," in his statement.
Volker resigned from his position as special envoy less than a week ago after his name appeared in a whistleblower
complaint alleging that Volker was coordinating with Ukrainian officials on how to handle requests from Trump's
personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. That whistleblower report is central in justifying House Democrats' impeachment
inquiry.
Turner said he doesn't believe Volker would have done anything untoward during his State Department service.
"It is my strong belief that Volker would not have been involved in nor permitted anything inappropriate, let
alone illegal, in his service to our country," Turner said. "Today he continued his legacy of integrity under
questioning from Schiff's staff."
Orange Watch@45 is a little confusing. If I prefer "conduct unbecoming a president"
as an impeachment charge I'm not restricting impeachment to violations of criminal statutes.
Hatemongering is not a criminal offense, but a political and moral one. I think the real
objection is that I view insinuations Trump is treasonous as exactly the same rotten politics
as insinuations Clinton was treasonous. Or that it is exactly as foolish to freak out over
Russian interference in the 2016 election as Ukrainian interference, or vice versa, the only
distinction being one is a Democratic bugbear and the other is a Republican.
... ... ...
likbez@42 doesn't realize that the legal course was for the US Justice Department to draw up
a list of requirements of the sort specified in the treaty.
The US embassy in Kyiv would then relay the request to their counterparts. If and only if
the request was denied would there be any occasion for presidents to discuss the matter, and
only then would such discussion be legally mandated.
What Trump did was press Zelensky for a public announcement of an investigate, or worse, to
rig and investigation. It is the equivalent of the CIA planting a libel in the foreign press so
that it can be "reported" as legitimate news in the US.
There are legal and ethical issues with the President directing underlings to begin
investigations of his opponents in the domestic sphere. They don't disappear abroad. I don't
think there's any doubt, except for Trump's lawyers, the call was a campaign violation.
While House Democrats gear up for kangaroo-court impeachment proceedings triggered by a whistleblower complaint over President
Trump's communications with Ukraine, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has invited Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani
to explain allegations of rampant corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter in Ukraine.
Joe Biden infamously bragged on tape last year about abusing his position as Vice President to force Ukraine to fire a prosecutor
investigating Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company which was paying Hunter Biden $600,000 to sit on its board.
Democrats have gone to great lengths to avoid addressing this - and have instead launched impeachment proceedings after a CIA
employee approached the House Intelligence Committee chaired Adam Schiff (D-CA), lawyered up with Democrat operatives, and then filed
a whistleblower complaint using second-hand information on a
recently changed form - the previous version of which explicitly prohibited anything but first-hand info.
The whistleblower and concurrent media reports claimed that President Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to
investigate the Bidens, however in a surprise move the White House released both a transcript of the call proving there was no pressure
or quid pro quo . A release of the whistleblower complaint suggested it was written by a legal team, and several of its claims were
proven false by the transcript.
On Tuesday, Graham tweeted: "Have heard on numerous occasions disturbing allegations by @RudyGiuliani about corruption in Ukraine
and the many improprieties surrounding the firing of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin," adding "Given the House of Representatives'
behavior, it is time for the Senate to inquire about corruption and other improprieties involving Ukraine."
"Therefore I will offer to Mr. Giuliani the opportunity to come before the Senate Judiciary Committee to inform the committee
of his concerns ," Graham concluded.
In addition to allegations of malfeasance and profiteering by the Bidens, Giuliani is also looking into Democratic efforts to
meddle in the 2016 US election in favor of Hillary Clinton. In December of 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled thatUkraine's Ukraine's
Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), Artem Sytnyk "acted illegally" when he revealed the existence
of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort's name in a "black ledger" containing off-book payments to Manafort by Ukraine's previous
administration.
While the ruling against Sytnyk and Leshchenko was later overturned on a technicality, The Blaze obtained and translated recording
of Sytnyk bragging about helping Clinton in the 2016 US election .
In response to Graham's offer, Giuliani told
CNN "Love Lindsey,
but I am still a lawyer and I will have to deal with privilege," although "Given the nature of his invitation about my concerns I
might be able to do it without discussing privileged information."
If and when Giuliani shows up, Kamala Harris appears ready to go full attack dog - with theatrics which haven't been witnessed
since last October's anti-Kavanaugh performance.
Perry is another neocon in Trump administration and it looks like he pushed Trump under the train.
Notable quotes:
"... In November, Perry touted a shipment of Pennsylvania coal to Ukraine as "just one example of America's readiness and commitment to help diversify Europe's energy markets." ..."
"... Another major priority for Perry is opposing the construction of Nord Stream 2, a proposed gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany that many nations, including the United States, fear will increase the European Union's reliance on Russia for its energy needs. While in Ukraine in May, Perry promised that Trump would back a bill sanctioning companies involved in the project. ..."
Congressional Democrats want to know more about Rick Perry's travels to Ukraine and
conversations with officials there, signaling that the mild-mannered energy secretary won't
escape the intense of heat of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
In a memo released Wednesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.)
said he plans to issue a subpoena for White House documents by the end of the week centered on
Trump's requests to the Ukrainian government to open an investigation into one of his chief
political rivals, former vice president Joe Biden.
Among the records his committee is seeking are any related to Perry's attendance of
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's inauguration on May 20 as well as a White House
meeting Perry attended three days later.
Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
similarly sent a letter to Perry on Tuesday asking him what instructions Trump gave him when
the Cabinet official flew to Ukraine in May, as well as who asked Perry to go there in the
first place. And three House committees on Monday issued a sweeping subpoena to Trump's
personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, in part seeking documents related to Perry.
The multiple congressional inquiries have put a spotlight on Perry, who has distinguished
himself during his time in the job for avoiding controversy. Though the energy secretary is not
accused of wrongdoing and has not been directly subpoenaed, Perry and his Energy Department
spent Wednesday reassuring congressional Democrats they will cooperate with the impeachment
probe.
"We're going to work with Congress and answer all their questions," Perry told reporters
Wednesday at a departmental event in Chicago on artificial intelligence.
Leading a department he once called to eliminate when running for president in 2012, Perry
has kept his head down and avoided the scandals that embroiled some of Trump's original energy
and environmental policy team members, including former Environmental Protection Agency chief
Scott Pruitt and ex-Interior Department secretary Ryan Zinke, who were both ousted amid ethics
investigations. Perry's easygoing demeanor has let him develop productive relationships with
members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
"Regardless of subject, the Department is always willing to work with Congress in response
to requests that follow proper procedures," Energy Department spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes wrote
by email.
An explosive whistleblower complaint from an anonymous U.S. intelligence official alleged
Trump did not want to meet with Zelensky until he saw how the new Ukrainian leader "chose to
act" in office. In May, Perry led the American delegation to Zelensky's inauguration in lieu of
Vice President Pence after Pence canceled his planned trip, according to the complaint.
Two months later, on July 25, Trump repeatedly urged Zelensky in a phone call to investigate
Biden, offering to enlist Attorney General William P. Barr in that effort while dangling the
possibility of a White House meeting, according to a rough transcript of the call the White
House released.
On Wednesday, Perry declined to say to reporters whether he was on the July phone call. He
joked that he was asked to fill in for Pence in Ukraine in May because he is "just such a darn
good Cabinet member."
As energy secretary, Perry has regularly traveled to Eastern Europe to promote the sale of
U.S.-produced natural gas and coal. "I've had the opportunity to go into so many different
countries to represent the United States, our energy opportunities," Perry said Wednesday.
"Ukraine is one of those."
It is not unusual for energy secretaries to have a hand in foreign policy. Ernest Moniz, a
nuclear physicist who served as President Barack Obama's energy secretary, played a central
role in brokering the Iran nuclear deal in 2015.
Energy secretaries "do get involved from time to time on diplomatic issues," said Susan
Tierney, a former assistant secretary for policy at the Energy Department under Obama.
Curbing Eastern and Central European countries' dependence on Russia for electricity and
heating fuel was "very early on a priority" for the Trump administration, according to George
David Banks, a former Trump White House energy policy adviser. Given Perry's happy-go-lucky
charm -- and the fact that former secretary of state Rex Tillerson was recused from dealing
with several energy issues because of his previous job as ExxonMobil's chief executive -- it
made sense for Perry to work on Ukraine, Banks said.
"He's a natural-born diplomat," Banks said.
Ukraine, rich with its own natural gas reserves, does not import gas from the United States,
unlike some Eastern European nations such as Poland and Lithuania. But it does take in and burn
American coal -- about 4.8 million tons of it in 2018, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Most of that U.S.-to-Ukraine-bound coal is of a special grade often used in
manufacturing steel, a major industry in Ukraine. The United States is only one of a few
coal-exporting countries that has that type of coal.
The country has its own coal reserves, but much of them are located in contested territory
in eastern Ukraine. Facing costly imports from Russia, Ukraine has begun getting coal supplies
from the United States, Australia, Kazakhstan, and others places in recent years, according to
EIA.
In November, Perry touted a shipment of Pennsylvania coal to Ukraine as "just one example of
America's readiness and commitment to help diversify Europe's energy markets."
Another major priority for Perry is opposing the construction of Nord Stream 2, a proposed
gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany that many nations, including the
United States, fear will increase the European Union's reliance on Russia for its energy needs.
While in Ukraine in May, Perry promised that Trump would back a bill sanctioning companies
involved in the project.
While true whistleblowers pay the heavy price for their courage, neoliberal Democrats and corrupt to the core neoliberal MSM lionize
a CIA leaker because he justifies their impeachment crusade.
Why couldn't this CIA asset not simply report through regular channels? He wasn't blowing whistle on the CIA itself so no risk there.
Notable quotes:
"... The whole impeachment charade, and that's what it is, rests on the paradoxical and ahistorical assertions that 1) the president's phone call with Ukraine's leader is Trump's worst crime, and 2) the "liberal" press has always supported government whistleblowers. Both are absurd claims, though fitting for this partisan political moment. ..."
"... The inconvenient reality is that Trump and both his predecessors have committed far worse crimes against the Constitution by engaging in illegal wars. ..."
"... The only reason the Left -- which historically has distrusted U.S. intelligence activities -- has canonized this anonymous CIA whistleblower is that he or she, and the entire clandestine apparatus, has implicated Trump, the reflexive archenemy of the liberal elite. Trump's actual crime, contrary to the prevailing yarn, was not his overriding of Congress on war policies (which he largely copied from Obama and Bush II), but that he dared to attack a longtime Democratic insider: Joe Biden. ..."
"... Notice that the Democratic leadership in Congress has declined to investigate the fact that this president, and others before him, overrode congressional authority to wage all sorts of military operations outside the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, including the current assistance we are giving Saudi Arabia in its attacks on Yemen. ..."
"... President Obama, for example, dropped 26,171 bombs on at least seven countries using an AUMF that has been extended well beyond those who attacked America on 9/11. He even executed American citizens overseas without due process . ..."
"... Meanwhile, Trump abets legitimate war crimes in Yemen to the tune of 100,000-plus dead -- without evident remorse. But Obama started that war , providing U.S. aerial refueling, targeting support, and deadly munitions to the Saudis back in 2015. So the Democratic leadership stands down on the issue of Yemen, not wanting to implicate their hero in the process of impeaching The Donald. ..."
"... Mainstream liberal hypocrisy runs even deeper, unfortunately. I'm just old enough to remember when the Left railed against the CIA, NSA, and spooks in general. ..."
"... Suddenly every Obama- and Bush-era national security staffer and intelligence super-sleuth -- John Brennan, James Clapper, Michael Hayden, etc. -- was regularly appearing on CNN and MSNBC to attack Trump and pine for the status quo of U.S. military hyper-interventionism. ..."
"... Even the language is instructive. They aren't "leakers," "traitors," or "criminals," but whistleblowers , surging with moral courage and exposing ostensibly unthinkable presidential wrongdoing. That's funny: where were these folks when other, far more profound whistleblowers uncovered criminality during the Bush and Obama years? Either crickets or pejorative attacks were all they proffered back then. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Obama utilized the archaic 1917 Espionage Act to prosecute more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined. The liberal press and most Democratic legislators barely made a peep. Barack was their guy , one of their own -- the "leakers" must have been in the wrong, enemies, so to speak, of the people. ..."
"... So while Trump is by no means without serious flaws, the Beltway elites and media personalities stuffing impeachment down our throats are hypocritical and dishonest enough to make one believe in a "deep state." ..."
"... Trump's crime is he's an outsider and the CIA did not expect him to win. His very existence is a threat to them. ..."
"... Can he clean up the mess? I doubt it. Imagine what would happen, the screams and agony, were he to eliminate all government secrecy. Imagine what the CIA would claim if the Black Budget became transparent. If Trump tried to eliminate the CIA it would simply reconstitute and shape-shift within other agencies or outside government. ..."
Few see the irony in the corporate mainstream media's love affair with the anonymous whistleblower in President Trump's alleged
Ukraine-gate affair. Yet everyone should. Few see the irony in the corporate mainstream media's love affair with the anonymous whistleblower
in President Trump's alleged Ukraine-gate affair. Yet everyone should.
The whole impeachment charade, and that's what it is, rests on the paradoxical and ahistorical assertions that 1) the president's
phone call with Ukraine's leader is Trump's worst crime, and 2) the "liberal" press has always supported government whistleblowers.
Both are absurd claims, though fitting for this partisan political moment.
The inconvenient reality is that Trump and
both his predecessors have committed
far worse crimes against the Constitution by engaging in illegal wars. Certainly this is more serious than the shady Ukraine/Biden
incident. And the mainstream media has a rather poor track record when it comes to whistleblowers, often demonizing leakers who expose
nefarious government actions. The only reason the Left -- which historically has distrusted U.S. intelligence activities -- has
canonized this anonymous CIA whistleblower is that he or she, and the entire clandestine apparatus, has implicated Trump, the reflexive
archenemy of the liberal elite. Trump's actual crime, contrary to the prevailing yarn, was not his overriding of Congress
on war policies (which he largely copied from Obama and Bush II), but that he dared to attack a longtime Democratic insider: Joe
Biden.
Sure, Trump's apparent threat to use aid as a cudgel to pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden, and his son Hunter,
is a serious matter. Far be it for me, or anyone else, to dispute that. Whether that meets the threshold for impeachment is debatable
-- and by the way, Hunter Biden's $50,000 a month, unqualified position on a foreign corporate gas company's board while his father
was vice president doesn't exactly pass the smell test either. But I'll table that for now.
Notice that the Democratic leadership in Congress has declined to investigate the fact that this president, and others before
him, overrode congressional authority to wage all sorts of military operations outside the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(AUMF) passed after 9/11, including the current assistance we are giving Saudi Arabia in its attacks on Yemen.
President Obama, for example,
dropped
26,171 bombs on at least seven countries using an AUMF that has been extended well beyond those who attacked America on 9/11.
He even executed American citizens overseas
without
due process .
Meanwhile, Trump abets legitimate
war crimes in Yemen to the
tune of 100,000-plus dead -- without evident remorse. But Obama
started that war , providing
U.S. aerial refueling, targeting support, and deadly munitions to the Saudis back in 2015. So the Democratic leadership stands down
on the issue of Yemen, not wanting to implicate their hero in the process of impeaching The Donald.
Mainstream liberal hypocrisy runs even deeper, unfortunately. I'm just old enough to remember when the Left railed against
the CIA, NSA, and spooks in general. And
rightfully so . That, however,
was before Mr. Trump shocked coastal elites and got himself elected president of their America. It was impressive watching
media and Democratic insiders immediately turn on a dime.
Suddenly every Obama- and Bush-era national security staffer and intelligence super-sleuth -- John Brennan, James Clapper,
Michael Hayden, etc. -- was regularly appearing on CNN and MSNBC to attack Trump and pine for the status quo of U.S. military hyper-interventionism.
It was as though all their sins -- mass surveillance, drone assassination, illegal rendition, torture -- had been collectively
pushed down the memory hole, the entire intel apparatus born again as agents of truth and honor. The whole masquerade was bizarre,
and beyond duplicitous.
The final insult was the recent canonization of the anonymous Ukraine-gate whistleblower(s). Even the language is instructive.
They aren't "leakers," "traitors," or "criminals," but whistleblowers , surging with moral courage and exposing ostensibly
unthinkable presidential wrongdoing. That's funny: where were these folks when other, far more profound whistleblowers uncovered
criminality during the Bush and Obama years? Either crickets or pejorative attacks were all they proffered back then.
... ... ...
Meanwhile, Obama utilized the archaic 1917 Espionage Act to
prosecute more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined. The liberal press and most Democratic legislators barely
made a peep. Barack was their guy , one of their own -- the "leakers" must have been in the wrong, enemies, so to speak, of
the people. So while Trump is by no means without serious flaws, the Beltway elites and media personalities stuffing impeachment
down our throats are hypocritical and dishonest enough to make one believe in a "deep state." Ultimately it will amount to nothing.
Each side remains entrenched.
Either the Dem elites will hand Trump a second term with this impeachment charade, or, maybe just as likely, President Biden will
take the helm. When he does, whistleblowers will revert, once again, to being traitors.
So while Trump is by no means without serious flaws, the Beltway elites and media personalities stuffing impeachment down
our throats are hypocritical and dishonest enough to make one believe in a "deep state."
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major whose writing has appeared in The American Conservative, Harper's, the Los Angeles
Times, The Nation and Tom Dispatch. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history
at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq war,
Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet
.
The problem with designating this CIA officer a whistleblower, while denigrating the actual whistleblowers as something other,
as criminals, is obvious enough, or should be: in the cases of the latter, they were exposing the crimes of the intel establishment,
and punished for it, the 'protections' of the law notwithstanding; in other words, the intel establishment got its way; in the
case of the former, the intel establishment is getting its way in its campaign to undermine the administration, notwithstanding
Trump's incompetence and corruption, for which he deserves censure, impeachment, whatever.
Heads, they won; tails, we lose.
The problem, in other words, is that we - collectively, as a nation - get to choose only the modality of how our institutions
and norms are degraded, not whether they will be degraded. Pick your poison.
The CIA and the intelligence services operate black budgets. They kill, steal, run drugs, bribe leaders at home as well as
abroad, arrange accidents like the airplane crashes that have killed several Democrats who danced out of tune, have operatives
placed in government including state governments, the courts and Congress. Who owns your favorite candidate? The CIA. Who controls
the media including the New York Times? The CIA. Bribery, threats, blackmail, control files, setups. The chicanery we tolerate
and celebrate in the name of National Security abroad has come home. Secrecy works wonders for control.
Trump's crime is he's an outsider and the CIA did not expect him to win. His very existence is a threat to them.
Can he clean up the mess? I doubt it. Imagine what would happen, the screams and agony, were he to eliminate all government
secrecy. Imagine what the CIA would claim if the Black Budget became transparent. If Trump tried to eliminate the CIA it would
simply reconstitute and shape-shift within other agencies or outside government.
That, however, was before Mr. Trump shocked coastal elites and got himself elected president of their America.
That, for the elitist Left (and Right), is Donald Trump's real and only crime. He got himself elected president of their America.
But to get right to the heart of it, he didn't get himself elected as much as the American people got him elected. This is about
us..all about us..not about him. Any subsequent attacks on him are in fact attacks on the American electorate.
After the DOJ/FBI advanced their defensive efforts
last weekend via the New York Times and NBC, now the CIA/ODNI faction step forth with the
same intents and purposes.
CIA defending journalist Natasha Bertrand has been participating in the multi-year PR effort
which helped frame the CIA/ODNI talking points against President Trump, and she is deployed
again in the latest effort within
Politico . The timing here is predictable.
( Via
Politico ) President Donald Trump's obsession with former CIA director John Brennan could
be on a collision course with an ongoing Justice Department probe as Attorney General Bill
Barr takes a more hands-on approach to examining the intelligence community's actions in
2016.
[ ] Durham's report is likely to land well after the results of an inquiry by the Justice
Department's Inspector General, who is examining the FBI's applications to a secret court in
2016 and 2017 to obtain surveillance warrants on a Trump campaign aide.
[ ] "Is the IG report going to say we made mistakes? Yes," said one of the former
officials. "But it won't say we did so for some nefarious purpose. So the report will be a
dry hole for Trump and his supporters. Which is why [Barr and Durham] have now gone to this
other theory, positing that the CIA was engaged in some rogue operation to overthrow Trump
and therefore feeding the FBI bullshit," he said. "It's complete nonsense."
"Haven't you heard?" said another former FBI official, sarcastically. "Brennan was a
puppet-master and we were just his puppets."
Unfortunately, Ms. Bertrand gets too far over her defensive skis when she scribes defense
and obfuscation that is laughable to anyone who followed the activity of CIA Director John
Brennan when she writes:
[ ] Asked for comment, White House deputy press Secretary Hogan Gidley said: " John
Brennan lied before Congress when he got caught spying on American citizens and lied about
having Russian collusion evidence that never existed. The only way I've ever heard anyone in
the White House mention him is as a punchline."
It's not clear what Gidley was referring to -- Brennan has not been accused of lying to
Congress. ( read
full article )
Obviously Ms. Bertrand is counting on people not knowing that John Brennan was caught lying
about his instructions to CIA operatives to spy on the networks of the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence. Brennan later
apologized to the Senate for that effort; but hey, what's a little forgetfulness amid
professional narrative engineering.
Additionally, in directly related matters; while remembering the 'gossip-blower' stems from
the same CIA institution headed by Brennan while a member of the National Security Council; and
while remembering the Washington Post is the primary outlet for the PR efforts of the CIA
resistance du jour; the mysterious "white house insider" who penned an op-ed in the New York
Times last year has now signed an anonymous book deal expand on the anti-Trump intelligence
community narrative.
(
WaPo ) The author of an anonymous column in the New York Times in 2018, who was
identified as a senior Trump administration official acting as part of the "resistance"
inside the government, has written a tell-all book to be published next month.
The book,
titled "A Warning," is being promoted as "an unprecedented behind-the-scenes portrait of
the Trump presidency" that expands upon the Times column, which ricocheted around the world
and
stoked the president's rage because of its devastating portrayal of Trump in office. (
read more )
When CTH originally penned the term "The Big Ugly" we were directly describing a looming
confrontation that would happen between President Donald Trump and the aligned interests of the
deepest part of the Deep State. Those interests are not along party lines, they are ideological
interests directly related to the construct of the institutions of government and how those
interests tied financially back to the Administrative State.
The DOJ, FBI, CIA, ODNI and State Department do not oppose the deconstruction efforts of
Donald Trump as an outcome of bland institutional opposition. Rather the institutions
themselves are subsidiaries of a larger network that exists for the purposes of Washington DC
as a business and financial enterprise.
The reason the DC system -writ large- is going bananas is because selling the influence of
political office for financial gain is the custom and currency of DC affluence.
Selling influence and manipulating government action – both foreign and domestic
– to enhance the financial interests of other participants, is a purposeful part of DC as
a way to gain financial affluence. In essence the U.S. government is used as a tool to
accumulate wealth. This process is at the heart of all Trump's opposition.
The Christopher Steele dossier was called " Crown Material " by FBI agents within the small
group during their 2016 political surveillance operation. The "Crown" description reflects the
unofficial British intelligence aspect to the dossier as provided by Steele.
In May 2019 former House Oversight Chairman
Trey Gowdy stated there are emails from former FBI Director James Comey that outline
instructions from CIA Director John Brennan to include the "Crown Material" within the highly
political Intelligence Community Assessment
.
Specifically outlined by Gowdy, the wording of the Comey email is reported to say :
"Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment."
However, on May 23rd, 2017, in testimony -under oath- to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) John Brennan stated [ @01:54:28 ]:
GOWDY: Director Brennan, do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?
BRENNAN: I don't.
GOWDY: Do you know if the bureau [FBI] ever relied on the Steele dossier as part of any
court filing, applications?
BRENNAN: I have no awareness.
GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?
BRENNAN: No.
GOWDY: Why not?
BRENNAN: Because we didn't. It wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that
we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that
was done. Uh it was not.
.
Video of the exchange [ prompted 01:54:28 just hit play ]
[ ] James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now all accusing one another of being
culpable for inserting the unverified dossier, the font of the effort to destroy Trump, into
a presidential intelligence assessment -- as if suddenly and mysteriously the prior seeding
of the Steele dossier is now seen as a bad thing. And how did the dossier transmogrify from
being passed around the Obama Administration as a supposedly top-secret and devastating
condemnation of candidate and then president-elect Trump to a rank embarrassment of
ridiculous stories and fibs?
Given the narratives of the last three years, and the protestations that the dossier was
accurate or at least was not proven to be unproven, why are these former officials arguing at
all? Did not implanting the dossier into the presidential briefing give it the necessary
imprimatur that allowed the serial leaks to the press at least to be passed on to the public
and thereby apprise the people of the existential danger that they faced? ( read more )
Fox News Maria Bartiromo has more knowledge of the details within the 2016 political
surveillance scandal than any other MSM host. Bartiromo has followed the events very closely
and now she is the go-to person for those who are trying to bring the truth behind the scandal
to light.
On the morning of May 20th, 2019, on her Fox Business Network show Ms. Bartiromo outlined
the current issues between Comey and Brennan. WATCH:
It certainly looks like former CIA Director John Brennan has exposed himself to perjury.
However, beyond that and even more disturbing, what does this say about the political intents
of a weaponized intelligence apparatus?
CTH has previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis
Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about
Russian hacking.
The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment .
The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that
Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.
The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the
majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI
Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique "insurance policy" interest in how the report could be
utilized in 2017. NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the "high confidence" claims,
likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.
(
JUNE 2019 – New York Times ) [ ] Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A.
sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference
campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that
flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.
During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released
a declassified
assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that "aspired to
help" Mr. Trump's electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton's. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I.
reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which
conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence. (
read more )
Questioning the construct of the ICA is a smart direction to take for a review or
investigation. By looking at the intelligence community work-product, it's likely Durham will
cut through a lot of the chatter and get to the heart of the intelligence motives.
Apparently John Durham is looking into just this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically
engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?
The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian
activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by Rosenstein and the Mueller team, are
centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in the ICA .
If the ICA is a false political document . then guess what?
Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big
fraud. [Which it is]
Among all media personalities Maria Bartiromo easily has the most comprehensive grasp of the
2016 operation against President Trump. During two interviews today Bartiromo outlines the
evidence that leads directly to the person at the origination point, former CIA Director John
Brennan.
First, here's a mash-up of the two interviews (Senator Graham and John Solomon) where
Bartiromo asks the same question. [ hat tip Michael Sheridan for the video]
Former CIA Director John Brennan lies at the heart of the intelligence community decision to
weaponize against Donald Trump. In this outline I will provide supporting evidence for
Bartiromo's assertion, which I suspect has already led to a criminal referral to U.S. Attorney
John Durham by HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes.
Suspicious Cat ate canary
The FBI's formal origination of the counterintelligence investigation into candidate Donald
Trump known as "Operation Crossfire Hurricane", begins with a two-page memo submitted by former
CIA Director John Brennan to former FBI Director James Comey.
The two page origination memo is known as an "EC" or "electronic communication". This
classified origination memo is one of the key documents requested by congress for
declassification by President Trump, to be shared with the American people.
According to House Intelligence Committee member Devin Nunes; who is also a member of the
intelligence oversight 'Gang-of-Eight'; that EC contains intelligence material that did not
come through "official intelligence channels" into the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
The origin of the 2016 counterintelligence operation was the Electronic Communication
document, a 'raw intelligence product' delivered by CIA Director John Brennan to the FBI.
The EC was not an official product of the U.S. intelligence community. Additionally,
Brennan was NOT using official partnerships with intelligence agencies of our Five-Eyes
partner nations; and he did not provide raw intelligence – as an outcome of those
relationships – to the FBI.
When we first watched this interview the initial questions were: if the EC is not based on
official intelligence from U.S. intelligence apparatus or any of the 'five-eyes' partners, then
what is the origin, source and purpose therein, of the unofficial raw intelligence? Who created
it? And why?
Now we know many of the answers to those questions.
All research indicates CIA Director John Brennan enlisted the help of U.S. and foreign
intelligence assets to run operations against the Trump campaign early in 2016. The objective
was to give the false and manufactured appearance of compromise. Once the CIA established the
possibility of compromise, that activity created the EC which opened the door for an FBI
investigation.
The operation run by Brennan targeting Papadopoulos is at the
center of the two-page "EC" (
electronic communication ); given to FBI Director James Comey to start the
counterintelligence operation (Crossfire Hurricane) against the Trump campaign.
Yes, the primary intelligence sources of John Brennan's "EC" is were operations run by FBI
and CIA operative Stefan Halper, and western intelligence asset Joseph Mifsud. A great
background on Halper is HERE .
In March 2018 Chuck Ross of The Daily
Caller took a deep dive on how Stefan Halper interacted with George Papadopoulos and Carter
Page. Halper is sketchy, and he was trying to initiate contacts with low-level Trump campaign
aides. [ SEE HERE ]
DAILY CALLER
– Two months before the 2016 election, George Papadopoulos received a strange request
for a meeting in London, one of several the young Trump adviser would be offered -- and he
would accept -- during the presidential campaign.
The meeting request, which has not been reported until now, came from Stefan Halper, a
foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British
counterpart, MI6.
Halper's September 2016 outreach to Papadopoulos wasn't his only contact with Trump
campaign members. The 73-year-old professor, a veteran of three Republican administrations,
met with two other campaign advisers, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned. ( Please
Keep Reading )
We now know Brennan's
originating structure involved Stefan Halper the foreign policy expert and Cambridge
professor deeply connected to the CIA and willing to run the operation to benefit the political
objective for CIA Director Brennan. This is how John Brennan originates the "EC" through
non-traditional intelligence channels. The EC is then given to James Comey, who starts
Operation Crossfire Hurricane on July 31st, 2016.
[ NOTE : •On July 31st, 2016 the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation against
the Trump campaign. They did not inform congress until March 2017. •At the beginning of
August
(1st-3rd) 2016 FBI Agent Peter Strzok traveled to London, England for interviews with UK
intelligence officials. •On August 15th , 2016 Peter Strzok
sends a text message to DOJ Lawyer Lisa Page describing the " insurance policy ",
needed in case Hillary Clinton were to lose the election. That's where Carter Page comes
in.]
However, CIA Director John Brennan didn't stop with simply originating the FBI
investigation, he went on to promote additional material from his knowledge of the Christopher
Steele Dossier.
This is the part that John Brennan has denied ; however, the evidence proving
his lies is overwhelming.
We start by remembering the sworn testimony of John Brennan to congress on May 23rd, 2017.
Listen carefully to the opening statement from former CIA Director John Brennan and pay close
attention to the segment at 13:35 of this video [transcribed below]:
Brennan: [13:35] "Third, through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept
congress apprised of these issues as we identified them."
"Again, in consultation with the White House , I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of
our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional
leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard
Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between
11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of
eight members."
"Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that
means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential
election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of
congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member."
Notice a few things from this testimony. First, where Brennan says " in consultation with
the White House ". This is a direct connection between Brennan's activity and President
Obama, National Security Adviser Susan Rice and Chief-of-Staff Denis McDonough, each of whom
would have held knowledge of what Brennan was briefing to the Go8.
Secondly, Brennan is describing raw intelligence (obviously gathered prior to the Carter
Page FISA Application/Warrant – October 21st, 2016) that he went on to brief the
Gang-of-Eight (pictured below). Notice Brennan said he did briefings "individually".
Brennan also says in his testimony that he began the briefings on August 11th, 2016. This is
a key point because former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter
to James Comey on August 27th, 2016, as an outcome of his briefing by John Brennan. But it is
the content of Reid's letter that really matters.
In the last paragraph of Reid's letter to Comey he notes something that is only cited within
the Christopher Steele Dossier [ full letter pdf
here ]:
This letter is August 27th, 2016. The Trump advisor in
the letter is Carter Page. The source of the information is Christopher Steele in his dossier.
Two months later (October 21st, 2016) the FBI filed a FISA application against Carter Page
using the Steele Dossier.
So what we are seeing here is CIA Director John Brennan briefing Harry Reid on the Steele
dossier in August 2016, even before the dossier reached the FBI. However, John Brennan has
denied seeing the
dossier until December of 2016. A transparent lie.
Brennan goes on to testify the main substance of those 2016 Go8 briefings was the same as
the main judgements of the January 2017 classified and unclassified intelligence assessments
published by the CIA, FBI, DNI and NSA, ie. "The Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA).
We also know from Paul Sperry: "[ ] A source close to the House investigation said
Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included
former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok . "Strzok was the intermediary between
Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,"
according to the source."
(link)
♦ Summary so far : During a period early in 2016 CIA Director John Brennan
manufactured the material needed to start the FBI investigation on July 31st, 2016. John
Brennan also received information from within the Steele Dossier which he put into President
Obama's Daily Briefing and shared with the Gang of Eight.
So it would seem that Brennan was leaking to the media and pushing hard on this same Russia
narrative during the transition period. It's almost bizarre to see Brennan now saying "perhaps
he had bad information" BRENNAN IS THE INFORMATION !!
Fucking Brennan.
Additionally, if you want to throw on an even more stunning layer upon this manipulation
matrix, consider that Nellie Ohr was
likely working for the CIA.
"I read an article in the paper that mentioned Glenn Simpson. And I remembered because he
had been a Wall Street Journal reporter working on things like Russian crime and corruption,
so I recognized the name. I was underemployed at that time and I was looking for
opportunities. "
If Nellie Ohr, a known CIA open source contractor, sought out Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS
for the job in 2015, not vice-versa, then it would appear a sting operation from within the CIA
(John Brennan) was underway and long planned. The evidence of this likelihood surfaces later
from Brennan's knowledge of the specific intelligence within the Steele Dossier as shared with
Obama and briefed to Harry Reid in August 2016.
So let us recap:
♦In the first phase of this operation the CIA, likely Brennan, seeded Fusion GPS with
information via Nellie Ohr. After it became clear that Donald Trump would be the 2016 GOP
candidate, that information was then piped-into another Fusion GPS contractor and former FBI
Source, Chris Steele. Steele then "laundered", and returned the Ohr research material into an
official intelligence product to the FBI. [The tool was Carter Page.]
♦Concurrently timed with the start of this first phase, Brennan was running an
operation using Stephan Halper and Joseph Mifsud to generate the "EC" and initiate the FBI to
begin a counterintelligence operation named Crossfire Hurricane. [The tool was George
Papadopoulos]
This is why the media got/get somewhat confused with the origins of everything:
Papadopoulous (Crossfire Hurricane) -vs- Carter Page (dossier into FISA); an origination
confusion which still exists through today.
In essence we can see that John Brennan was the initiator manipulating everything, somewhat
behind the scenes, for all of the activity (tangentially noted by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in
their text messages about the CIA leaks). After the 2016 election, Brennan continued pushing
the Steele Dossier into the media bloodstream as it carried the Russian Conspiracy virus he
created.
During the time James Comey's FBI was running operation Crossfire Hurricane, Comey admitted
he intentionally never informed congressional oversight: " because of the sensitivity of
the matter ". I suspect he knew there was manipulation behind the events that initiated the
construct; he was, however, willfully blind to it.
When Brennan
now says in hindsight he might have received " bad information ", it's laughable
– because the information is his creation.
Now with all of that hindsight in mind, watch the first four minutes of this interview and
pay attention to the duping delight:
Lastly, unlike other DOJ and FBI officials connected to the fraudulent exploitation of the
FISA court, John Brennan is not attached to the ongoing DOJ Inspector General investigation
being conducted by IG Horowitz.
Presumably Inspector General Michael Horowitz is only looking at the process, procedures and
people who were involved in submitting an unverified and likely fraudulent FISA application.
Though his investigation would mean reviewing the underlying evidence for the FISA warrant, ie.
the Steele Dossier, the list of IG targets does not necessarily include anyone outside the DOJ
and FBI process.
This could mean former CIA Director John Brennan, or any other Obama-era official outside
the DOJ and FBI, could be referred for criminal investigation to John Durham; and investigation
or review of that referral should not impede any ongoing investigation by IG Michael
Horowitz.
That's why it is possible for Devin Nunes to have submitted a ¹criminal referral for
John Brennan; which would be one of the primary aspects of review by Durham (noted by Solomon),
and only tangentially connected to the IG Horowitz investigation.
¹Or, NSA Advisor Susan Rice, ODNI James Clapper, or former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
Samantha Power (unmasking); or any other administration official who may have engaged in
leaking and/or disseminating classified intelligence information.
Advertisements Report this
ad Report this ad Share this:
Horse trading
is the oxygen of politics;
it is how politicians are persuaded to care about things that otherwise would not make their radar.
Not only does it happen all the time, but it is a core feature of our political system;
representative government relies on this kind of political trading to ensure a plurality of
interests and needs are satisfied.
Members of Congress routinely trade "policy for policy." You sponsor my bill, and I'll sponsor
yours, you vote for a road in my district, and vice versa. Members even trade policy for personnel
and hiring purposes: you support my bill, and I'll let so-and-so's hearing move forward, you
appoint me to this, and I'll recommend your protege for that. These deals can even cross the
blood/brain barrier between states and the federal government.
It is not corruption. It's the warp and woof of a democratic political system. But in routinely
branding
President Trump's dealings with Ukraine as potential "corruption,"
and pointing to the exchange
of unrelated asks as proof of that corruption, our friends in the fourth estate are acting in
willful ignorance and bad faith.
The President has taken a
firm
position
that he did not hold out foreign aid to Ukraine as a condition for investigating
Hunter Biden's activities there. But, even if he did, bargaining isn't corruption -- it's
policymaking.
Rod Blagojevich.
GOVERNANCE WOULD HARDLY BE POSSIBLE
An esteemed panel of federal judges in Chicago made precisely this point a few years ago. You
may recall the
prosecution
of former-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich
on various federal charges. And although the judges
largely upheld his conviction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit commentary on the
affair was crystal clear. At least one of the counts that the trial judge had sent to the jury was
just politics, pure and simple, and could not have been a crime.
"[A] proposal to trade one public act for another, a form of logrolling, is fundamentally
unlike the swap of an official act for a private payment."
In 2008, then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama was elected to serve as President of the United
States. Appointment of his successor in the Senate, until an interim election was held, fell by
operation of statute to Governor Blagojevich.
In
the words of Judge Frank Easterbrook
, writing for the court, the Governor saw this as a
"bonanza." Among other things, Governor Blagojevich (through intermediaries) was alleged to have
asked President-elect Obama for an appointment to the Cabinet (for himself) in exchange for him
appointing Valerie Jarrett to the interim seat in the Senate. Alternatively, he was alleged to have
asked the President-elect to "persuade a foundation to hire him at a substantial salary after his
term as Governor ended, or find someone to donate $10 million and up to a new 'social welfare'
organization that he would control."
The President-elect declined on all counts, but the lawyerly point is this: the trial judge told
the jurors that if it found the Governor had proposed any of these three deals, it could return a
verdict of guilty.
Not so fast, said Judge Easterbrook.
Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Easterbrook noted that, indeed, the trial judge's
instructions to the jury supported a conviction "even if [the jury] found that his only request of
Sen. Obama was for a position in the Cabinet." But not all the Governor's proposals were the same.
According to the court, "[A] proposal to trade one public act for another, a form of logrolling, is
fundamentally unlike the swap of an official act for a private payment."
In other words, swapping one policy for another is a political commonplace. "Governance would
hardly be possible without these accommodations," the court went on to observe.
Rudy Giuliani.
INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION IS -- AND SHOULD BE -- POLICY
To be sure, some folks may disagree with the President's foreign policy, but elections matter in
a representative democracy, and President Trump was duly elected.
Whether or not you agree
with his politics, he has been elected to do a job: govern.
So let's suppose -- strictly for the sake of argument -- that the President did withhold foreign aid
to Ukraine in exchange for a commitment to investigate allegations of corruption. This is, quite
literally, the exchange of one policy for another -- horse-trading in every sense. Does the United
States have no policy interest in making sure that the countries with which it interacts -- and to
which it sends aid money -- do not engage in corrupt practices? Of course, it does. The case for
"corruption" would require that President Trump withdraw aid in exchange for personal profit -- not
policy gains that are ultimately good for American foreign policy.
At its core, the case for impeachment is more than a sham: it's a misinformation
campaign in which Democrats and their media are willfully ignoring the way our policy process works
to prevent our President from governing.
Uh, yes, "horse trading" with a foreign government for info on a
political opponent is not allowed...that is the simplest form of
dictator style corruption that there is.
"Horse trading" with a
foreign government to trade hostages, or any other variety of deal
making that doesn't involve your own countries political
enemies is of course allowed and has always been done.
They already did and had no problem with the corruption
under Clinton or Obama--they just considered those "scandal
free" administrations and looked the other way. Now they
don't like the president and they want to change the rules
or take their ball and go home because they don't like the
game. Some children never grow up.
Proud-Christian-White-American-Man
,
3 hours ago
link
The case for "corruption" would require that President Trump
withdraw aid in exchange for personal profit -- not policy gains that
are ultimately good for American foreign policy.
My comment:
Great article which sums up exactly what politics is..horse
trading and deal making. If President Trump is impeached on this
basis, then all elected officials in the US must also be
impeached. If you can't understand this then either : you are a
vile TDS troll or you think that there are 57 states in the US.
IT is a Coup and that is all it is. The Democrat's and their
Deep State cohorts in the CIA, FBI, MSM, are subverting the will
of the US Voter.
How do you feel about that US voter? Do you
enjoy unelected and opposition Politicians taking down an Elected
President because they don't like him and his policies?
Is that what your country has became? Does it NOT have a
Constitution anymore? Are the General Population drugged up
sufficiently to NOT NOTICE....or Understand what is going on
around them?
Are the Children of the middle class brain washed enough in
school and college to be good little neoliberals and give up ALL
FREEDOM's fought for with blood for hundreds of years?
I think there are enough SANE Americans left to stop this coup
and hang the traitors.....but will they? THAT IS THE $64,000
Question.
It's not
'Horse-trading'
when you blackmail a
vulnerable nation with withholding military assistance.
And
trying to get a foreign head of state to start an investigation so
you have a scoop to smear your potential opponent is the very
definition of abuse of power.
It's blatant and anybody denying this should be ashamed to call
themselves American.
Hmmmm, how about all the self-enriching ******** the Bidens,
and the rest of the Obama admin did to Ukraine? Why isnt Vicki
Nuland swinging from a noose?
Self-enriching ******** the Bidens, and the rest of
the Obama admin did to Ukraine?
The only proper way to investigate any foul play on this
end is through the DoJ, leveraging the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act of 1977, and asking the Ukrainian authority
for assitance through proper prosecutorial channels. So you
tell me why Barr isn't doing that?
DoD? I think not. All the ******** the Obama admin did
was under the guise of various agency schemes. State
Dept, on down the list. DoD has zero say in "policy and
trade deals".
The Ukraine is vulnerable because of foreign meddling and
internal corruption. Obama Admin pretended to give them aid
while it was stolen by the Ukrainian oligarchs, Dem cronies and
their kids.
How dare Trump ask to investigate this. How dare
he.
At its core, the case for impeachment is more than a sham:
It's a misinformation campaign in which Democrats and their
Corrupt Media are willfully ignoring Hillary's DNC/Ukraine
Collusion to bring down a duly elected President.
What the Dem's are doing since Trump was elected is simple:
projecting. They are accusing Trump of everything that they, the
Dem's, are guilty of, and "getting out in front" before they can
be accused.
Watch what happens once the indictments are handed
out by Barr, from the Durham investigation. The Dem's will SQUEAL
"FOUL!!!" They will say that Barr is just doing this to deflect
from the impeachment hearings.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian
customer off for the benefit of a few corruptioners, American
and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its
dependence on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize
deposits of natural gas, sufficient for domestic household
consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the
Ukrainians got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it
was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine could provide all its
households with free gas for heating and cooking, just like
Libya did. Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like
Burisma) had very high profits and very little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas
for the domestic consumer to European levels, and the new
president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went
sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for
their cooking and heating; and huge profits went to coffers of
the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices,
President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or
subsidise his projects. He said that he arranged the price
hike; it means he should be considered a partner.
Several mainstream media have made claims that Joe Biden's intervention in the Ukraine and the Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election are "conspiracy theories" and "debunked". The public record proves them wrong. By ignoring or even contradicting the facts the media create an opening for Trump to rightfully accuse them of providing "fake news".
A dictionary definition of asset is:
a
useful or valuable thing, person, or quality.
The word has been much in the news lately.
Usually coupled with "Russian," it's a favorite smear of establishment stalwarts like Hillary
Clinton and establishment media like
The New York Times.
It's been directed against
President Trump, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and others who question the US's interventionist
foreign and military policies.
By implication, anyone who is an asset of a foreign country places the interests of that
foreign country ahead of their own country's.
The term is especially odious when appended
to a country commonly considered an enemy. Examining US foreign and military policy the last
several decades, an unasked question is: to whom or what has that policy been "useful or valuable"?
Establishment attacks on Trump and Gabbard serve to clarify who has actually been assets
for unfriendly governments, and it's not Trump or Gabbard.
At the end of WWII, the US was at the apex of its power and no nation could directly
challenge it.
After the Soviet Union detonated its first atomic bomb in 1949, the two
countries settled into the Cold War stalemate that lasted until the Soviet Union's dissolution in
1991. Actual use of nuclear weapons was considered potentially catastrophic, to be avoided by
either side except to counter a nuclear strike -- either preemptively or after the fact -- by the other
side. They were not considered a battlefield weapon, although there were elements of the American
military command, and probably the Soviet command as well, that at various times advanced
consideration of battlefield use.
The rest of the world's nations tried to protect themselves under the American or Soviet
nuclear umbrellas.
Both countries' confederated alliances -- essentially empires -- were based
on that ultimate protection, but the very unthinkability of nuclear weapons' use meant that other
calculations entered into governments' and rulers' calculations of strategic advantage. Just
because a nuclear power wanted something or desired a certain outcome didn't necessarily mean a
nation had to comply, especially if the envelope was not pushed too far. Were you going to drop the
bomb on a country that nationalized your oil company?
The fundamental failure of both the American and Soviet leadership was to recognize a simple
lesson of history:
more resources and energy are required to maintain an empire than the
resources and energy that the empire can extract from it. Empires are inevitably victims of their
own success.
As their geographic boundaries expand arithmetically, the challenges of
defending borders and subjugating conquered territories expands exponentially. Loot from the
colonies fuels corruption among the rulers, who typically buy off the peasantry with a
bread-and-circus welfare state. Taxes rise, the state grows, money is debased, the work ethic and
productivity crumble, and decadence and internal rot metastasize. Eventually the empire succumbs to
revolution, invasion, or both.
Empires never win the hearts or minds of all of their conquered subjects, and some resist.
Nowadays, all but the poorest of the subjugated can avail themselves of inexpensive computing and
communications.
Expensive offensive weaponry and large numbers of troops can be destroyed
or rendered inoperative by cheap rockets and artillery, improvised explosive devices, mines,
drones, and other deadly gadgetry.
The locals always know the territory and language
better than their conquerers and can usually count on the support of the civilian population.
The successful attack on a Saudi oil facility, allegedly by Yemeni Houthis, is unprecedented
because drones were used, the target was not military but industrial, and it was on the would-be
conqueror's home territory. In the larger picture, however, it's merely the most recent
manifestation of a trend that has been going on since at least the Vietnam War: the destruction of
the expensive with the cheap. The US's multi-billion dollar power grid, say, could be brought down
through a combination of sabotage and computer hacking that would probably take less than twenty
dedicated "revolutionaries" and under $100,000. That too would be unprecedented, but not really
surprising.
Those who have called the shots for the US since World War II could have grasped
the ultimately futility of empire from even a cursory reading of history.
They've
certainly had that lesson borne home to them by their own experience, if not from the Korean War
then certainly from the Vietnam War. By now, it's obvious that empire and US interventionism has
been a net loser for the US, which can no longer be said to be at an apex of unchallengeable power.
If its policies have been a net loss for the US, does that mean they have been a net gain
for those the US defines as its enemies?
In 1953, a coup sponsored by the CIA and Great Britain's MI6 deposed Iran's democratically
elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, and replaced him with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, an
autocratic and repressive US government puppet. He was deposed in 1979 by Shia fundamentalists, who
set up a theocratic regime aligned with neither the US or the Soviet Union, although decidedly
hostile to the US.
Without reviewing the tangled history of US-Iranian relations since 1979, it's fair to say that
they've remained hostile. It's been the fondest hope of the US foreign policy establishment and its
allies in the Middle East, notably Saudi Arabia and Israel, to unseat the theocratic regime and
install another American puppet. With the exception of the Iranian nuclear agreement abrogated by
President Trump, there has been little comity between the two countries' governments. Within the
Trump administration there are officials who openly talk of waging war and fomenting regime change.
The administration has resorted to harsh, punitive sanctions against both the country and many of
its key figures to effectuate their objectives.
Yet, "enemy" Iran has clearly been the biggest beneficiary of US policy in the Middle East.
Iranian intelligence, military, and political elements have infiltrated and gained influence in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, all nations against which the US or its Saudi Arabian
or Israelis allies have waged offensive war. A potential "Shia Crescent" from Iran to the
Mediterranean, cited as a danger justifying US interventions, is now a reality not in spite of,
but
because of
those interventions. Iran's standing in the Middle Eastern has not been
this high for at least the last several centuries.
US hostility has also driven Iran into the loving arms of Russia and China for weapons,
industrial and financial aid, and markets for its oil. This is not the only instance that Russia
and China have been the beneficiaries of the US's maladroit moves in the Middle East, Indeed, their
Belt and Road initiative, spanning Asia and the Middle East and now extending to Eastern Europe and
Africa, has been ideologically midwifed by the US. Nations have been offered a choice: US bullets,
bombs, and bullying, or Chinese and Russian infrastructure funding and expertise.
The Chinese and Russians aren't acting from altruistic motives, but the recipients
realize that and what America offers isn't altruistic either.
Choosing the former is an
easy choice with few negative consequences. What will the US do to nations that choose to enter the
Russian-Chinese orbit, start dropping nuclear bombs? Take on Russia or China? The case of Syria -- in
the Russian orbit since the 1940s -- is instructive. The US couldn't foment its desired regime change
there, although according to Obama we were fighting the "junior varsity." Once the
varsity -- Russia -- entered the picture it was all over for the US effort.
Even if there were no Belt and Road Initiative, the Russians and Chinese, now cast as the US's
great power enemies, have reaped enormous benefits from the US's interventions in the Middle East
and Northern Africa. Having stepped away from conquest, except for potentially the "conquests"
which creditors exact from debtors who cannot pay (a favorite US stratagem), Russia and China have
been able to devote substantial resources to their own infrastructures and the development of
high-tech weaponry that renders any US government impetus for military confrontation with them
delusional (see "
The
Illusion of Control, Part 1
").
Every yuan and ruble not spent on US-style interventionism, and every drop of blood not spilled,
is money and manpower available for pursuits far more rewarding than intrigue, sabotage,
skullduggery, corruption, regime change, war, and the infliction of collateral damage on
populations who, sensing the would-be conqueror's indifference to their plight, often become
terrorists, refugees or both -- "
blowback
" -- raising the butcher's bill even
higher. Let the US and its allies bear those costs.
If US foreign and military policy for many decades has been a detriment to the US and a benefit
to those the US government terms our enemies, particularly Russia, China, and Iran,
are not
the architects and proponents of those policies actually the "assets" of those countries?
That such a group includes virtually the entire US establishment doesn't mean that the question
shouldn't be asked, nor that the answer is not in the affirmative. Keep in mind that it is this
group that has lately been throwing around terms like "assets," "traitors," and "treason." In light
of the clear benefits
they
have bestowed on the enemies of
their
choosing, how
can intellectual turnabout in light of the actual results of
their
policies not be fair
play?
It wasn't Donald Trump or Tulsi Gabbard who authorized the US's failed wars and
regime-change efforts.
Unlike most of her critics, Gabbard fought in some of them! That
Trump continues such efforts justifiably elicits condemnation, but he's been in office less than
three years and America's malevolent misadventures have gone on for over six decades. During that
time, he's been one of the few prominent figures to even question them, and he's been roundly
criticized for it.
The trillions of dollars spent and the millions of victims killed and wounded, whose lives have
been upended, both from our own military and the nations we've devastated or destroyed, demands
what we'll never get -- a comprehensive investigation, a thorough accounting, and justice blind to the
positions, wealth, and power of the people responsible.
It requires a clear-eyed assessment
of how much they have benefited our enemies -- and themselves -- and that will mean, in all justice,
calling them what they are: enemy assets, traitors guilty of the darkest treachery to their
country.
To be effective, agit-prop requires a modicum of truth inserted in
its' body of lies.
In the present case
At the end of WWII, the US was at the apex of its power
and no nation could directly challenge it.
serves that purpose, and from there, we go deeper and deeper
into the authors' ******** narrative. Back it up... and start
over.
At the end of WWII, the US was at the apex of its power and
no nation could directly challenge it.
Only a covert,
'supranational' movement, capable of operating by stealth, and
using tools of deceit and subversion could be successful at that
task. But 'challenging the USA' meant less a struggle against its
already compromised political class[Wilson and his 'controller'
House demonstrate that subtext admirably]and more a 'culture war'
against the values of independent thought and living, free
enterprise and entrepreneurial spirit;
That was the task assigned to the Trotskyite faction of the
international "jewish revolutionary spirit cookers" cabal; their
backers - the Wall St/London/Frankfurt heretical judaic Frankist
banksters cult - wished to use the power of the west to reign in
the break away "stalinist' national communists running their main
franchise - the USSR.
So cultural marxism and 'the new left' were born, and all
organs of the western executive, judicial and administrative
levels of government infiltrated by agents of a foreign power. Not
a 'state' power.Just as important, they took over the educational
systems, in order to systemically breed a contempt for the very
values which had made the west rich and successful.
The products of that long process of cultural and intellectul
devolution now flock to sites just like this one, so as to
celebrate the victory of their foreign masters, and to indulge in
the obligatory spitting upon the remnants of their own culture.
They call traitors 'patriots' and patriots 'traitors.' And make
sure every discussion devolves into the same miasma of distortion
and nonsense.
Drimpf signals the successful conclusion of the long struggle
to make the USA a pariah state despised by the rest of the world.
This isn't complicated. Our threats are not other countries. Our
threats are not other political parties. Those other governments
and our politicians are all owned by the same people. Those same
people are those that comprise the international banking cartel.
They are those who own stakes in the central banks, the World
Bank, the IMF, and the BIS.
And I hate to break it to you, but
they own Drumpf and Gabbard just the same as all the others. If
you're bickering along party lines, you're either a shill or
you've been had. Time to wake up now...
Tulsi lost me when she supported Ellen loving on war criminal
G.W. Bush and then her refusal to condemn the Bidens for their
graft in Ukraine. She's not quite the outsider we would all
like to believe.
You're not getting it. She should have never had you. None
of them should have ever had you. They are all bought and
paid for. They are all actors and actresses in a great big
political theater production designed to distract the People
while the real crap goes down out of sight.
Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Suddenly Won't Testify; Lawyers Break Off Negotiations Amid New Revelations
by
Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/01/2019 - 13:25
0
SHARES
A CIA officer who filed a second-hand whistleblower complaint against President Trump has gotten
cold feet about testifying after revelations emerged that
he worked with Joe Biden, former
CIA Director John Brennan, and a DNC operative
who sought dirt on President Trump from
officials in Ukraine's former government.
According to the
Washington Examiner
, discussions with the whistleblower - revealed by
RealClearInvestigation
s
as 33-year-old Eric Ciaramella have been halted, "and there is no
discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first's claims."
Ciaramella complained that President Trump abused his office when he asked Ukraine to
investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as claims related
to pro-Clinton election interference and DNC hacking in 2016.
On Thursday, a top National Security Council official who was present on a July 25 phone call
between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky testified that he saw
nothing illegal about the conversation
.
"
I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed
,"
said Tim Morrison, former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs who was on the July 25 call
between the two leaders.
And now, the partisan whistleblowers have cold feet;
"There is no indication that either of the original whistleblowers will be called to testify or
appear before the Senate or House Intelligence committees.
There is no further discussion
ongoing between the legal team and the committees
," said the
Examiner
's source.
The whistleblower is a career CIA officer with expertise in Ukraine policy
who served on the White House National Security Council during the Obama administration,
when 2020 Democratic presidential candidate
Joe Biden was "point man" for
Ukraine
, and during the early months of the Trump administration. -
Washington
Examiner
In other words,
House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump over a second-hand
whistleblower complaint by a partisan CIA officer, and neither he nor his source will actually
testify about it
(for now...).
On Thursday, the House passed a resolution establishing a framework for Trump impeachment
proceedings, belatedly granting Republicans the ability to subpoena witnesses, but only if
Schiff and fellow Democrats on the Intelligence Committee agree.
Mark Zaid, who along with Andrew Bakaj is an attorney for both the original whistleblower and
the second whistleblower, told the
Washington Examiner
the legal team was willing
to work with lawmakers so long as anonymity is ensured
. "We remain committed to
cooperating with any congressional oversight committee's requests
so long as it properly
protects and ensures the anonymity of our clients
," Zaid said.
On Wednesday,
Zaid and Bakaj
declined to confirm or deny in a statement
to the
Washington Examiner
that Eric
Ciaramella, 33, a career CIA analyst and former Ukraine director on the NSC
,
was the whistleblower
after a report by RealClearInvestigations. -
Washington
Examiner
In September, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, who lied about contacts with
Ciaramella (and hired two Ciaramella associates as staffers) said that the whistleblower "would
like to speak to our committee."
Once Ciaramella's status as a CIA officer and his links to Biden emerged, however, Schiff
backtracked. On October 13 he changed his tune, saying "Our primary interest right now is making
sure that that person is protected."
Meanwhile,
once the House impeaches Trump - which it most certainly will
-
the tables will turn in the Senate
, which will hold a mandatory trial. Not only
will the GOP-Senators controlling the proceedings be able to subpoena documents and other evidence,
they'll be able to compel Ciaramella, the Bidens, Chalupa and any other witnesses they
desire
as we head into the 2020 US election.
Nancy Pelosi saw this coming and caved to her party anyway. There isn't enough popcorn in the
world for what's coming.
Have a few seconds of Nunes in an interview, "That's why I kind of
ignore it all and just make fun of them because it's such a joke.
I mean, it's really just a bunch of nitwits."
Lt Col Vindman, who was on the phone conversation and who is a very
close associate with Eric Ciaramella, was most likely the one who
leaked to Ciaramella; probably to give him a heads up; probably also
as part of the nefarious deep state op.
When Representative Jordan
asked Vindman who he spoke to after President Trump's conversation,
Schiff would not permit him to answer. Wonder why?
Now is a PERFECT time for Judicial Watch to file a FOIA request
for all texts and emails to/from Ciaramella.
ANd yet....they can continue this with impunity as there is nobody
who has power to stop them. Half the US population will continue to
believe the MSM nonsense. No Barr, no Trump has any guts to applpy
justice, but just use it for politics, not truth or justice. Weird
this US "justice system". Are there no laws on libel, defamation,
fraud, malintent etc. Years of promises about indictments, but
nothing in reality, just show. Powerless even in their own country,
but capable of stealing the oil from wrecked Syria: all crooks!
Dems are so fucked it's incredible. I can't see how they could
possibly survive this ****. Gabbard should form a new party, at least
she has some common sense.
"... The anti-Russian/pro-Ukrainian fanatics in the Borg, to which Lt.Col. Vindman belongs, are trying to prevent Trump from achieving his large picture vision of U.S. strategic interest and from defining U.S. foreign policy goals. They want to implement their own polices independent of what the president thinks or believes. ..."
"... If the deep state is allowed to make its own policies against the will of the elected officials why should we bother with holding elections? ..."
"... The Democrats are stupid to applaud this and to even further these schemes. They are likely to regain the presidency in 2024. What will they do when all the Civil Service functionaries Trump will have installed by then organize to ruin their policies? ..."
"... I surmise he is reflecting Israeli disquiet with the idea of a peace in Syria that leaves Assad in power. ..."
"... I first heard this idea that Trump is supposed to implement the foreign policy of the "government policy community" just a few days ago on the PBS Snooze Hour. It was startling to hear such a blatant admission of the existence of the "Deep State", and that Trump is supposed to obey it. I wonder who wrote the memo that says its now OK to publicly criticize Trump for not following the orders of the "government policy community". ..."
"... Trump is truly a horrible excuse for a human being, but apparently that is what is required to successfully rip the facade off the Deep State, however one wants to define it. Brain-dead Dummycrats will nod and exclaim that of course Trump is supposed to follow policy established by "knowledgeable experts". But I speculate that this new public attitude of the stink tank talking heads will enrage Trump supporters. ..."
"... Our foreign policies have, IMO, long been tailored to the needs and expectations of our major corporations. Notably, the fossil fuel corporations and their allies on Wall street. ..."
"... Our corporate empire wishes to export predatory capitalism around the globe, and pity any nation who stands in our way.. ..."
"... Isn't it something, b. Could you imagine ever reading a headline out of Russia or Germany where a subordinate went on record declaring he made attempts to edit Putin or Merkel's classified phone transcript, he then admits to sharing this classified information with a group of peers OUTSIDE classified channels and ended his 15 mins of fame by declaring Putin nor Merkel's policies on Ukraine fit the consensus of a national security bureaucratic group of nobodies. It's simply unimaginable! ..."
"... Which tells me they are fighting for something else entirely. Maybe more light will be shed following the release of the IG's FISA report. Then again, maybe they are motivated by fear that their lining their pockets with taxpayers gazillions has finally caught up to them. ..."
"... When Vindman admitted his crime, the Sergeant at Arms should have arrested him immediately after his testimony, but he was allowed to walk--yet another perversion of justice! By cutting off the line of questioning, Schiff was engaging in the obstruction of justice--the very crime he accuses Trump of committing! IMO, the application of the law must be depoliticized and all offenders arrested regardless of their station in life. ..."
"... A guy like this Vindman character, a walking identity problem first and foremost, given his background, should never have made it through the ranks of the US forces, let alone be given a job at the Security Council. A loyalty issue waiting to get worse. It's just wrong, a ridiculous notion. ..."
"... If you want to join the British forces e.g. you are required to have parents who were already born in Britain. Kept me from applying to join their navy back when I tried to. I was disappointed then, but it makes sense to handle the nationality question just like that. I can see that now. ..."
"... Regarding Washington, seems like the Beast, aka the Deep State, is finally coming out of its lair. Trump is way too salacious as bait for them to be careful and keep in hiding. Before they realize that trying to snatch Trump will be their own undoing, things will have way too much momentum for them to stop. Just look at Rep. Schiff moving from blunder to blunder. He'd be so much better off just doing nothing for half a year and keeping his mouth shut, but he somehow cannot do that. Neither can the Times. ..."
"... American citizens lost their voice in foreign policy a long time ago. It's a question I ask when the party politicians meet with lobbyists or attend events like Bilderberg. I am thankful for the alt media. Americans should be disgusted by their politicians and political parties. ..."
President Trump and many other people believe that it would be better for the United
States to ally with Russia against an ever growing China than to push Russia and China into
an undefeatable alliance against the United States. Trump often alluded to this during his
campaign. The voters seem to have liked that view.
The U.S. coup in the Ukraine made that policy more difficult to achieve. But within the
big picture the Ukraine is just a bankrupt and corrupt state that has little strategic value
and can be ignored.
One can disagree with that view and with other foreign policy priorities Trump set out and
pursues. I certainly disagree with most of them. But for those who work "at the pleasure of
the President" his views are the guidelines that set the direction of their duties.
The anti-Russian/pro-Ukrainian fanatics in the Borg, to which Lt.Col. Vindman belongs, are
trying to prevent Trump from achieving his large picture vision of U.S. strategic interest
and from defining U.S. foreign policy goals. They want to implement their own polices
independent of what the president thinks or believes.
We have warned that such interference by the Borg, the 'deep state' or 'swamp', is a
danger
to democracy :
If the deep state is allowed to make its own policies against the will of the elected
officials why should we bother with holding elections?
The Democrats are stupid to applaud this and to even further these schemes. They are
likely to regain the presidency in 2024. What will they do when all the Civil Service
functionaries Trump will have installed by then organize to ruin their policies?
It is unfortunate that the above points have to be repeated again and again. But when
powerful media try to sell the lies about the Ukrainian interferences by repeating the same
falsehoods over and over again the truth has only a chance to win when it is likewise spread
repeatedly.
Vindman is a Jew born in Ukraine and brought up in the Little Odessa
neighborhood of Brooklyn. I surmise he is reflecting Israeli disquiet with the idea of a
peace in Syria that leaves Assad in power.
I first heard this idea that Trump is supposed to implement the foreign policy of the
"government policy community" just a few days ago on the PBS Snooze Hour. It was startling to
hear such a blatant admission of the existence of the "Deep State", and that Trump is
supposed to obey it. I wonder who wrote the memo that says its now OK to publicly criticize
Trump for not following the orders of the "government policy community".
Everyone was shocked when Trump won the election, especially Trump and the "government
policy community". He is the proverbial dog that caught the speeding car. It's quaint that
Trump thinks he can make real policy changes. His failures in medical insurance, controlling
the FED, etc. underscore the point that being the leader is useless if underlings don't obey.
The "government policy community" will never follow Trump and it won't stop until Trump is
gone one way or another.
Trump is truly a horrible excuse for a human being, but apparently that is what is
required to successfully rip the facade off the Deep State, however one wants to define it.
Brain-dead Dummycrats will nod and exclaim that of course Trump is supposed to follow policy
established by "knowledgeable experts". But I speculate that this new public attitude of the
stink tank talking heads will enrage Trump supporters.
I'm starting to think that things may get really ugly in the "Home of the Brave and the
Land of the Free".
Our foreign policies have, IMO, long been tailored to the needs and expectations of our major
corporations. Notably, the fossil fuel corporations and their allies on Wall street.
Our corporate empire wishes to export predatory capitalism around the globe, and pity
any
nation who stands in our way..
Isn't it something, b. Could you imagine ever reading a headline out of Russia or Germany
where a subordinate went on record declaring he made attempts to edit Putin or Merkel's
classified phone transcript, he then admits to sharing this classified information with a
group of peers OUTSIDE classified channels and ended his 15 mins of fame by declaring Putin
nor Merkel's policies on Ukraine fit the consensus of a national security bureaucratic group
of nobodies. It's simply unimaginable!
Last night I watched a report by Catherine Herrhidge of Fox state that in Vindman's
statement he admits to sharing POTUS' classified transcripts and other readouts to a small
group of others outside the NSC. In essence he admitted to leaking classified information.
When Rep Jim Jordan started to drill down into that line of questioning, Schiff cut him
off.
This entire shitshow honestly tells any w/an open mind that the D's and their leadership
are desperate. Imagine a committee chairman not allowing members to question a witness about
who he shared the President's classified information with. That's not the rascally Dem Party
I know. It's painfully obvious these radicals will walk on hot coals, climb the Himalayans
and swim across the Atlantic to pin anything and I mean anything on Trump. They do not care
about downstream impacts, catastrophic as they may turn out to be.
Which tells me they are fighting for something else entirely. Maybe more light will be
shed following the release of the IG's FISA report. Then again, maybe they are motivated by
fear that their lining their pockets with taxpayers gazillions has finally caught up to
them.
When Vindman admitted his crime, the Sergeant at Arms should have arrested him immediately
after his testimony, but he was allowed to walk--yet another perversion of justice! By
cutting off the line of questioning, Schiff was engaging in the obstruction of justice--the
very crime he accuses Trump of committing! IMO, the application of the law must be
depoliticized and all offenders arrested regardless of their station in life.
A guy like this Vindman character, a walking identity problem first and foremost, given
his background, should never have made it through the ranks of the US forces, let alone be
given a job at the Security Council. A loyalty issue waiting to get worse. It's just wrong, a
ridiculous notion.
If you want to join the British forces e.g. you are required to have parents who were already
born in Britain. Kept me from applying to join their navy back when I tried to. I was
disappointed then, but it makes sense to handle the nationality question just like that. I
can see that now.
And nothing good ever comes from Ukraine. It's a psyched country, or would-be country, just
there to give the world trouble.
Regarding Washington, seems like the Beast, aka the Deep State, is finally coming out of its
lair. Trump is way too salacious as bait for them to be careful and keep in hiding. Before
they realize that trying to snatch Trump will be their own undoing, things will have way too
much momentum for them to stop. Just look at Rep. Schiff moving from blunder to blunder. He'd
be so much better off just doing nothing for half a year and keeping his mouth shut, but he
somehow cannot do that. Neither can the Times.
Looks like
Real Clear Investigations is suggesting a certain Eric Ciaramella is the "whistleblower",
which might upset Schiff since the Democrats want he name and political attachments kept a
secret. Anyway the article provides some more pieces for the Russiagate/Ukrainegate jigsaw
puzzle.
American citizens lost their voice in foreign policy a long time ago. It's a question I ask
when the party politicians meet with lobbyists or attend events like Bilderberg. I am
thankful for the alt media. Americans should be disgusted by their politicians and political
parties.
Okay, so just what is the Outlaw US Empire's Foreign/Imperial Policy? I'm glad I asked!
The overarching #1 policy goal of the Outlaw US Empire is to establish Full Spectrum
Domination over the planet and its people as enunciated publicly in 1996 policy paper
Joint
Vision 2010 which was modified and republished as Joint Vision 2020 , both of
which are essentially military policies, not National Defense as they're espousing 100%
offensive doctrines. In tandem is the much older economic policy plot known as the Washington
Consensus, which I've referenced many times and is best explained by Dr. Hudson's book
Super
Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire , and began at the end of WW2
but was greatly expanded/escalated in 1978.
Now it's obvious that Trump's trying to implement his own policies since he's getting so
much resistance. On the previous thread having this topic, I noted that Pepe Escobar had
written several pieces citing members of the Current Oligarchy who are Trump supporters who
provided him with info as to the likely directions of Trump's policies if he became POTUS. In
response to a request by Evelyn, I went and looked for those old items and found several.
This one IMO is worthy
of close scrutiny. Pepe opens:
"And for all the 24/7 scandal time of non-stop groping and kissing and lewd locker room
misbehaving, Trump seems to be ready to limp toward the finish line just as he began; an
all-out populist/nativist/nationalist fighting open borders (a Clinton mantra, as revealed by
the latest WikiLeaks Podesta email dump); 'free' trade; neoliberal globalization; and regime
change/bomb them into democracy/'humanitarian' imperialism."
Yes, there's more, but the above's more than enough to show that Trump's 100% against the
two major policies of the Outlaw US Empire--and--he's actually done what the above suggests
he might do. I remember reading that just a little more than 3 years ago and thought Pepe was
fed a line of bull from his sources--he wasn't.
S.O. 2
"> Will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its
dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity.
Take a look at that statement and realise how diseased it is."
I totally agree. It is diseased on multiple levels. "lock in"? he says? What if Ukrainians
change their minds??? Say, by electing a Russia-leaning politico?
Oh, right, that's what happened back in 2014. Hence, the Maidan "lock-in." to me this "lock
in" comment is an open confession of ongoing meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs.
That is quite apart from the sick joke that is reference to "a dream of vibrant democracy
and economic development" brought about by the "West-leaning trajectory."
From what I have heard, Ukraine is an unmitigated disaster since "the West" decided to
determine and "lock in" its political trajectory. Not to mention thousands dead in the
Donbass and Lukansk.
"Donald Trump's red wave on Election Day was an unprecedented body blow against
neoliberalism. The stupid early-1990s prediction about the 'end of history' turned into a
– possible – shock of the new....
"Once again. A body blow, not a death blow. Like the cast of The Walking Dead, the
zombie neoliberal elite simply won't quit. For the Powers That Be/Deep State/Wall Street
axis, there's only one game in town, and that is to win, at all costs . Failing that, to
knock over the whole chessboard, as in hot war...
"The angry, white, blue collar Western uprising is the ultimate backlash against
neoliberalism – an instinctive reaction against the rigged economic casino capitalism
game and its subservient political arms. That's at the core of Trump winning non-college
white voters in Wisconsin by 28 points. Blaming 'whitelash', racism, WikiLeaks or Russia is
no more than childish diversionary tactics." [My Emphasis]
No, they didn't quit but immediately put their very improvised "insurance policy" into
play based on the lies and contrivances concocted during the campaign and put into play by
Obama in the most unprecedented fashion ever as a sitting POTUS had never before sought to
undermine/sabotage the incoming POTUS in the manner being devised--essentially in my book,
Obama committed treason: again .
In his written testimony (from the Stars and Stripes account in Don Bacon's link at 146 in
the previous 'Deep State' thread) Lt. Colonel Vindman wrote:"...I am a patriot, and it is my
sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics."
Thanks so much b, for elaborating on that first part - "...sacred duty and honor to
advance.."
It does seem the Constitutional duties and limitations got lost in the shuffle back when
George Bush (I think it was) joked the Constitution was 'just a piece of paper.' Still, even
he too thought foreign policy was his to dictate. I am remembering the 'first strike'
doctrine that he propounded and Al Gore gave a speech decrying back in the day.
That "advance" stuck in my craw - thanks for shining the light.
@29 Ghost Ship
fascinating... didn't realize how much the Trump Admin's seemingly simple
retaliation-for-Russiagate investigation of Biden really struck a nerve among the Obama era
CIA/NSC Ukraine team. Wonder what they know.
Nice misdirection Donald. I asked about the sudden interest in the Ukraine thing, trump
and Giulianis latest Old Man Yells at Cloud moment, not some old news about credit cards.
As for "sudden interest in the Ukraine thing" I would like to remind you that Ukraine was an
important player in Russiagate, and, as such, is potentially guilty in the interference in the
USA elections.
Below is one tidbit for your attention: there is actually an old (1999) and a very
interesting treaty between the USA and Ukraine under which Ukraine is legally obligated to help
the USA exactly in the matters discussed by Trump. Under this treaty very little sovereignty is
reserved for Ukraine , if the USA wants to investigate something. So no pressure, or God forbid
quid pro quo is needed at all. Ukraine is legally obligated to deliver the materials
requested and/or open their own investigation to get those materials for the USA.
I think that not only you, but also other "Full of Schiff" people in this blog will have
great difficulties in understanding this legal situation ;-).
Due to existence of this treaty, from a legal standpoint Trump behaved exactly as if he was
asking Governor of NJ for help in investigation of Jon Corzine, or older Kushner for their
misdeeds. So while ethically he was wrong, and it was politically suicidal to include Biden
(who, being semi-senile is an ideal for Trump opponent on Dem side) along with legitimate
request to provide information about Ukrainian action of CrowdStrike, and, especially, servers
that were used for this (from which probably fake Russian attack on DNC originated)
That blunder allowed Dems plotters to launch a very successful counterattack on his attempt
to get to the origins of Russiagate.
But legally he was on a pretty solid ground: below is the quote from Bill Clinton letter to
the Senate on November 10, 1999 Treaty Document 106-16 -106th
" Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements
of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents;
locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other
purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to
restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any
other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. "
Rep. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), a member of the Oversight and Reform Committee, said Morrison's
testimony is filling in blanks -- and completing a narrative that increasingly points to a quid
pro quo.
Sal, that was an interesting link referring to text of Trump's discussion with
Zelinsky.
I am not very astute in the details, it appears to me that the impeachment "charge" of
Trump strong-arming the foreign president for political gain has no merit. This will be the
second time (at least) that the dems have embarked on agenda to disrupt the functioning of
the executive because they do not approve of the intent - first case was intent to improve
relations with Russia, second being intent to investigate an attempt at strong-arming foreign
government (already admitted to).
Even if the charge(s) had some merit I imagine it is unlikely that the Senate would allow
the removal of Trump (as long as he is playing ball on ziocon agenda).
So dems will (potentially) damage themselves politically for the purpose of disrupting the
executive, again.
As
Bloomberg reports, the onus is now clearly on Nancy Pelosi to finish what she started.
However, she is still losing in the areas where it matters most: No. 1) in the court of public
opinion, where the country is roughly split on support for impeachment. That's right: All of
the Dems' smears have had practically no impact, perhaps because the White House immediately
moved to release the rough transcript, allowing the public to see with its own eyes that there
was no quid-pro-quo during the July 25 call with Zelensky.
Whatever progress impeachment has
made in terms of public opinion, Pelosi better prepare to lose it. Because, as Bloomberg points
out, the impeachment inquiry has burst into public view. In a few weeks, public hearings will
begin, and although the Dems promised the White House that Trump's legal team would be allowed
to participate, it turns they won't be allowed to cross examine witnesses until the next round,
which will be handled by the Judiciary Committee.
And even then, the Dems will have a veto over any witnesses the Republicans wish to call.
Trump has been mostly shut out of the process so far, but his persistent criticisms of the
Witch Hunt have still been effective, and that's unlikely to change.
House Democrats, have been careful not to divulge their strategy, but some elements are
coming into focus. By allowing Trump's legal team to participate in the second, highly public,
half of the pre-impeachment hearings, they've created a venue that could possibly lead to Trump
testifying publicly. Or at least they set it up so that they could criticize Trump if he
refuses. It's worth noting that the way this has all been set up, it's almost as if the
leadership assumes impeachment will fail, but has decided that the political boost they might
gain by bashing Trump is worth the effort, according to
the New York Times.
As one politico who spoke to the NYT reportedly said, it appears both sides have begun a
"political death march" until the next election. For the Dems, that means allowing the newly
reinvigorated far-left base to take the reins, at the risk of undermining the moderates who
still vote in vast numbers across the US.
The Dims think this is a red / blue game, but it's not... They have failed to take into
consideration the largest voting block in the country, independents... With Nancy &
company's tactics and platform since they took control of Congress, I don't think they will
get a single vote except from the hard left next year as no independent in their right mind
would vote for them... Have to give it to them though, they are going out in a blaze of
glory... The Dimotard party is done. finished, kaput...
If anything, Nutsy Feloni's corrupt House merely shows more and more Americans everyday
that we're taxed WITHOUT any representation, just like the Brits did in 1775/6.
They're shooting themselves in the foot and then in the head in 2020.
Schiff AND Nadler get to approve any and all Republican witnesses and Schiff still gets to
have closed hearings and still gets to tamper with witnesses by telling them what to answer
and how to answer in his closed hearings. There will be ZERO transparency but of course the
MSM will say it's transparent and open in (with most Americans believing it since most
Americans are abject fidiots) exactly the same way they say absolutely ZERO now about the
fact that Schiff is leaking only what he wants the Marxist press to leak. Stalin, Hitler,
Polpot, Mao, Castro would be extremely jealous of the Democrats.
Basically, the Democrats are saying "screw half the country". They don't represent anybody
as far as I'm concerned. They've snow jobbed their own voters with the propaganda from the
media they own. Truth has been the casualty for many years now. This must be corrected, or it
will surely lead to civil war.
Despite their haste to rid America of the Trump Presidency, there is one very significant
problem that plagues Congress that they will do absolutely nothing to solve:
in a massive display of cognitive dissonance, despite American's distaste for their
"representatives", they keep voting them back into office by overwhelming
percentages.
Growing up in the 80s I always saw Africa suffering from wars, famine, disease etc on tv.
After the fall of the Apartheid govt, Africa became peaceful. Weird huh?
What are your opinions on the Sunday 3rd of November Seattle doomsday conspiracy? I was very
sceptical at first but it started to freak me out a bit since there really are a lot of
Seattle/terrorism/nuclear weapons and 3/11 references in movies and series. With Israeli
embassies closed world wide and Israeli mass casualty exercises going on something seems to
be brewing.
Because the sheeple are trained to not "throw away their vote" by voting for third party
or independent candidates. They've yet to learn that voting for candidates deemed "electable"
by the regime's political machinery gatekeepers is the ultimate waste. Anyone over 40
should've learned by now. Instead, they're told "democracy works!" and "vote harder!" (donate
more money, cuz "this time it's personal" or something...).
(Not telling you what you don't already know. Just appending to your statement.)
And I finally understand why people in other countries sometimes boycott their
elections.
The "whistleblower" is reportedly Eric Ciaramella.
here
also: photo of Biden with caption: Joe Biden: Invited Ciaramella to state luncheon with
Italian premier. Also invited: Brennan, Comey, Clapper.
Sal, that was an interesting link referring to text of Trump's discussion with
Zelinsky.
I am not very astute in the details, it appears to me that the impeachment "charge" of
Trump strong-arming the foreign president for political gain has no merit. This will be the
second time (at least) that the dems have embarked on agenda to disrupt the functioning of
the executive because they do not approve of the intent - first case was intent to improve
relations with Russia, second being intent to investigate an attempt at strong-arming foreign
government (already admitted to).
Even if the charge(s) had some merit I imagine it is unlikely that the Senate would allow
the removal of Trump (as long as he is playing ball on ziocon agenda).
So dems will (potentially) damage themselves politically for the purpose of disrupting
the executive, again.
The thoughtful James Kustler, (and I too) have doubts about election 2020... "...a colossal
Three-Card-Monte game that produces a lot of "money" without producing wealth. Even worse,
financialization destroyed the indexes that accounted for the measurement of real wealth, or
capital, and replaced it with accounting fraud, so it's very hard to see the damage.
What it boils down to is that the USA is no longer a credit-worthy borrower. If
the..."
.................
He's wrong, of course, somebody will take the oath...
Did it matter last time?
Is it already over? ("it" being Murka itself) If, as we see, the Basic Law (USC) is
discarded (it has) what's left?
A simulacrum...
...........
James @ 11 / 12 People who might imagine that rudeness is a good may possibly decide later
that it is not. It is hard to undo.
I myself read and re-read all the comments...often, in fact, they're more interesting when
they are "OT"...subjective, of course.
"... Note this key excerpt from the letter of transmittal: ..."
"... " Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. " ..."
"... The Treaty was reported favourable by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September 27, 2000, consented to ratification by the Senate on October 18, 2000 and ratified by the President of the United States on January 5, 2001. The Treaty was entered into force on February 27, 2001. Here are the title page of the Treaty and the signature page: ..."
"... With this background and while I don't want to appear to be pro- or anti-Trump, it is very, very clear that the current POTUS was within the law under the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the United States and Ukraine when it comes to asking Ukraine to investigate a potential criminal matter. ..."
With the Trump impeachment procedures ongoing and the connection to his conversation about the
Biden family with Ukraine President Zelenskyy, there has been very little coverage of an
important aspect of the relationship between Washington and Kiev. While none of us can speak to
the actual intent of Donald Trump's remarks be it for personal gain or for other reasons, there
is background information that may help illuminate the context of the discussion between the
two world leaders.
In case you haven't read the pertinent section of the transcript of the conversation, here it
is:
" President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that
you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any
future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the
United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States
and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard
on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him
having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate
even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just
recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we
will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody
but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most
experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you
Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also
plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as
the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I
can assure you.
President Trump: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good
and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way
they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr.
Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I
would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy
very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that
would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the
people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that.
The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution
and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney
General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you
can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all,
I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute
majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate,
who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or
she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue.
The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the
honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top
of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to
us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in
our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall
her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad
ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she
admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new
President well enough.
President Trump: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr.
Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get
to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very
badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to
get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many
Ukrainian friends, their incredible people." (my bolds)
Now, let's look back in time to 1998. On July 22, 1998, a treaty was signed between Ukraine and
Washington.
The Treaty on Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters was signed in Kiev on the aforementioned date. Here is an
excerpt from the The original letter of submittal from the Department of State to the
President's office dated October 19, 1999 which states the following:
"I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty between the United States of America and
Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex (``the Treaty''), signed at
Kiev on July 22, 1998. I recommend that the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice
and consent to ratification. Also enclosed, for the information of the Senate, is an exchange of notes under which the
Treaty is being provisionally applied to the extent possible under our respective domestic
laws, in order to provide a basis for immediate mutual assistance in criminal matters.
Provisional application would cease upon entry into force of the Treaty.
The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. In recent years, similar
bilateral treaties have entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty with
Ukraine contains all essential provisions sought by the United States. It will enhance our
ability to investigate and prosecute a range of offenses.The Treaty is designed to
be self-executing and will not require new legislation." (my bold)
The Treaty was then transmitted by the President of the United States (Bill Clinton) to the
Senate on November 10, 1999 (Treaty Document 106-16 -106th Congress - First Session) as shown
on this letter of
transmittal from Bill Clinton's office:
Note this key excerpt from the letter of transmittal:
" Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or
statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving
documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or
other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related
to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any
other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. "
The Treaty was reported favourable by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September
27, 2000, consented to ratification by the Senate on October 18, 2000 and ratified by the
President of the United States on January 5, 2001. The Treaty was entered into force on
February 27, 2001. Here are the title page of the Treaty and the signature page:
Here are the first two pages of the Treaty which outline the scope of assistance that is to
be offered by both nations as well as the limitations on assistance:
... ... ...
If you wish to read the Treaty in its entirety, please click
here .
With this background and while I don't want to appear to be pro- or anti-Trump, it is very,
very clear that the current POTUS was within the law under the Treaty on Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters between the United States and Ukraine when it comes to asking
Ukraine to investigate a potential criminal matter.
Cohen observes in his latest conversation with John Batchelor that the so-called Impeachment
inquiry, whether formal or informal, will make the new Cold War even worse and more dangerous
than it already is, noting that an inflection point has been reached, because at the core of
these allegations -- most of which are undocumented and a substantial number of which are
untrue -- revolving around Russiagate and now Ukrainegate is an underlying demonization of
Russia. Relations between America and Russia will continue to deteriorate either due to the
fact that the entire political spectrum is engaging in a frenzy of Russophobia or that
President Trump, who ran and won on a platform of improving relations with Russia, is now
completely shackled, thus it is inevitable that the new Cold War will continue to become more
dangerous.
Regarding Attorney General Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate, as Cohen
noted previously, Barr has made it clear that he's investigating not the FBI but the
intelligence agencies, and Cohen is uncertain that even the Attorney General of the United
States can be successful in that line of inquiry. For example, the young and politically
inconsequential George Papadopolous, a young aid to the Trump campaign, got four or five
visitors, every one of them tied to foreign intelligence, American or European, which makes it
self-evident that the Intelligence Agencies were running an operation against the Trump
campaign. Cohen says that even if Barr is a resolute man and says he wants to get to the bottom
of this, Cohen is not confident that he will be able to do so.
Cohen notes that the Russian press, which follows American politics closely, has resulted in
a consensus that all of this -- Russiagate, Ukrainegate -- was created to stop Trump from
having better relations with Russia. Thus, it is important that Putin had been told the reason
Trump cannot engage in détente is because of Trump being shackled.
Discussing the recent American mission against Abu Baker al-Baghdadi in Syria, Cohen stated
Nancy Pelosi utterly disgraced herself when she complained Trump informed the Russians about
the success of the mission and its initiation, considering the fact that this wing of Congress
is so against Trump he had no guarantee that one of them would not have leaked the mission
before it began. Russian intelligence in that part of the world is probably better than other
nation's, so Cohen assumes Russia knew about the mission and that they helped by providing
information to America.
In addition, Cohen has noted Putin discussed a partnership with America against domestic
terrorism starting with his approach to Obama and noted that even considering the September 11
terror attack, Russia has suffered more victims of domestic terrorism than America has. Obama
thought about the proposal, hesitated, and it never happened. These recent events are a
reminder that the United States and Russia are uniquely positioned to partner against
international terrorism, but this may be slightly beyond the grasp of President Trump at the
present time.
Cohen noted that expert opinion in Russia -- which informs the Kremlin leadership, including
Putin -- has soured on the United States; the older generation of Russian America specialists
who like America, who visit regularly and appreciate American culture, have become utterly
disillusioned and cannot promote a Russian-American partnership given what has happened to
Trump.
Regarding Ukraine, Cohen notes it shares a very large border with Russia, tens of millions
of intermarriages, language, culture and history, and although the United States shares none of
this with Ukraine, the United States has declared Ukraine is a strategic ally, and this would
be equivalent to Russia stating that Mexico is its strategic ally, which is preposterous; the
term "strategic" clearly has military implications.
Expanding on the topic of Ukraine, despite its size and natural resources, it is the poorest
country in Europe. The new president, a comedian who starred in a TV show portraying the
Ukranian president and thus life imitates art, ran as a peace candidate; that and his promise
to fight corruption resulted in his victory. Part of his pledge was to meet with Putin to try
to solve the conflicts; but he promised to end the hot war with Russia. American politics got
in the way and people are still dying: at last count, there were approximately thirteen
thousand dead, including women and children. And the peace candidate has been dragged into
American politics and the commentary on Ukraine has a colonial tone. America speaking of
Ukraine as a "strategic ally" is foolishness and warfare thinking. What should be the American
policy is to encourage Zelensky to pursue these peace policies with Russia so the war doesn't
spread and the killing stops and that Ukraine, which is a potentially rich country, can
recover. While Obama egged on the war policy, Trump seemed to have no policy, other than to
encourage Zelensky in his peace initiative. What isn't known in the conversation Trump had with
Zelensky was whether he encouraged him in his peace initiative; the transcript is a fragment,
redacted and edited so that it doesn't mention the war but certainly it was discussed. The
issue is whether the United States should give Ukraine's government $400 million dollars in
military equipment. Obama, who Cohen observes was not a good foreign policy president refused
to do so but Cohen concludes that was a wise decision. All that providing weapons to Ukraine
would accomplish is to incite the pro-war forces in Kiev against the anti-war forces led by
Zelensky; the military advantage in any event lies with Russia.
Despite the fact Zelensky is an actor, he did run on a program of peace and Cohen believes
that he is sincere; Cohen notes the problem is not Russia, but the armed Nationalists who are
opposed to peace -- approximately 30,000 -- who have publicly threatened Zelensky. Cohen notes
Putin wants to end the war with Ukraine and he has made efforts to help Zelensky, such as the
recent prisoner release, although he included people Russians consider terrorists. Thus,
Zelensky doesn't have a lot of political power. While there are bad nationalist actors -- the
Azov battalion, which threatened Zelensky with either removal or death -- nevertheless Cohen
has asked where the regular army stands: will it back him, will it be loyal? That answer now is
unknown.
Cohen concluded to most Ukrainians Zelensky represented hope, hope in the war against
corruption and hope against the war. The Kremlin wants to end the war; Zelensky has a chance,
he's supported by Germany and France, Putin is helping, but the United States is not a party of
the Minsk Agreement peace acccord. Trump has intruded in his own unusual way but can be a
factor for good. If Cohen were advising President Trump, he'd tell him if he favored the
negotiations for Russian and Ukrainian peace, this would favor his historical reputation.
"... Ciaramella was a known Susan Rice protege. He is said to have traveled to Ukraine with Vice President Joe Biden twice. ..."
"... He was a close associate of State Department anti-Trump partisan Victoria Nuland. Ciaramella was involved in the 2016 correspondence about the $1 billion dollar loan guarantee Biden held up until prosecutor Victor Shokin was fired. ..."
If Eric Ciaramella really is the whistleblower, the whole impeachment narrative is
decimated Published 1 day ago on October 30, 2019 By 1 day ago on October 30, 2019 By on
October 30, 2019 By on October 30, 2019 By October 30, 2019 By JD Rucker
The purpose of being a "whistleblower" is to expose wrongdoing perpetrated by people in
power whose actions are being concealed from the public, oversight officials, and/or law
enforcement. It is never to be used for political gain, whether personal or on behalf of
others. It is also not supposed to be used as a ploy against one's political opponents or the
political opponents of those with whom the whistleblower is attached.
In other words, blowing the whistle is not supposed to be weaponized for political purposes,
but if it turns out CIA operative Eric Ciaramella is the Ukraine whistleblower, his report can
only be viewed as an attempted political assassination.
We know this because he has been actively involved in multiple attempts to take down the
President even before he was elected. He is the "Deep State" pawn many on the right have
condemned, a pawn who has reported multiple instances of the President's "wrongdoings" which
invariably turned out to be false.
If anyone can be less credible than Adam Schiff, it's Eric Ciaramella. When other news
outlets pointed out the whistleblower was a Democrat, I shrugged. No big deal. A person's
allegiance to an opposing party does not eliminate credibility in and of itself. But when it
was revealed that he worked for former Vice President Joe Biden, his credibility started
slipping away, even in the eyes of skeptics like me. Now, we're learning he has a long history
of attempts to expose President Trump, including getting fired from the NSC for leaking
information to the press. His attachments to John Brennan, Adam Schiff, Susan Rice, and others
who have worked against the President is the cherry on top of the obliteration of his
credibility.
The more we learn about him, the easier it is to understand why Democrats have pulled back
on having him as part of the impeachment inquiry at all in spite of his whistleblower complaint
being the catalyst for the whole debacle.
The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that Ciaramella opposed the
new Republican president's foreign policies. "My recollection of Eric is that he was very
smart and very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing –
Ukraine," he said. "He didn't exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was
the right thing to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the
president's policies." "So I wouldn't be surprised if he was the whistleblower," the official
said. In May 2017, Ciaramella went "outside his chain of command," according to a former NSC
co-worker, to send an email alerting another agency that Trump happened to hold a meeting
with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing Comey, who led the
Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had
phoned the president a week earlier.
It's clear Democrats want to distance their inquiry (and themselves) from Ciaramella because
he represents and unambiguous demonstration of the political motivations behind the Obama
administration's initial investigation into Russian collusion, the Mueller investigation, and
now the impeachment inquiry. Moving forward on impeachment based on the word of Ciaramella is
like initiating a study to prove tobacco is healthy because of a report presented by Philip
Morris.
Eric Ciaramella was a CIA analyst and expert on Ukraine and Russia. He was detailed to
the Obama White House NSC as Director of Baltic and Eastern European Affairs including
Ukraine. Ciaramella was a known Susan Rice protege. He is said to have traveled to
Ukraine with Vice President Joe Biden twice.
He was a close associate of State Department anti-Trump partisan Victoria Nuland.
Ciaramella was involved in the 2016 correspondence about the $1 billion dollar loan
guarantee Biden held up until prosecutor Victor Shokin was fired.
Ciaramella was said to be traveling with Biden on that trip.
He was certainly in the loop on all things Ukraine. Including disinformation on Paul
Manafort and Trump passed to Victoria Nuland by Ukrainian sources. Clinton donor Victor
Pinchuk sent Ukrainian Member of Parliament Olga Bielkova to meet with Ciaramella. One day
before Bielkova also met with infamous John McCain aide David Kramer.
Ciaramello is not confirmed as the whistleblower, but all circumstantial evidence points
squarely at him. We may never hear the official word on it because doing so would paint the
Democrats' impeachment narrative as one built like a house of cards.
The sheer fact the alleged whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, had attempted on multiple
occasions to frame the President is enough to destroy the entire impeachment narrative. This
is the boy who cried wolf every chance he got.
See also
Will John Bolton support impeachment to spite President Trump?
The biggest reason to reject opinions that Ukrainian aid was tied to a Biden
investigation
How the Army officer who testified against Trump could end up in a court-martial
When Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman appeared before members of Congress on Tuesday to discuss
what he knew about President Trump's conversations with Ukraine's president, he was
violating an order from his commander in chief not to cooperate with the House's
impeachment inquiry.
He is likely protected from legal ramifications from showing up to testify, a former Army
judge advocate told Military Times on Thursday. But it remains to be seen whether what he
told legislators could get him charged with a crime ― and, of course, how his choice
to rebel against his White House chain-of-command will affect his career.
...
It comes down to whether Trump's order was lawful, he said. If Trump was trying to prevent
Vindman from sharing sensitive information, it could be. If he was trying to prevent
testimony, period, it's not.
The Military Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits government officials from interfering
with a member of the military in communicating with Congress or an inspector general.
Adding to the complexity is that the president gets to determine what is and isn't
classified.
here
Cohen notes that the Russian press, which follows American politics closely, has resulted in
a consensus that all of this -- Russiagate, Ukrainegate -- was created to stop Trump from
having better relations with Russia. Thus, it is important that Putin had been told the reason
Trump cannot engage in détente is because of Trump being shackled.
Cohen noted that expert opinion in Russia -- which informs the Kremlin leadership, including
Putin -- has soured on the United States; the older generation of Russian America specialists
who like America, who visit regularly and appreciate American culture, have become utterly
disillusioned and cannot promote a Russian-American partnership given what has happened to
Trump.
Regarding Ukraine, Cohen notes it shares a very large border with Russia, tens of millions
of intermarriages, language, culture and history, and although the United States shares none of
this with Ukraine, the United States has declared Ukraine is a strategic ally, and this would
be equivalent to Russia stating that Mexico is its strategic ally, which is preposterous; the
term "strategic" clearly has military implications.
Your line of thinking might reflect the way some people in the US Establishment look on the
matter. However, this is militarily a non-starter. Attacking Russia with nuclear weapons
would immediately result in the disappearance of the USA.
IMHO, Ukraine and other countries has been a gift to corrupt US politicians. The money
they send to Ukraine never ends in the hands of those who are supposed to get it -- the
Ukrainian peoples (it is de facto several countries). The money is redirected into the hands
of US and Ukrainian politicians and Jewish oligarchs.
The weapons that are sent to Ukraine are largely sold off to countries in the Middle East
-- countries which in turn give them to terrorists on their payrolls. This money largely
benefits the upper echelons of the army of Ukraine.
Powerful elements amongst the US power elites and their hangers on wish to provoke a war with
Russia. The obtainment of total world power would seem to be the ultimate objective.
Z Brzizinski in his late 1990's book The Grand Chessboard specifically points out
the importance of Ukraine to US ambitions in Eurasia.
Excerpts below from an 1853 US geo-political book called The New Rome elaborate
further. I see the mid 19th century book and it's contents potentially as 'a suggestion'
being put into the US public's mind to let them know what was expected of them in the future,
and why, as most people in the US, then and now, are rather indifferent about Russia, just as
most Russians are probably indifferent about the United States.
Similarly, Russia could be being manipulated into a war with the US, a war which
potentially could largely destroy both the US and Russia, which indeed may be the idea as
part of a larger picture.
People have their refusal.
Has Mr Cohen read this generally unknown 1853 book, The New Rome ?
Some excerpts from The New Rome linked below:
US and UK are free, Russia is not.
pg 155
'Freedom is now limited to the oceanic world, to England and America; Russia, with its
continental dependencies, is despotic..'
After US and UK form a united front and conquer Germany (the center of power upon
continental Europe) and consolidate control over it, the US and Russia will then square
off.
pg 109
'Thus the lines are drawn. The choirs are marshalled on each wing of the world's stage,
Russia leading the one, the United States the other. Yet the world is too small for both, and
the contest must end in the downfall of the one and the victory of the other.'
Global projection of US air power is to be the key for final US victory over Russia.
pg.155-156
'It [air power] will give us the victory over Russian continentalism. American
air-privateers will be down upon the Russian garrisons, to use our own expressive slang,
'like a parcel of bricks'
Who transcribed the broadcast (Giraldi?). BTW, I regard the transcription as very fair and
accurate.
Listening to the very last stages of the broadcast I felt that Batchelor became somewhat
confrontational towards Cohen. As a matter of fact Cohen remarked that Batchelor will be
getting a lot of phone calls and emails over that!
Here is the obvious explanation.
Zio-Globalist led by Rothschild are dead set to destroy, or at least neutralize Russia.
Keep in mind another clear and obvious point: The Zio-Globalists now see the USA as
totally expendable. There is some sign they are throwing it to the curb right now.
To be fair, Netanyahu said as much years ago. America would be tossed when no longer
needed. Well, that day is coming close. Productive facilities leaving the nation is nearing
its half-century mark, and now even films and TV shows mostly film in Canada, the UK, etc.,
even though they are sold as US products, which they are mostly not.
Destroy and Russia and USA, part one. Get them to blame each other, part two. Three?
They'll both still have lots of bombs
@Ilyana_Rozumova
“Russia now is last resistance to Globalist control of all world.
China for Globalists is not really a problem. When Globalists will control Russia than China
will like it not, will be controlled by flow of energy.”
That is essentially the situation. If Russia is forced to be something close to a vassal
of the Anglo-Zionist Empire, then China will be faced with being forced into the same boat.
The Chinese might well prefer nuclear war, and unleashing 5 million men at arms, with another
5 million in training camps.
The leaders of the Anglo-Zionist Empire would not care a teeny tiny bit if Korea,
southeast Asia, the Philippines, and Japan were to be decimated. They would be tickled pink
to fill those lands with black Africans and Sunni Arabs, with Jews running the local
shows
@Baron
Ukraine is lebensraum . It has had little importance in geopolitical affairs until
Russia stupidly gave it its independence upon the breakup of the Soviet Union. Now it’s
a slush fund for the most prominent Democrat politicians. It’s also become another
conveniently remote shithole for justifying insane military spending.
"... Burisma is now a worthless shell company and vlochevsky sells his interest to kolomoiski who continues the fine tradition of money laundering by funneling over 100 million to poroshenko and the bidens for who knows what sinister purpose. ..."
"... Maybe this is the key to understanding the "advice" consigliere hunter Biden gave to the oligarch Mafioso, besides giving a veneer of respectability to Burisma to prevent pesky investigators from sticking their noses into cosa nostra. ..."
My take on Burisma: Vlochevsky corruptly collected a slew of gas licenses using the influence
of his office as energy minister. He sells the licenses making a personal fortune.
Then he sets up Sunrise energy, disguising his ownership with a labyrinth of shell
companies.
He launders his ill gotten gains through burisma by purchasing sunrise energy from
himself. Sunrise energy goes out of business having exhausted its already depleted EP gas
fields.
Burisma is now a worthless shell company and vlochevsky sells his interest to kolomoiski
who continues the fine tradition of money laundering by funneling over 100 million to
poroshenko and the bidens for who knows what sinister purpose.
Maybe this is the key to understanding the "advice" consigliere hunter Biden gave to the
oligarch Mafioso, besides giving a veneer of respectability to Burisma to prevent pesky
investigators from sticking their noses into cosa nostra.
The only mistake Merry makes is his erroneous statement that Trump held up aid to Ukraine to
pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate the Ukrainian firm that made $1,750,000
payments to the corrupt Biden and his corrupt son. The transcript of the telephone call between
Trump and the Ukrainian president shows no Quid Pro Quo, and the Ukrainian president says there
was none. The Quid Pro Quo was entirely on Biden's part when he told the president of Ukraine
to fire the prosecutor investigating the firm that was paying him and his son seven figures in
protection money or forfeit $1 billion in US aid. You can watch it here:
https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html
Moreover, even it Trump did threaten to withhold aid from a country that was covering up
corruption by a US vice president and his son, that is the US president's right. There is no
reason whatsoever that a president should permit US taxpayers' money to be given to a
government that covers up corruption by a vice president of the United States.
Biden's son has admitted that he used poor judgment taking money from a firm in order to
protect it from prosecution.
Even if Trump did what the Democrats allege, which he did not, there is nothing illegal or
unethical about it whatsoever. Compared to the tactics US prosecutors use to convict the
innocent, Trump's conversation with the president of Ukraine is far above the highest ethics
known to US prosecutors.
Why aren't the Democrats complaining about the criminally illegal treatment of Julian
Assange and Manning? The reason is that the Democrats, the most utterly corrupt political
organization on the face of the Earth, are bought and paid for by the Deep State. The Democrats
are dog excrement to the core. They are traitors to America and to our Constitutional order.
The entire party should be arrested and put on trial for sedition to overthrow the government
of the United States.
"Nancy Pelosi still doesn't believe in impeachment" [ The Week ]. "The problem with [Pelosi's] strategy of
impeachment in name only is that it is formally unstructured. What Pelosi and most of the
Democratic leadership understand as a cynical political stalling tactic is understood by much
of the party's younger rank-and-file membership -- to say nothing of the always credulous base
-- as a deathly serious mission to extirpate a tyrant from the republic.
The vote now scheduled for Thursday does not change the reality on the ground. According to
the letter Pelosi addressed to Democrats on Monday, the resolution -- the text of which has yet
to appear -- will be formal rather than substantive. Procedures will be established, a
framework agreed upon, documents requested. It will not bring the party closer to impeachment
itself. But it will remove a few more crucial pegs from the Jenga tower that will inevitably
fall at some point between now and November 2020 -- the hypothetical moment when refusing to
proceed further could actually threaten her leadership It turns out that if you want to enjoy
all the political benefits of attempting to impeach the president of the United States, sooner
or later you actually have to attempt to impeach him. Imagine that."
UPDATE "Republicans eye a shift in impeachment strategy as Trump demands new attacks" [
Politico ].
"There is a growing desire among Republicans to start building a more merit-based case to
defend Trump in the Ukraine scandal, according to a source familiar with the GOP's thinking
Republicans, however, still think they are on solid ground when it comes to their process
argument and aren't ready to drop that crusade entirely Trump's public defense will be left in
the hands of the nine Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee -- the fewest number of
GOP lawmakers to push back against the impeachment inquiry."
Adam
Schiff Coached Alexander Vindman Throughout Impeachment Testimony: Nunes
by
Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/30/2019 - 16:50
0
SHARES
Rep. Devin Nunes claims that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff was
coaching Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the director of European affairs at the National
Security Council (NSC)
, as he told House committees that he "did not think it was proper"
for President Trump to ask Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to investigate former VP Joe
Biden during a July 25 phone call.
"
I have never in my life seen anything like what happened today
, during the
testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman," Nunes told
Fox News
' "Hannity."
"
It was unprecedented
," Nunes continued. "I mean, they've been bad at most of
these depositions,
but to interrupt us continually to coach the witness
, to
decide what we're going to be able to ask the witness."
"And, to see someone coach a witness, this isn't the first time that Schiff -- Schiff is very
good at coaching witnesses."
Watch:
(relevant part @ 1:30)
https://www.youtube.com/embed/AddJ1huQUeY
"When we asked [Vindman] who he spoke to after important events in July -- Adam Schiff says, 'no,
no, no, we're not going to let him answer that question," said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) discussing
Vindman's testimony - saying that Schiff seemed to be breaking his own rules for the hearings
according to
shtfplan.com
.
the current rules for the impeachment "inquiry" are not
the rules used with clinton, nixon or andrew johnson
after the civil war. the president's party's
representatives and the executive branch have fewer
rights to due process. this house vote is not to open a
traditional impeachment investigation, far less a vote to
impeach a president. it is to provide sheeple-confusing
optics to continue a lawfare-designed process to abuse
the president.
imo the dems don't, at all, want to
impeach the president and give him a relatively fair
trial in the senate. they want to continually
investigate him under historically unfair rules, leaking
bits of testimony to their dependable sycophants in the
mockingbird state media.
Holy smokes, this Alexander Vindman witness is very sketchy. Generally suspected of being
"whistle-blower #2",
records show Vindman had numerous contacts with registered foreign agents, while a member
of the National Security Council. [ FARA link
– pg 4 ]
Additionally, it is highly likely Vindman leaked the content of presidential phone calls
illegally while he was a member of the National Security Council; which explains why Adam
Schiff would not permit Vindman to answer questions about who he talked to.
The New York Times is
reporting that sketchy Vindman attempted to manipulate the CIA transcripts of President
Trump's call with Ukraine President Zelenskyy to meet Vindman's ideological interpretations.
[Vindman had a hidden agenda "spying" while inside the NSC]
In an effort to bolster his very sketchy credibility; and likely in an effort to avoid the
appearance of sedition; Schiff's Lawfare staff recommended Vindman wear his military uniform to
the hearing today, though Vindman never wore the uniform for his NSC job.
(
Open Secrets ) – sA little known U.S.-based attorney quietly poured six figures
into foreign influence operations for President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, hoping to be
rewarded with a job in his administration,
foreign agent records identified by OpenSecrets show.
The new Foreign
Agent Registration Act records reveal previously unreported meetings with Trump
administration officials and details of a six-figure lobbying campaign promoting Zelensky's
interests in the U.S. during the leadup to his election and
now-infamous phone call with President Donald Trump
.
[ ] Notable among the Trump officials contacted was Alexander Vindman , who oversees
European affairs at the National Security Council. Vindman was one of five Trump
administration officials chosen for a
delegation to Zelensky's inauguration featured in the whistleblower complaint alongside
Kurt
Volker , the U.S. special envoy to Ukraine who resigned
after fallout from the whistleblower's allegations. (
read more )
President Volodymyr Zelensky and First Lady Olena Zelenska with U.S. Secretary of Energy
Rick Perry and the U.S. delegation attending the inauguration, which included U.S. Special
Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union
Gordon D. Sondland, the National Security Council's Director for European Affairs Alexander
Vindman and Deputy Chief of Mission for the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine Joseph Pennington. (
Source
)
I believe I've found some video with Vindman with John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Amy
Klobuchar in Ukraine on 12/29/16. You can see him on the left @ the :18 mark and again @ the
end starting at the 1:38.
AP
(29 Dec 2016) US senators visiting eastern European allies to discuss security issues called
for sanctions against Russia for interfering in the presidential election by hacking American
political sites and email accounts.
Their demands came amid ongoing discussions among US officials on an imminent response to
alleged Russian meddling that would ensure the US takes action before President-elect Donald
Trump takes office.
"We will be urging increases in sanctions on Russia for what they just attempted to do in
the United States election which they have attempted to do in other parts of the world," said
US senator John McCain during his visit to Lithuania on Thursday.
Russian officials have denied the Obama administration's accusation that the
highest-levels of the Russian government were involved in trying to influence the US
presidential election.
Speaking after talks with Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite in Vilnius, the US
lawmakers reaffirmed Washington's commitment to the Baltics.
McCain is accompanied by US Senators Amy Klobuchar and Lindsey Graham in their visits to
Russian neighbours, the Baltic States, Ukraine, and Georgia as well as Montenegro.
What I find odd is this guy is an 05 (errand boy) on the NSC. How out of control is the NSC
when an 05, is editing official transcripts of presidential conversations? Who told him to do
it? To whom did he express his concern before he was told to edit them?
My thoughts exactly. If you need to SHOW how patriotic you are by wearing your uniform, then
it is no more than a costume.
He has that look; 100% Grade A USA inspected A**h**e!
My thoughts exactly. If you need to SHOW how patriotic you are by wearing your uniform, then
it is no more than a costume.
He has that look; 100% Grade A USA inspected A**h**e!
I believe he is too! I thought I heard Jim Jordan refer to him as the whistleblower but I may
not have been listening closely enough.
He sure fits the profile.
I think they thought President Trump would never release the transcript and planned to set
the narrative with the schiff remarks at that hearing. President Trump blew it up with the
release. This champion of Ukraine thought he'd never have to be seen or heard of and could
continue spying and leaking, imho.
Hope he is exposed along with schiff and goes down hard without all those badges on his
uniform.
I didn't make it clear above, but I'm hoping this sh-tbag is determined to be fraudulently
wearing some of those badges and tabs. He dishonors every dayum one of them.
You aren't a "witness" when you're lying, even when you're saying what somebody else
prefers to hear. You're just committing perjury.
The House is not crafting "articles of impeachment," but an unconstitutional "writ of
attainder." Most absurdly, they are trying to do it based on false representations about a
conversation, the true content of which has been declassified and affirmed by the
other party to the call.
These people are carving a place of infamy in US history far worse than that of Joseph
McCarthy.
UCMJ article 94: (2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil
authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance
against that authority is guilty of sedition
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to
suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment
as a court-martial may direct."
Make an example out of this a-hole. Traitor.
His twin brother (likely the official he supposedly complained twice to) is a White House
lawyer. His older brother is an investment banker doing business in Eastern Europe, Asia,
Russia, and the Middle East.
I wonder who would stand to lose money if corruption were to be investigated in
Ukraine?
So a while back I posted that the DoE (Dept. of Energy) was involved. To keep your eyes on
the DoE. Now you know. And parts of this runs through their email system just like at State
except Perry is not involved like Hillary was. But he may have found something that made him
want to leave the post.
POTUS needs to have the new Sec Engery audit the system. There's gold there. Trust me on
this too.
Don't know if it's been posted yet, but Vindman tried to change the draft of the call. The
WH uses voice recognition software for the calls so that there is a record of who said what.
He tried to infer that the software was wrong and that Trump had said the word "Burisma"
(which doesn't matter). He also tried to get the agents who transcribed to change the draft
of the call citing the error. He as denied.
That's solid evidence for tampering with evidence along with violation of the espionage act.
Now since he is part of the this scam he's also guilty of obstruction. Add 5 yrs to his
Leavenworth stay.
Here's POTUS problem with all of this. The corruption goes so far and so deep in all these
agencies, Congress, Senate, military that if he goes scorched earth the gov may just fall if.
That's how pervasive it is. He's going to have to be a neurosurgeon operating with a scalpel
to carve out the cancer and it's going to take timing, precision, quiet and patience. After
all that's been done to him I'm not sure he'll be able to hold back when the Durham reports
comes out (which I believe will be the public predicate for his actions to clean up the
mess).
I'm praying for him.
There is not just "voice recognition software," but several human stenographers who compare
their notes and ensure that the transcription is correct. It is a binding official record of
the exchange, and routinely classified. Naturally, the many people who are right now lying
to their teeth about what actually happened want to dispute and to change that record to
suit their purposes.
But you really can see right through this whole thing. Until she realized that Ukraine
had resumed investigating, and that they were talking with our DOJ, Pelosi, Schiff,
Nadler, Obama, Biden, and many others really weren't all that concerned. But now they know
that they've been talking to Durham and that his investigation has turned criminal.
They know that they've all individually been hip-waders-deep in corruption in Ukraine,
but now there is no American official to "give them six hours." They suddenly became
desperate to throw out this President because he has both the willingness and the
determination to put them all in jail. As do the Ukranians.
P.S.: You definitely see the "Swamp business-as-usual reflexes" at work here. None of them
perceive that Joe Biden (and by direct implication, Barak Obama) actually did anything wrong.
They watch "Biden's boast" and shrug and say, "so what?" 🤷♂️
😇
They gather around and protect him as though strong-arming another nation to drop a
criminal investigation (a.k.a. "obstruction of justice") was the most ordinary thing
for the VPOTUS to do. When the President asks another President to cooperate in law
enforcement, as we have a treaty that calls for both countries to do, they see it as
"smearing." Because, in their accustomed-to-corruption eyes, what Biden did is perfectly
normal. Unfortunately for them, in the eyes of the law, it is not. Biden confessed on
camera to a clearly impeachable offense, and implicated his boss while doing so.
Of interest, the Ukraine "quid pro quo" phone call took place THE DAY AFTER Mueller's
testimony blew up . . . The actors were in place and they planned this to a T.
With the unveiling of Whistleblower #2 (Vindman), Schiff and his Lawfare staff are trying to
rescue their flagging "whistleblower" impeachment scam. Essentially, Vindman is claiming that
President Trump released a false transcript of his conversation with Ukraine President
Zelensky. The NYT article is an attempt to help Vindman and his co-conspirators get out in
front of allegations that Vindman attempted to manipulate the wording of the transcript to
create an impeachable offense.
So now the sleazy Lawfare / Deep State plot is to build a narrative around the dropped words
in the phone call that are represented by ellipses in the transcript.
Great. When nothing exists in a spot in the conversation they can fabricate & claim
whatever they want because, if a recording doesn't exist, no one can refute the fabricated
words besides other first hand witnesses who were listening on the phone call. So it boils
down to hearsay: He said vs. He said.
That's all they have.
Unless Pelousy & Co's trip to Ukraine included a fishing expedition for a potential
Ukrainian Gov't. recording of the phone call.
It's past time for the US to stop this dual citizenship nonsense along with birth-rite
citizenship. At the very least, force dual citizens to renounce their other country's
citizenship if they want to run for office, serve in the military, or lobby foreign
governments.
Vindman testified today that he was listening to President Trump's phone call with the
Ukrainian President and there was no quid pro quo shakedown by President Trump. In fact, he
said that the transcript of the call that President Trump made public was, in fact, accurate.
Doesn't this invalidate and show the initial whistle-blower complaint to the IC OIG was a
lie?
I repeat my earlier suspicions regarding the potential sketchiness of Rick Perry's
resignation just after the Ukrainian allegations began to break particularly given the snake
pit of Obama Holdovers er EMBEDS operating in Ukrainian-affiliated circles.
Yeah, Alexander Vindman was "concerned" about the president asking Ukraine to look into
Crowdstrike and the Bidens. So Alexander felt compelled to talk with the attorney for the
National Security Council assigned to ethics affairs his brother, Yevgeny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Vindman
How to THWART the House's SHAMpeachment fraud.
[updated from yesterday]
AG BARR must GO on OFFENSE by SEIZING the INITIATIVE on multiple fronts!
1. AG Barr immediately APPEALS Judge Howell's ruling directly to SCOTUS.
• The House has unconstitutionally tried to intimidate testimony from the Executive
Branch.
• The House has NO authority to Subpoena in search of crimes without an Impeachment
Inquiry.
• The House has NOT launched an Impeachment Inquiry with vote of its entire
membership.
• House actions constitute a SHAMpeachment fraud.
• District Judges have no Constitutional authority to approve a Congressional
SHAMpeachment.
• Given that the Constitution directs that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
preside over any Senate Trial following an Impeachment by the House, ONLY SCOTUS can rule on
the DUE PROCESS requirements for a Constitutional Impeachment according to the Rule of
Law.
2. AG Barr announces he has launched three CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS that involve the
Majority Caucus of the House of Representatives including their members on the Judiciary,
Intelligence and Ways & Means Committees:
• POLITICAL RACKETEERING $50 Million funneled through Feinstein's former Chief of
Staff
• SEDITION Pelosi, Schiff, Vindman et al
• TREASON Vindman
3. AG Barr forwards SUBPOENAS from his designated investigators to the Speaker, Majority
Leader and Committee Chairmen requiring that they immediately surrender all records of
related testimony and investigations, and that they preserve all historical records until the
investigations and any prosecutions have been completed.
4. NOTIFY Demo☭rat House Leadership that they are Criminal Investigation TARGETS for
OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE (familiar theme for them), including
• Colluding in a fraudulent SHAMpeachment that fabricated Evidence
• Rigging Witness Testimony
• Threatening and intimidating Witnesses
• Doctoring and withholding or concealing Evidence
• Using a SCIF in a cover-up of their Obstruction of Justice
5. INDICT Pelosi and her Committee Chairmen NOW.
• The Gang of Eight became willing Accomplices.
• Start with the Demo☭rat House Leadership leaves the Senate off the hook, but
exposed to being taken out, in case they want to raise their heads from their foxholes.
=====
All 3 Investigations must tap all NSA and Federal Surveillance powers
with ALACRITY.
Fingers crossed, I hope this happens BUT the DOJ is also mostly comprised of never-Trumpers
and career lawyers/staff who agree with the Deep State that does not want anything changed
and disagree with the policies of this President, i.e., mini-Yates.
Hopefully, Trump's legal team is more brilliant than we know, as is White House legal
counsel.
This is a little off topic but I read an article today titled, "Mittens, the Deep State and
the on going Coup against Potus" on Red State. Original article was by a Polish writer, and I
found it be an amazing article if true. It details how the Russian collusion narrative
originated in 2014 and was to be used against whoever ran in 2016. They didn't know trump
would be the nominee. It was for whoever won the nomination.
It talks a lot about John Brennan and a guy named Joseph Cofer Black and their involvement in
the 911 attacks. Both these guy have ties to burisma but the point about mittens is that
Black was his foreign policy adviser and mitt wants Trump shut down before it gets him too.
It is a long article that covers a lot of territory and has several places you can click to
read even more about it. I think the red state article has a good commentary on the original
article and helps tie it together with what's going on. This post doesn't even scratch the
surface of it but the article clears up a lot of thing even if you already understand what's
going on. Well worth the read.
Eric Ciaramella is connected to Victoria Nuland. IIf this information is true, the entire Impeachment thing is a another phase
of Russiagate. It's the Democrats attempt at a coup d'etat
Ciaramella, who was a Susan Rice protégé and was brought into the White House by H. R. McMaster. Looks like McMaster was a
neocon zealot.
Rush Limbaugh knows the whistleblower's name. He says everyone in Washington does.
For obvious reasons, it's in the Democrats' best interests to keep the name under wraps. And
no Republican wants to be the first to report the name. Rush
said , "They're just trying to figure out a way to get it in the public. Kind of like
everybody knew about the Steele dossier but nobody knew how to get it into the public, so they
ran a scam on Trump to tell him about the golden showers story and, voila, that bogus dossier
makes it into the news."
Earlier today, I wrote a post about the most problematic part of Lt. Col. Alexander S.
Vindman's testimony. Speaking before Schiff's House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, he said
he had shared
read-outs of the call with others afterward. He had included this in his prepared remarks
as well. Vindman wrote that he had shared with "a
very small group of properly cleared national security counterparts with a relative need to
know." I questioned if a member of this group might be the whistleblower. Or if not, perhaps a
member of this group told the whistleblower.
When Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) heard Vindman's statement, he immediately asked him how many
others he shared this information with. At that point, according to Jordan who spoke to
reporters following the hearing, Schiff said, "No, no, no, no, we're not going to let him
answer that question."
Schiff may think he can keep the whistleblower out of this. And the reporters accusing Jim
Jordan of trying to arrive at the whistleblower's name through the process of elimination may
also believe they can keep it quiet. But if everyone in Washington knows it, it can't remain
private forever.
Nor should it.
Anyway, Rush
said , Vindman "may be the guy -- we don't know -- Vindman may be the guy that told the
whistleblower. So Vindman would actually be silent whistleblower number 1. The whistleblower we
all know about would be whistleblower number 2. He's the guy that called Schiff. And they were
all working with Schiff. And Schiff doesn't want that to come out."
On Tuesday, The Daily Beast published a story entitled "Nunes Aide Is Leaking the
Ukraine Whistleblower's Name, Sources Say." The lede
says , "Derek Harvey, a former intelligence analyst, has also been spreading disinformation
about an aide to Adam Schiff." The article tells us this information has come from "two
knowledgeable sources."
According toThe Daily Beast:
Derek Harvey, who works for Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House intelligence
committee, has provided notes for House Republicans identifying the whistleblower's name
ahead of the high-profile depositions of Trump administration appointees and civil servants
in the impeachment inquiry. The purpose of the notes, one source said, is to get the
whistleblower's name into the record of the proceedings, which committee chairman Adam Schiff
has pledged to eventually release. In other words: it's an attempt to out the anonymous
official who helped trigger the impeachment inquiry.
Over the weekend, The Washington Post
reported that "GOP lawmakers and staffers have "repeatedly" used a name purporting to be
that of the whistleblower during the depositions."
There have been a number of recent articles in left-leaning publications accusing
Republicans of playing it fast and loose with the whistleblower's name. That's a problem for
Democrats because once it's known, and his or her connection (I think it's a he) to Schiff is
discovered, the air will start escaping from the repugnant representative's impeachment
balloon. Until it deflates just like the Mueller balloon did.
Republicans need to question the whistleblower under oath. Lindsey Graham, the Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee should subpoena this individual.
One of the attorneys representing the whistleblower, Mark Zaid,
toldThe Daily Beast , "Exposing the identity of the whistleblower and attacking our
client would do nothing to undercut the validity of the complaint's allegations. What it would
do, however, is put that individual and their family at risk of harm.
Well, sorry darlin' – but that's just a risk we'll have to take.
Who
Is Eric Ciaramella? This morning in a comment, Mike Sylwester linked to a blog at American
Thinker that discussed possible "whistleblower" candidates: Who is the
whistleblower? Eric Ciaramella is the third candidate discussed. There's some shocking
material available about Ciaramella, who was a Susan Rice protege and was brought into the
White House by H. R. McMaster, a truly disastrous appointment. Of course I have no idea whether
Ciaramella is Sammy #1. I merely offer here some material re Ciaramella to show what Trump has
been up against throughout his first term. These are excerpts only--the portions that pertain
to Ciaramella--of longer blogs:
Ciaramella was involved in 2016 correspondence about $1 billion loan guarantee which Biden
had held up, pending firing of prosecutor Viktor Shokin. Ciaramella associate of Clintonista
neocon Victoria Nuland, whose name turns up too often, even re Steele https://t.co/vmkWBdjKU5 -- Stephen McIntyre
(@ClimateAudit)
Mc Master Caught Leaking to Make Himself Indespensible
On June 11, Cernovich posted again on Medium.
The Right News has a copy (emphasis mine):
Meet Eric Ciaramella -- H.R. McMaster Appoints Susan Rice Ally to be his Personal Aide
This is an explosive article, excerpted below (emphases in the original):
Ciaramella's ascension is surprising considering pro-Trump sources within the Obama
administration disclosed to me in December, 2016 that Ciaramella's helped draft Susan Rice's
anti-Trump talking points before the Inauguration .
In fall of 2016 as Obama's director for Ukraine on the NSC, Ciaramella was the main force
pushing Trump-Russia conspiracy theories.
Some suspect Ciaramella was one of the original leakers who told the media about classified
conversations Trump had with Russian diplomat Sergei Lavrov . While it's unproven that
Ciaramella leaked that conversation, it is now a fact of life that he will have access to every
conversation Trump has with foreign officials, as part of his official duties for McMaster.
W hen this story first came to me, my question was, "This is a huge personnel move. Why
hasn't Politico run it?"
My sources told me other outlets passed on the story, because, "This isn't the type of
information the mainstream media wants out there ."
Note the second sentence in the third paragraph:
it is now a fact of life that he will have access to every conversation Trump has with
foreign officials, as part of his official duties for McMaster.
Meet Eric
Ciaramella -- H.R. McMaster Appoints Susan Rice Ally to be his Personal
Aide W est Wing officials confirmed to Cernovich Media that Eric Ciaramella, who worked
closely with Susan Rice while at NSC , was recently promoted to be H.R. McMaster's personal
aide. Ciaramella will have unfettered access to McMaster's conversations with foreign leaders .
Ciaramella's ascension is surprising considering pro-Trump sources within the Obama
administration disclosed to me in December, 2016 that Ciaramella's helped draft Susan Rice's
anti-Trump talking points before the Inauguration . In fall of 2016 as Obama's director for
Ukraine on the NSC, Ciaramella was the main force pushing Trump-Russia conspiracy theories.
Some suspect Ciaramella was one of the original leakers who told the media about classified
conversations Trump had with Russian diplomat Sergei Lavrov . While it's unproven that
Ciaramella leaked that conversation, it is now a fact of life that he will have access to every
conversation Trump has with foreign officials, as part of his official duties for McMaster. W
hen this story first came to me, my question was, "This is a huge personnel move. Why hasn't
Politico run it?" My sources told me other outlets passed on the story, because, "This isn't
the type of information the mainstream media wants out there ." Staunchly pro-Ukraine and
anti-Russia, Ciaramella is the media's dream, which explains why this high-profile personnel
move hasn't been covered in any mainstream media outlets. The only result for Ciaramella in
Google News is a 2015 article about a meeting of religious leaders from the Ukraine meeting
with Barack Obama.
EXCLUSIVE: Internet Abuzz – Schiff's Ukrainian Hoax Linked to Members of
Obama's NSC Including Eric Ciaramella and Charles Kupchan https://t.co/xyHFeyPp7U via
@gatewaypundit
From Wikipedia "Alexander Vindman and his twin brother Yevgeny were born to a Jewish family in the Ukrainian SSR , Soviet Union . [3] After the
death of their mother, the three-year-old twins and their older brother Leonid were brought to
New York in December 1979 by their father, Semyon (Simon). They grew up in Brooklyn's "
Little Odessa "
neighborhood" ... Beginning in 2008, Vindman became a Foreign Area Officer specializing in
Eurasia. In this capacity he served in the U.S. embassies in Kyiv , Ukraine , and Moscow , Russia . Returning to Washington, D.C. he was then a
politico-military affairs officer focused on Russia for the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff . Vindman served on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon from September 2015 to
July 2018. [8] In July 2018, Vindman
accepted an assignment with the National Security Council. [9] In his role on the
NSC, Vindman became part of the U.S. delegation at the inauguration of the Ukraine's newly
elected President, Volodymyr Zelensky . The five member
delegation, led by Rick
Perry , United States Secretary of
Energy , also included Kurt Volker , then U.S. Special Representative
for Ukraine Negotiations, Gordon Sondland , United States
Ambassador to the European Union , and Joseph Pennington, then acting chargé d'affaires .
[10][11]
Here is the whistleblower on Trump's Ukraine call . Why is it that no matter what rock you
turn over there is a Jew underneath?
Who Is Alexander Vindman? A Ukrainian Refugee Turned White House Official Testifies in
the Impeachment Inquiry
He fled Ukraine at age 3 and became a soldier, scholar and official at the White House.
That's where, he told impeachment investigators, he witnessed alarming behavior by President
Trump.
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Oct. 29, 2019Updated 12:55 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON -- Alexander S. Vindman and his twin brother, Yevgeny, were 3 years old when
they fled Ukraine with their father and grandmother, Jewish refugees with only their
suitcases and $750, hoping for a better life in the United States
On Tuesday, Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a Director of National Security Affairs at the
National Security Council, testified before Adam Schiff's House Intelligence Committee.
Vindman, a direct witness to the July 25th conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky, is considered the White House's "Ukraine expert." He was so
troubled by the call that he
reported his concerns to the NSC's lead counsel, John A. Eisenberg.
I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S.
citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of
Ukraine. Following the call, I reported my concerns to NSC's lead counsel
I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country,
irrespective of party or politics
For over 20 years as an active-duty United States military officer and diplomat, I have
served this country in a nonpartisan manner, and have done so with the utmost respect and
professionalism for both Republican and Democratic administrations.
There were several troubling aspects to Vindman's testimony. First, according to the New
York Times , after viewing the White House rough transcript of the call, he noticed there
were several omissions. For example, Zelensky had referred to Ukrainian natural gas company
Burisma
, and that name did not appear in the transcript. Burisma, had been under investigation in
2015-2016 by Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. At that time, Vice President Joe
Biden's son, Hunter, served on the company's board. Knowing that Shokin was about to question
his son, Biden famously threatened that he would withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid unless Shokin
was fired. The other major omission was " Trump's
assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
discussing Ukraine corruption."
Vindman testified that he had tried to have those items put back into the call transcript,
but had failed. At first, news that he had tried to tamper with the rough transcript sent off
alarm bells among Republicans. Ultimately, cooler heads prevailed and this issue was said to be
minor.
A lot of verified conservatives I otherwise like, who were salivating over this story last
night, should probably think about not eating out of Schiff's selectively leaking hand next
time. https://t.co/6GyqaQfQuT
The more concerning issue with Vindman's testimony was his admission that he had shared
read-outs of the call with others afterward. You can well imagine that Republican ears
perked up when they heard this. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked Vindman how many others he shared
this information with. At that point, according to Jordan who spoke to reporters following the
hearing, Schiff said, "No, no, no, no, we're not going to let him answer that question."
This is extremely problematic. If Schiff had not stopped the witness from answering the
question, Jordan would have asked who exactly were the individuals he gave this information to.
It's possible that one of them is the whistleblower.
Reporters accused Jordan of trying to find out the name of the whistleblower through the
process of elimination.
So what!
We should know the name of the whistleblower. The so-called "whistleblower" set off a
national firestorm. He doesn't get to remain anonymous.
The fact that Vindman shared the read-outs with others after the call led Fox News '
Catherine Herridge to wonder if he had violated 18 USC 798 .
the federal leaking statute , by doing so.
In the clip below, Herridge explains that presidential phone calls are classified, so if
Vindman shared it with an individual who was not authorized to receive it, he may have
potentially violated the law. In his prepared statement, he indicates he shared it with "a
very small group of properly cleared national security counterparts with a relative need to
know."
It is important for Republicans to find out who these individuals are. It may be that they
are all properly cleared. It may also be that one of them spoke to the whistleblower.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Schiff have handled the impeachment inquiry, that Pelosi says
is not an impeachment inquiry, poorly. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) said that Schiff is trying "to
run a one-sided, Soviet style process that we've never seen before."
Last night, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Sean Hannity. He
said :
I have never in my life seen anything like what happened today, during the testimony of
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.
It was unprecedented. I mean, they've been bad at most of these depositions, but to
interrupt us continually to coach the witness, to decide what we're going to be able to ask
the witness.
And, to see someone coach a witness, this isn't the first time that Schiff -- Schiff is
very good at coaching witnesses.
All I can say is that the American people are watching, and with the exception of the
Democratic base, no one is too impressed.
"... The Kremlin's cultivation operation on TRUMP also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business deals in Russia ..."
"... Honestly, the more that emerges, the more I wonder under what inducements Mueller consented to figurehead this steaming heap of offal. (The rest of the gang at least had the excuse of assuming Clinton would win, but Mueller agrees to step into it, through the tainted subterfuge of Comey's no less, once Trump was already elected.) ..."
"... And then there's Ukraine. I know PL has just stressed the impropriety of a uniformed officer detailed to the NSC doing what he's done -- because he disagrees with the President's policy on Eastern Europe, by his own admission, which includes urging Zelensky to investigate those allied with the Borg in Ukraine for attempting to influence the outcome of the election in favour of Clinton. ..."
"... A shame Trump couldn't just leave the Biden investigation to the professionals, but then maybe he's having trouble trusting his subordinates. Wonder why. ..."
"... Fred -> indus56... , 30 October 2019 at 03:19 PM ..."
"... The "professionals" ensured the Burisma investigation was closed by the prior Ukraine government. By all means cover up corruption at the top of the Obama administration. Kompromat would never happen there. BTW I wonder if Pussy Riot will be joining the band of the same name at their next concert? https://www.infoconcert.com/artiste/kompromat-175468/concerts.html ..."
"... catherine said in reply to indus56... , 30 October 2019 at 04:54 PM ..."
"... Is it normal procedure to edit phone call memos? ..."
"... National security official tells Congress he tried to add edits to White House memo about Trump Ukraine call ..."
"... The proposed edits of the call were to include Trump mentioning possible recordings of Joe Biden discussing corruption in Ukraine and Ukraine's president mentioning the Burisma gas company specifically. ..."
"... Shame on the FBI for many failings in their handling of the Steele report. Of course the Agents responsible for evaluating the report knew that Sater was an informant or asset; but the report reeks of bullshit anyway. ..."
"... "Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively,.." "Trusted compatriot... sources A and B... senior...figure... former...(but) still active..." what does this nonsense even mean? Specifics? To use the word specifics to describe what is being put on offer is a joke. Those specifics wouldn't serve to predicate a FISC wire on Joe Shit the Ragman let alone a candidate for President of the United States. ..."
"... There should have been no action taken on Steele's offerings absent Steele's fully identifying every source cited in his document, the precise circumstances surrounding their receipt of the information, the precise circumstances of Steele's receipt of the information from the so called sources, and either access to the sources themselves or. damn good reason why not. ..."
"... The Agents not pinning this guy down knowing that he was a paid political operative doing Oppo research makes the whole thing truly shocking. It's going to be very telling if and when the files come out that were used to administer the handling not only of Sater but also Steele. ..."
"... ex PFC Chuck , 30 October 2019 at 03:44 PM ..."
"... Although he may be a pariah to some who hang out here, during a recent interview with Joe Rogan Edward Snowden offered some intriguing views of the Borg/Deep State from his experience and perspective. He sees it as a conglomeration of interest groups inside and outside of the government who have interests that sometimes compete and sometimes cooperate. The video is over 2 hours long, and it's almost all Snowden talking and very little of Rogan. ..."
To appreciate the lies and corruption that are the foundation of the conspiracy to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump by the
FBI, the CIA and the DNI, one need only look at how Robert Mueller lied about FBI informants who were targeting the Trump team.
Let us look specifically at Felix Sater. Felix Sater has been a fully signed up Confidential Human Source for the FBI since 1998.
His original plea deal was signed off on by Mueller's deputy, Andrew Weismann. But you would not know any of this if you relied solely
on the Mueller Report.
Here is how Mueller portrays Sater:
In approximately September 2015, Felix Sater, a New York based real estate advisor, contacted Michael Cohen, then-executive vice
president of the Trump Organization and special counsel to Donald J. Trump. Sater had previously worked with the Trump Organization
and advised it on a number of domestic and international projects. Sater had explored the possibility of a Trump Tower project in
Moscow while working with the Trump Organization and therefore knew of the organization's general interest in completing a deal there.
This is fundamentally dishonest. Sater was more than a mere "real estate advisor" who had previously worked with Trump. He was
and is a fully signed up FBI Confidential Human Source. Not my opinion. It is a fact. An excellent article by Newsweek reporter Bill
Powell, Donald Trump Associate Felix Sater Is Linked
to the Mob and the CIA -- What's His Role in the Russia Investigation? , provides an excellent review of Sater's history and
involvement with the FBI. One of the surprising revelations from Powell is that Felix Sater was a childhood friend of Michael Cohen,
Trump's lawyer. Let that sink in for a moment. The FBI informant, Felix Sater, was a long time friend of Cohen.
Sater was playing a role scripted by the FBI and deliberately designed to feed the meme that Trump was dealing with the Russians.
The covert op to paint Trump as a Russian stooge was not left to Sater alone. Christopher Steele, a British spy who was hired
by Fusion GPS, conveniently produced a report insisting that the Russians were working overtime to get Trump in bed with them on
"lucrative real estate deals." The Steele report dated 20 June 2016 makes the following claims:
Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level
Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively, the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting
US Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP for at least 5 years. . . .
In terms of specifics, Source A confided that the Kremlin had been feeding TRUMP and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents,
including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, for several years (see more below). . . .
The Kremlin's cultivation operation on TRUMP also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business
deals in Russia , especially in relation to the ongoing 2018 World Cup soccer tournament. How ever, so far, for reasons unknown,
TRUMP had not taken up any of these.
Pay attention. Who offered Trump the deal in Moscow? FELIX SATER. Was he a Russian agent? No. He was the FBI's Joe.
If the Steele Dossier was true, Trump should have had multiple offers for projects on in Russia, especially Moscow. Steele claims
Putin's people were feeding Trump information and opportunity. So where is the evidence of such activity? There is none. Just Felix
Sater, FBI snitch.
Robert Mueller tried in vain to advance the lie that Trump was doing deals in Moscow. His report states:
In the late summer of 2015, the Trump Organization received a new inquiry about pursuing a Trump Tower project in Moscow. In approximately
September 2015, Felix Sater . . . contacted Cohen (i.e., Michael Cohen) on behalf of I.C. Expert Investment Company (I.C. Expert),
a Russian real-estate development corporation controlled by Andrei Vladimirovich Rozov. Sater had known Rozov since approximately
2007 and, in 2014, had served as an agent on behalf of Rozov during Rozov's purchase of a building in New York City. Sater later
contacted Rozov and proposed that I.C. Expert pursue a Trump Tower Moscow project in which I.C. Expert would license the name and
brand from the Trump Organization but construct the building on its own. Sater worked on the deal with Rozov and another employee
of I.C. Expert. (see page 69 of the Mueller Report).
Who was pushing the project in Moscow? FELIX SATER. Not Michael Cohen and certainly not Donald Trump. Sater was the instigator.
At no time did he testify that he was directed by Trump or anyone else in the Trump organization to reachout to the Russians. And
don't forget what Christopher Steele claimed -- the Russians were in a frenzy supposedly to offer Trump lucrative deals. That was
and is a monumental lie.
Sater was and is an FBI informant. Sater was not just a private entrepreneur looking to make some coin. We know without a doubt
that Sater was a fully signed up FBI informant. Sater's status as an FBI snitch was first exposed in 2012 (you can read the letter
confirming Sater's status as an FBI snitch
here ). Another inconvenient
fact excluded from the Mueller report is that one of Mueller's Chief Prosecutors,
Andrew Weissman,
signed the deal with Felix Sater in December 1998 that put Sater into the FBI Informant business . Sater was used multiple times
in the next decade by the FBI to make cases against Russian spies and mobsters.
How could Robert Mueller neglect to mention this critical fact? This was not the oversight of a senile old man. It was deliberate
obfuscation.
The question that prosecutor Robert Durham needs to ask is who directed Sater to pitch the Trump team in September 2015 to pursue
a deal in Moscow? The answer probably lies in Sater's FD-1023s. A 1023 is a report that an FBI agent must file every time he meets
with a Confidential Human Source. This was an orchestrated attempt to set up Donald Trump as a Russian stooge. But it did not start
in July 2016 as the FBI falsely claims. It started in September 2015. Who authorized this?
Add to the curious terminology used by the guy setting up the Trump Tower meeting with the female lawyer who promised dirt on
Clinton - he described her as the "Crown Prosecutor" for Russia (no such thing)- more likely also on M16's payroll working in
cahoots with Brennan and the CIA?
I'm not sure if LJ is presenting anything new here on Sater, though it's damning enough to merit a refresh. I suppose many reading
this for the second time will, as I do, feel impatient that this has been out there for some time, and nothing official has yet
come of it, from Horowitz or Durham. Perhaps that impatience is fuelled by what appears to be a repeat performance using the same
comic-opera playbill, this time with Ukraine. I recognize that the wheels of justice grind slowly; the Borg can manufacture these
colour-tempests much more quickly, and so continue to control the news cycles (in addition to controlling the news).
Honestly, the more that emerges, the more I wonder under what inducements Mueller consented to figurehead this steaming
heap of offal. (The rest of the gang at least had the excuse of assuming Clinton would win, but Mueller agrees to step into it,
through the tainted subterfuge of Comey's no less, once Trump was already elected.)
Nor is it easy to maintain confidence in Barr through the rumbling over his role in Iran Contra, the family connections with
the CIA, with its attendant opportunities to develop kompromat to hold over the family. Then there's Horowitz's reputation for
playing softball...
And then there's Ukraine. I know PL has just stressed the impropriety of a uniformed officer detailed to the NSC doing
what he's done -- because he disagrees with the President's policy on Eastern Europe, by his own admission, which includes urging
Zelensky to investigate those allied with the Borg in Ukraine for attempting to influence the outcome of the election in favour
of Clinton.
A shame Trump couldn't just leave the Biden investigation to the professionals, but then maybe he's having trouble trusting
his subordinates. Wonder why.
The "professionals" ensured the Burisma investigation was closed by the prior Ukraine government. By all means cover up
corruption at the top of the Obama administration. Kompromat would never happen there. BTW I wonder if Pussy Riot will be joining
the band of the same name at their next concert? https://www.infoconcert.com/artiste/kompromat-175468/concerts.html
National security official tells Congress he tried to add edits to White House memo about Trump Ukraine call
The proposed edits of the call were to include Trump mentioning possible recordings of Joe Biden discussing corruption
in Ukraine and Ukraine's president mentioning the Burisma gas company specifically.
Shame on the FBI for many failings in their handling of the Steele report. Of course the Agents responsible for evaluating
the report knew that Sater was an informant or asset; but the report reeks of bullshit anyway.
"Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top
level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively,.." "Trusted compatriot... sources A and B...
senior...figure... former...(but) still active..." what does this nonsense even mean? Specifics? To use the word specifics to
describe what is being put on offer is a joke. Those specifics wouldn't serve to predicate a FISC wire on Joe Shit the Ragman
let alone a candidate for President of the United States.
There should have been no action taken on Steele's offerings absent Steele's fully identifying every source cited in his
document, the precise circumstances surrounding their receipt of the information, the precise circumstances of Steele's receipt
of the information from the so called sources, and either access to the sources themselves or. damn good reason why not.
The Agents not pinning this guy down knowing that he was a paid political operative doing Oppo research makes the whole
thing truly shocking. It's going to be very telling if and when the files come out that were used to administer the handling not
only of Sater but also Steele.
Although he may be a pariah to some who hang out here, during a recent interview with Joe Rogan Edward Snowden offered some
intriguing views of the Borg/Deep State from his experience and perspective. He sees it as a conglomeration of interest groups
inside and outside of the government who have interests that sometimes compete and sometimes cooperate. The video is over 2 hours
long, and it's almost all Snowden talking and very little of Rogan.
"... As lawmakers examine whether President Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate the Biden family, here are some of the most prominent falsehoods that have spread online and an explanation of what really happened. ..."
"... Interfax-Ukraine ..."
"... The second part is about Trump allegations connecting the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike to the Ukraine. The NYT ..."
"... CrowdStrike's co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch issued a report about a Ukrainian software for artillery targeting. The report falsely claimed that the software was hacked by Russia and that Russia used the coordinates the hacked software allegedly transmitted. ..."
"... Those CrowdStrike allegations were completely false : ..."
"... The debunked CrowdStrike report about the Ukraine demonstrated that the company can not be trusted when it alleges Russian hacking - be it of an Ukrainian artillery app or of the DNC servers. ..."
"... The Ukrainian actions against the Trump campaign are well documented . The Ukrainians even admitted their intervention : ..."
"... The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country's biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election. ..."
"... Mr. Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue with their efforts to prevent a candidate - who recently suggested Russia might keep Crimea, which it annexed two years ago - from reaching the summit of American political power. ..."
"... Trump claimed that China handed over $1.5 billion to Hunter Biden. But the truth is that the state owned Bank of China handed $1.5 billion ( by now $2.1 billion ) to a company that was partially owned by Hunter Biden. The timing of the very unusual deal additionally suggests that it was made for political purposes. ..."
"... The debunking piece fails in all four points it raises. It is itself sowing disinformation about Biden's intervention against Shokin and the Ukrainian meddling in the U.S. election. It fails to mention relevant facts on the two other issues. ..."
"... While Colonel Vindman's concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of whom have already testified, he was in a unique position. Because he emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani , though they typically communicated in English. ..."
The New York Times continues to lie about Joe Biden's involvement in the Ukraine
and about Ukrainian involvement in the U.S. election. Today it also lied about a fact in
relation to Lieutenant Colonel Vindman who was yesterday questioned by the Democrats
'impeachment inquiry'. The NYT reported that very fact just a day ago. During the
hearing Lt.Col. Vindman expressed a rather preposterous view about who should define U.S.
foreign policy.
The NYT claims to debunk falsehoods but spreads more of them:
Debunking 4 Viral Rumors About the Bidens and Ukraine As lawmakers examine whether President Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate the Biden
family, here are some of the most prominent falsehoods that have spread online and an
explanation of what really happened.
Why was Ukraine's top prosecutor fired?
...
A year later, Viktor Shokin became Ukraine's prosecutor general, a job similar to the
attorney general in the United States. He vowed to keep investigating Burisma amid an
international push to root out corruption in Ukraine.
But the investigation went dormant under Mr. Shokin . In the fall of 2015, Joe Biden
joined the chorus of Western officials calling for Mr. Shokin's ouster. The next March, Mr.
Shokin was fired. A subsequent prosecutor cleared Mr. Zlochevsky.
Zlochevsky had hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for at least $50,000 per month. In 2015 Shokin
started to investigate him in two cases. During the fall of 2015 Joe Biden's team begins to
lobby against him. On February 2 Shokin seizes Zlochevsky's houses. Shortly afterwards the
Biden camp goes berserk with Biden himself making nearly daily phonecalls. Shokin goes on
vacation while Poroshenko (falsely) claims that he resigned. When Shokin comes back into
office Biden again takes to the phone. A week later Shokin is out.
Biden got the new prosecutor general he wanted. The new guy made a bit of show and then
closed the case against Zlochevsky.
and:
It is quite astonishing that the false claims, that Shokin did not go after Burisma owner
Zlochevsky, is repeated again and again despite the fact that the public record , in form of a
report by Interfax-Ukraine , contradicts it.
Back to the NYT
'debunking' . The second part is about Trump allegations connecting the cybersecurity
company CrowdStrike to the Ukraine. The NYT is correct to say that Trump's claims in
that direction are mostly confused or false. But it also makes this claim:
CrowdStrike, based in California, is not Ukrainian-owned and does not appear to have any
Ukrainian connections.
CrowdStrike's co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch issued a report about a Ukrainian software
for artillery targeting. The report falsely claimed that the software was hacked by Russia
and that Russia used the coordinates the hacked software allegedly transmitted.
In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian
artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian
separatists.
VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS),
which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces,
disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.
Ukraine's Ministry of Defense also has stated that the combat losses and hacking never
happened.
CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last
year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence.
The debunked CrowdStrike report about the Ukraine demonstrated that the company can
not be trusted when it alleges Russian hacking - be it of an Ukrainian artillery app or of
the DNC servers.
The NYT 'debunking' also claims:
Mr. Trump's own former Homeland Security secretary, Thomas P. Bossert, called the
president's assertion that Ukraine intervened in the 2016 elections on behalf of the
Democrats "not only a conspiracy theory" but "completely debunked."
The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin,
becoming leader of the country's biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's
wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before:
intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election.
... Mr. Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue with their
efforts to prevent a candidate - who recently suggested Russia might keep Crimea, which it
annexed two years ago - from reaching the summit of American political power.
The third claim which the NYT tries to 'debunk' is that the CIA agent who played
the 'whistleblower' against Trump is a political partisan. The debunking fails when the
NYT itself notes the source of the claim:
Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the American intelligence community, found
unspecified indications of "an arguable political bias," suggesting the whistle-blower
favored a rival political candidate, according to a Justice Department memo.
The fourth 'debunking' is about Hunter Biden's business with China:
Critics of Hunter Biden have sought other areas ripe for sowing disinformation. One they
have homed in on is his dealings in China.
...
While the amount of money Hunter Biden made from those deals remains unknown, Mr. Trump has
said that China handed over $1.5 billion to Mr. Biden in a "sweetheart" business deal meant
to win favor with his father.
...
The $1.5 billion figure Mr. Trump has referred to appears to be the amount of money a
Shanghai private-equity company raised in 2014. Hunter Biden joined the board of the
company, BHR Equity Investment Fund Management, in late 2013. In 2017, he bought 10 percent
of the firm, investing the equivalent of $420,000.
The NYT conveniently forgets to mention who is
behind BHR and how the deal was made:
On one of the first days of December 2013, Hunter Biden was jetting across the Pacific
Ocean aboard Air Force Two with his father and daughter Finnegan. ... Vice President Biden,
Hunter Biden and Finnegan arrived to a red carpet and a delegation of Chinese
officials.
...
[Hunter Biden's company] Rosemont Seneca Partners had been negotiating an exclusive deal
with Chinese officials, which they signed approximately 10 days after Hunter visited China
with his father. The most powerful financial institution in China, the government's Bank of
China, was setting up a joint venture with Rosemont Seneca.
...
Rosemont Seneca and the Bank of China created a $1 billion investment fund called Bohai
Harvest RST (BHR), a name that reflected who was involved. Bohai (or Bo Hai), the innermost
gulf of the Yellow Sea, was a reference to the Chinese stake in the company. The "RS"
referred to Rosemont Seneca. The "T" was Thornton.
Trump claimed that China handed over $1.5 billion to Hunter Biden. But the truth is
that the state owned Bank of China handed $1.5 billion (
by now $2.1 billion ) to a company that was partially owned by Hunter Biden. The timing
of the very unusual deal additionally suggests that it was made for political
purposes.
The NYT asserts that Trump was "sowing disinformation' about Hunter Biden's China
relation. Trump often lies but in this case he just simplified the facts.
The debunking piece fails in all four points it raises. It is itself sowing
disinformation about Biden's intervention against Shokin and the Ukrainian meddling in the
U.S. election. It fails to mention relevant facts on the two other issues.
In its zeal to propagandize against the Trump administration the NYT is playing
lose with the facts and is even disregarding its own reporting. Consider this
item from today about media reactions to the Lieutenant Colonel who was yesterday
questioned by the Democrats 'impeachment inquiry':
Jack Posobiec, a well-known figure on the far-right internet, tweeted the falsehood that
Mr. Vindman had been advising the Ukrainian government on how to counter Mr. Trump's
foreign policy goals. Mr. Posobiec cited The New York Times as his source -- in fact, The
Times reported no such thing.
While Colonel Vindman's concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of
whom have already testified, he was in a unique position. Because he emigrated from Ukraine
along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian
officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani , though they
typically communicated in English.
When Rudi Giuliani was trying to get information about Ukrainian involvement in the 2016
election he was undoubtly pursuing the president's foreign policy. Posobiec was right and the
NYT should correct itself.
Lt.Col. Vindman did not like those policies. He in fact believes that U.S. foreign policy
should not be directed by the president.
In his written opening remarks to yesterday's confidential hearing, widely spread to the
media, he
asserts :
In spite of being under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken
major steps towards integrating with the West. The U.S. government policy community's view
is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the promise of reforms to
eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine
to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity.
Given this perspective and my commitment to advancing our government's strategic
interests , I will now recount several events that occurred.
...
When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration's policy on
Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false
narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This
narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy . While my interagency colleagues and I
were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative
undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.
Who the f**k does this NSC minion thinks he is? The President of the United States?
The U.S.
constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly
negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the
administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col.
Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is
the duly elected president who does that.
President Trump and many other people believe that it would be better for the United
States to ally with Russia against an ever growing China than to push Russia and China into
an undefeatable alliances against the United States. Trump often alluded to this during his
campaign. The voters seem to have liked that view.
The U.S. coup in the Ukraine made that policy more difficult to achieve. But within the
big picture the Ukraine is just a bankrupt and corrupt state that has little strategic value
and can be ignored.
One can disagree with that view and with other foreign policy priorities Trump set out and
pursues. I certainly disagree with most of them. But for those who work "at the pleasure of
the President" his views are the guidelines that set the direction of their duties.
The anti-Russian/pro-Ukrainian fanatics in the Borg, to which Lt.Col. Vindman belongs, are
trying to prevent Trump from achieving his large picture vision of U.S. strategic interest
and from defining U.S. foreign policy goals. They want to implement their own polices
independent of what the president thinks or believes.
We have warned that such interference by the Borg, the 'deep state' or 'swamp', is a
danger
to democracy :
If the deep state is allowed to make its own policies against the will of the elected
officials why should we bother with holding elections?
The Democrats are stupid to applaud this and to even further these schemes. They are
likely to regain the presidency in 2024. What will they do when all the Civil Service
functionaries Trump will have installed by then organize to ruin their policies?
It is unfortunate that the above points have to be repeated again and again. But when
powerful media try to sell the lies about the Ukrainian interferences by repeating the same
falsehoods over and over again the truth has only a chance to win when it is likewise spread
repeatedly.
Posted by b on October 30, 2019 at 18:46 UTC |
Permalink Thanks,b. The truth is that the NYT piece is a published blue print for what
the quality media in vassal countries are supposed to communicate. Being German, you know
what I mean. Now, I know what will be presented in all channels tomorrow and I can spare the
time considering that bs. ;-)
No mystery here. As you pointed out already, the NYT first denied the deep state and then
came to love it. There is no going back now, it is a love story for the ages...
All the lies are just part of a neverending media circus, with no real consequences on
anything. Telling the truth about the media circus has exactly the same effect.
And if you look at the NY Times reporter's credit and CV, clicking her name will lead you
there, her job at the NY Times is to "debunk" online disinformation.
But she posted a crap load of fake news here as you note.
Here's Ms Alba's NY Times bio-CV page, note the short first paragraph:
Davey Alba is a technology reporter covering online disinformation and its global
harms.
Before joining The New York Times, Ms. Alba was a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News,
writing about artificial intelligence and the invasive effects of tech in people's lives. In
2019, her feature on how Rodrigo Duterte, president of the Philippines, used Facebook to fuel
the drug war in the country won a Livingston Award for excellence in international reporting.
The article also won a 2019 Mirror Award for best story on journalism in peril.
Ms. Alba has covered tech for the last decade, writing about topics as diverse as
facial recognition's civil rights problems, the industry's practice of using forced
arbitration in employee contracts and sexual harassment in tech. She has written for various
publications, including Wired, Gizmodo and IEEE Spectrum.
She moved to the United States in 2010 after attending De La Salle University in Manila
and has a master's degree in science journalism from Columbia University. She lives in
Brooklyn.
Columbia University School of Journalism embarrasses itself again.
I first heard this idea that Trump is supposed to implement the foreign policy of the
"government policy community" just a few days ago on the PBS Snooze Hour. It was startling to
hear such a blatant admission of the existence of the "Deep State", and that Trump is
supposed to obey it. I wonder who wrote the memo that says its now OK to publicly criticize
Trump for not following the orders of the "government policy community".
Everyone was shocked when Trump won the election, especially Trump and the "government
policy community". He is the proverbial dog that caught the speeding car. It's quaint that
Trump thinks he can make real policy changes. His failures in medical insurance, controlling
the FED, etc. underscore the point that being the leader is useless if underlings don't obey.
The "government policy community" will never follow Trump and it won't stop until Trump is
gone one way or another.
Trump is truly a horrible excuse for a human being, but apparently that is what is
required to successfully rip the facade off the Deep State, however one wants to define it.
Brain-dead Dummycrats will nod and exclaim that of course Trump is supposed to follow policy
established by "knowledgeable experts". But I speculate that this new public attitude of the
stink tank talking heads will enrage Trump supporters.
I'm starting to think that things may get really ugly in the "Home of the Brave and the
Land of the Free".
I don't agree with b that Posobiec's assertion that the NY Times had reported that "Vindman
had been advising the Ukrainian government" was factual just because the Times had reported
that "Ukrainian officials sought advice from [Vindman]".
Surely Ukraine seeking advice is not the same as Vindman actually providing it. It seems
the Times may be accurate in calling Posobiec's statement a "falsehood".
I am not a legal or constitutional scholar, but I ask myself, not for the first time, whether
the media can ever be held to account. One might argue that the criminal justice system could
not function without credible penalties for perjury. Whistleblowers and journalists who bring
the secrets of the powerful to light are increasingly fair game. But the only journalist I
can think of who faced at least mildly negative consequences for her role in the run up to
the Iraq war was Judith Miller, and she managed to have herself carted off on the laughable
hobbyhorse of "protecting" her sources among the murderous architects of that war.
I get that we have wandered back into the arena of "fake news," which has been framed by
the Right against corporate media that they quaintly characterize as "Left", and that the
Oligarchy's concern for it (among the Right) has been a stalking horse for repressing actual
progressive dissent. (A la Propornot.)
But are there simply no legal remedies that might actually serve to improve the quality of
information that we are forced to wade through?
Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who provided key testimony to the Democrats' controversial
impeachment inquiry last week, led an election observation delegation in Ukraine earlier this year for a George
Soros-funded organization that at the time boasted Hunter Biden on its small chairman's council.
Two months before he came out of retirement to serve as the highest ranking U.S. official in Ukraine, Taylor led
an election observer delegation to Ukraine's April 21, 2019 second round presidential election for the National
Democratic Institute (NDI) organization.
The delegation's mission, according to NDI
literature
, was to "accurately and impartially assess various aspects of the election process, and to offer
recommendations to support peaceful, credible elections and public confidence in the process."
Taylor led the team along with former Director of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Office
for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) Audrey Glover and former Minister for European Union
Affairs Birgitta Ohlsson.
Hunter Biden at the time served on NDI's ten person Chairman's Council, which
describes itself
as
bringing together "leaders from corporate, philanthropic, and academia sectors to provide expertise, counsel and
resources to help the Institute meet these evolving challenges."
Biden was engaged in Ukraine in his role as a board member for Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company at the
center of allegations regarding Joe Biden's involvement in Ukraine policy during the Obama administration while his
son was being paid by Burisma.
NDI did not immediately respond to a Breitbart News inquiry about when Hunter Biden was removed from the
organization's chairman's council. The WayBack Internet archive
shows
Biden was
listed on NDI's website in that position until at least August 2019, encompassing the period when Taylor led the
organization's delegation.
Earlier this month, an attorney for Biden
said
the former vice president's son had stepped down from the Burisma board and that he planned to step down
from the board of BHR, a Chinese company seeking to invest Chinese funds outside China.
The NDI is not Taylor's only seemingly conspicuous link. Last week, Breitbart News
reported
that Taylor has evidenced a close relationship with the Atlantic Council think tank, writing Ukraine
policy pieces with the organization's director and analysis articles published by the Council. The Atlantic
Council is
funded
by
and works in partnership with Burisma.
In addition to a direct relationship with the Atlantic Council, Taylor for the last nine years also served as a
senior adviser to the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), which has
co-hosted
events
with the Atlantic Council and has participated in events co-hosted
jointly
by
the Atlantic Council and Burisma. USUBC events have been financially sponsored by Burisma.
Another senior
adviser
to
the USUBC is David J. Kramer, a long-time adviser to late Senator John McCain. Kramer played a central role in
disseminating the anti-Trump dossier to the news media and Obama administration.
Taylor participated in events and initiatives organized by Kramer.
The links may be particularly instructive after Breitbart News
reported
that
itinerary for a trip to Ukraine in August organized by the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council for ten Congressional
aides reveals that a staffer on Rep. Adam Schiff's House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held a meeting
during the trip with Taylor. The pre-planned trip took place after the so-called whistleblower officially filed his
August 12 complaint and
reportedly
after
a Schiff aide was contacted by the so-called whistleblower.
Common funding themes
Meanwhile, NDI, where Taylor led the election observation delegation,
lists
partners and sponsors who "provide much-needed resources," including Soros's Open Society Foundation, Google Inc.,
the National Endowment for Democracy, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S.
Department of State.
Besides Burisma funding, the Atlantic Council is also financed by Soros's Open Society Foundations, Google, and
the U.S. State Department. Another Atlantic Council funder is the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.,
Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund, and an agency of the State Department each also
finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in
the so-called whistleblower's complaint alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference
from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential race.
The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the so-called whistleblower's document and released by the Google
and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public
precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower's own claims, as Breitbart News
documented
.
One key section of the so-called whistleblower's document claims that "multiple U.S. officials told me that Mr.
Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff
Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov."
This was allegedly to follow up on Trump's call with Zelensky in order to discuss the "cases" mentioned in that
call, according to the so-called whistleblower's narrative. The complainer was clearly referencing Trump's request
for Ukraine to investigate the Biden corruption allegations.
Even though the statement was written in first person – "multiple U.S. officials told me" – it contains a footnote
referencing a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
That footnote reads:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22 July, two associates
of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser,
Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
The so-called whistleblower's account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three more occasions. It does
so to:
Write that Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko "also stated that he wished to communicate directly
with Attorney General Barr on these matters."
Document that Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani "had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a
Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani."
Bolster the charge that, "I also learned from a U.S. official that 'associates' of Mr. Giuliani were trying to
make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team." The so-called whistleblower then relates in another footnote, "I
do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by
OCCRP, referenced above."
The OCCRP
report
repeatedly
referenced is actually a "joint investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and
BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and business records in the United States and Ukraine."
BuzzFeed infamously also first
published
the
full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia. The
dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and was produced by the
Fusion GPS opposition dirt outfit.
The OCCRP and BuzzFeed "joint investigation" resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed publishing similar lengthy pieces
on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump's political
rivals.
The so-called whistleblower's document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP and does not reference
BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia collusion claims.
Taylor, Atlantic Council, Kramer
Multiple U.S. media outlets last week
obtained
Taylor's
full opening statement to the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees.
In the leaked pre-written full opening statement, Taylor alluded to work he said he did for a "small Ukrainian
non- governmental organization" but he omitted the name of the organization.
"In the intervening 10 years, I have stayed engaged with Ukraine, visiting frequently since 2013 as a board member
of a small Ukrainian non- governmental organization supporting good governance and reform," he said.
The name of the organization is the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), where Taylor served for nine years as
senior advisor. The USUBC has co-hosted or participated in scores of events with the Atlantic Council. Taylor has
also authored numerous analysis pieces published by the Atlantic Council itself and has co-authored opeds written
together with the Atlantic Council's director.
Burisma is a key financial backer of the Atlantic Council. In 2017, Burisma and the Atlantic Council
signed
a
cooperative agreement to develop transatlantic programs with Burisma's financial support reportedly to focus "on
European and international energy security." Burisma specifically finances the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Besides funding the Atlantic Council, Burisma also routinely partners with the think tank. Only four months ago,
the company
co-hosted
the
Atlantic Council's second Annual Kharkiv Security Conference. Burisma
advertises
that
it committed itself to "15 key principles of rule of law and economic policy in Ukraine developed by the Atlantic
Council."
In March, three months before he became Trump's ambassador to Ukraine, the Atlantic Council
featured
an
oped co-authored by Taylor in which the diplomat argued Ukraine "has further to travel toward its self-proclaimed
European goal" of reformation.
In 2017, Taylor wrote a
piece
for
the Atlantic Council about a Ukrainian parliament vote on health care reform.
Last year, he
participated
in
an online Atlantic Council Q & A on the Crimea.
In November 2011, the Atlantic Council
hosted
Taylor
as the featured speaker at a discussion event when he was appointed that year as Special Coordinator for Middle East
Transitions at the State Department.
In March 2014, Taylor co-authored an analysis piece at Foreign Policy
magazine
written
together with John E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who serves as director of the Eurasia Center for
the Atlantic council – the same Eurasia Center that is specifically funded by Burisma.
That same year, Taylor also co-authored a
New York Times
op-ed
with
the Atlantic Council's Herbst on Ukraine. The duo co-authored another
Times
op-ed
one
year later on the future of Ukraine. The op-ed was
reprinted
on
the USUBC's website.
The USUBC, where Taylor was a senior adviser for nine years along with Kramer, has
hosted
Herbst
for briefings and other events.
Kramer of the USUBC, infamous for his role in disseminating the anti-Trump dossier, also held a November 2011
event
at
the Atlantic Council's D.C. offices for a group that he heads called Freedom House. Taylor was one of six featured
speakers at Kramer's event.
The Atlantic Council published what it deemed a
24-point
plan
for ending the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. In conjunction with the plan, Kramer, in his role as
director of Freedom House, organized a letter by American and European experts and former officials urging Russia to
end its conflict with Ukraine. Signatories of the letter,
published
on
the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council's website, include Taylor, Kramer and the Atlantic Council's Herbst.
As late as this past March, Taylor was
listed
as
one of nine members of the Friends of Ukraine Network Economic Security Task Force. Another member is Kramer.
When he deployed to Ukraine as Trump's ambassador in June, the USUBC
authored
a
piece in the Kyiv Post welcoming him.
In the USUBC
piece
welcoming
Taylor to Ukraine, Kramer himself commented about Taylor's ambassador position. "He's a great choice for now," Kramer
gushed.
The USUBC's piece noted that the "USUBC has worked closely with Ambassador Taylor for many years," touting his
role as the business group's senior adviser.
On June 26, just nine days after arriving in Ukraine as ambassador, the USUBC already
hosted
Taylor
for a roundtable discussion about his new position.
Vadym Pozharskyi, adviser to the board of directors at Burisma Holdings, was also previously
hosted
as
a USUBC featured speaker.
Geysha Gonzalez is the sponsoring Atlantic Council officer listed on the Congressional disclosure form for the
Schiff staffer's trip to Ukraine in August. She is deputy director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Gonzalez is also one of eleven members of the rapid response
team
for
the Ukrainian Election Task Force, which says it is working to expose "foreign interference in Ukraine's democracy."
Another
member
of
the team is Kramer.
Kramer revealed in testimony that he held a meeting about the anti-Trump dossier with a reporter from BuzzFeed
News, who he says snapped photos of the controversial document without Kramer's permission when he left the room to
go to the bathroom. That meeting was held at the McCain Institute office in Washington, Kramer stated.
BuzzFeed infamously
published
the
Christopher Steele dossier on January 10, 2017, setting off a firestorm of news media coverage about the document.
The Washington Post
reported
last
February that Kramer received the dossier directly from Fusion GPS after McCain expressed interest in it.
In a deposition taken on December 13, 2017, and
posted
online
earlier this year, Kramer revealed that he met with two Obama administration officials to inquire about
whether the anti-Trump dossier was being taken seriously.
In one case, Kramer said that he personally provided a copy of the dossier to Obama National Security Council
official Celeste Wallander.
In the deposition, Kramer said that McCain specifically asked him in early December 2016 to meet about the dossier
with Wallander and Victoria Nuland, a senior official in John Kerry's State Department.
Taylor testimony and Burisma
In his testimony to the Democrats secretive impeachment inquiry, Taylor said that he "understood" from U.S.
Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland that a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky "was dependent on a public announcement of the investigations." Taylor was referring to the announcement of
an investigation that included Burisma, as well as alleged Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Taylor's testimony was
characterized
by
CNN as "explosive" and was similarly hyped by other news media outlets despite it not being unusual for the U.S. to
condition aspects of relations on participation in ongoing American investigations involving the foreign country in
question.
Still, Taylor conceded that there was no quid pro quo.
"Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although
this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not 'clear things up' in public, we could be at a 'stalemate.'
I understood 'stalemate to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance," Taylor
testified.
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau
chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk
radio program, "
Aaron
Klein Investigative Radio
." Follow him on
Twitter
@AaronKleinShow.
Follow him on
Facebook.
Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.
On Thursday Nancy Pelosi held a vote to
reaffirm her impeachment inquisitiveness. It was theater; everyone knows the
hyper-politicized Democratic House will impeach. It's a weak case, but that doesn't matter. A
partisan Senate (who will also see a weak case but that doesn't matter) won't convict. America
will leave a steaming mound of democracy aside the road and reflect forever which side stepped
in it after we're done arguing who won in November 2020.
We'll have forgotten by then about the evidence, so it's worth a look while still fresh.
Absent any really big surprises, we know the narrative now.
Forget the whistleblower. He had no first hand knowledge of a "high crime and misdemeanor,"
just an opinion about a phone call he wasn't party to. Yet even after DOJ ruled the
whistleblower revealed
no criminal act, Nancy Pelosi
announced an impeachment inquiry.
Trump then released the memorandum of conversation between himself and Ukrainian president
Zelensky. This is the U.S. government's record of what was said and as such will form near 100
percent of what Dems will use to impeach. After all, it is the only primary document in the
case. Yet despite its short length, some five
pages , many people want to characterize what it says instead of just reading the thing. So
follow
along if you like.
Advertisement
The call was a routine congratulatory message to Zelensky on his election, diplomatic chit
chat. We're on page three before the first bit of possible significance comes. Here it is in
its entirety:
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been
through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened
with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike I guess you have one of your
wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on,
the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I
would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get
to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor
performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance. But they say a lot of
it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's
possible.
Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and
that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that the way they shut your very good
prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected
man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I
will ask him to call you along with the Attorney·General. Rudy very much knows what's
happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The
former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was
dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other
thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot
of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would
be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into
it It sounds horrible to me.
To impeach, one must conclude from the text above that a) Trump asking for information,
however far-fetched, on possible foreign interference in the 2016 election was wrong (and then
explain why the Dems conducted a three year investigation of the same); b) Trump asking for an
investigation into whether then-Vice President and perhaps soon President Biden used his office
for personal gain is of no interest to the people of the United States, even if that same
information were also of interest to Trump (and account for Dems asking in 2018 the Ukraine to
cooperate to dig up dirt on Trump, and allowing that a Ukrainian investigation would
supposedly exonerate Biden); c) that Trump made clear to Zelensky aid was contingent on these
investigations and; d) explain why the aid paid out soon after the call without any
investigation.
The base problem is Trump never said he was withholding aid in the July 25 call. The
earliest tick the Ukrainians knew the aid was being delayed was "early August" and even that is
based on anonymous
media sources who somehow have not been found to testify. Official U.S. and
Ukrainian officials instead say knowledge the funds were held up didn't get to the Ukrainians
until late August, shortly before they were released.
Monday brought the news that Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman planned to
tell impeachment investigators Wednesday that the July 25 transcript given to Congress
omitted Trump's appeals to Zelensky to investigate Biden. He was reportedly on the call, had
twice "registered internal objections about how Mr. Trump and his inner circle were treating
Ukraine, out of what he called a 'sense of duty,'" according
to a New York Times report.
Such omissions (if they are real and there is no evidence besides Vindman's own statement)
add or detract nothing from the core questions at the heart of this impeachment: did Trump
withhold aid in return for a Ukrainian investigation, and was seeking such an investigation
solely a personal political goal or something of interest to the United States?
It is important to go back to what we do know, that the aid was ultimately delivered, and
that correlation is not causation. This was the big gap in Russiagate; because A happened
before B, Democrats rushed to claim A caused B, and thus collusion!
That leads to a second base problem. Nothing happened. Trump
never asked the attorney general to contact Zelensky. It is unclear who if anyone Guiliani
spoke with, but either way the Ukrainians never investigated anything. This impeachment will be
the first in American history without any underlying actual crime taking place on the ground.
Democrats seek to impeach Trump for talking about something, and never doing something, that
itself may not be a real offense anyway. If you hear echoes of Russiagate, obstructing
something that wasn't actually obstructed, you have sharp ears.
When you have a smoking gun you usually don't need to keep searching for evidence. Knowing
the weakness in their case, it is telling Dems are engaged in a process of finding someone to
claim Trump's policy was to (not) withhold aid to force the Ukraine to do something they never
did.
They tried Ambassador Gordon Sondland, who stated, under oath and in a leaked text from the
time of the original call, there was no such quid pro quo.
The Dems then produced a series of angry people to testify they had been sidelined out of
the decision making process and thus knew very little first hand. The noisiest witness,
Ambassador William Taylor, made it clear
he was cut out of the White House's back channel for Ukrainian policy, and only knew what
insiders told him second hand. His other knowledge of the supposed quid pro quo came when he
heard "a [unnamed] staff person from the Office of Management and Budget say that there was a
hold on security assistance to Ukraine but could not say why. Toward the end of an otherwise
normal meeting, a voice on the call -- the [unnamed] person was off-screen -- said that she was
from OMB and that her boss had instructed her not to approve any additional spending of
security assistance for Ukraine until further notice."
Taylor went on even to impeach himself a little, admitting he had no evidence aid was
connected to investigation. He testified
National Security Council Senior Director Fiona Hill and NSC Director of European Affairs Alex
Vindman "reassured me that they were not aware of any official change in U.S. policy toward
Ukraine, OMB's announcement notwithstanding."
Taylor never spoke to the president or to the secretary of state. Despite his title Taylor
was not a player. His testimony was just his opinion. Deep Throat that is not.
What else? The media found a way to word-trick Ambassador Sondland's attorney into saying
what his client described in testimony "amounted to" a quid pro quo, possibly thinking they
could use a client's own lawyer's
re-characterization of testimony to impeach.
Again, there are no documents or policy papers to support the claim the policy was aid for
investigation.
A slam dunk currently rests on John Bolton, a life-long conservative nearing the end of his
public life. They hope he will testify such that the last lines of his biography will be "the
man who more than any other individual helped elect Elizabeth Warren." Sorry, Bolton, like
Flynn, Manafort, and Cohen, is not your Fredo.
Unlike with Nixon and Clinton, the House is not building on an existing law enforcement
investigation. That was supposed to be Mueller. Instead, the "investigation" is jerry-rigged in
real-time consisting of a stage-managed parade of credentialed hostile witnesses interpreting
what Trump said. It is like a room full of critics impeaching Bob Dylan out of the Hall of Fame
by telling us what his lyrics really mean to him. Opinions are not evidence.
He's filed an ethics complaint after the Star Chamber leader, House Intel Committee Chair
Adam Schiff (D-CA). Normally, actual impeachment proceedings would proceed out of the Judiciary
Committee, which would have been under that Chair, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). But Pelosi
delegated it to Schiff instead, another break from precedent and proper procedure.
Gaetz's complaint alleges that Schiff's handling of the proceedings has been full of
unethical actions, including
"distorting @POTUS 's call with President Zelensky, lying to the public about 'Russian
collusion', and blocking members of Congress from attending impeachment depositions,"
according to Townhall.
"Nancy Pelosi's impeachment resolution gives unprecedented power to the Intelligence
Committee Chairman, Adam Schiff," Gaetz told reporters ahead of filing his complaint. "That's
deeply troubling to me for a few reasons. First, Adam Schiff has proven in this process that
he cannot adhere to the fundamental principles of fairness. Second, and I would say most
important for my work today, is that Adam Schiff has violated the ethical rules of the House
of Representatives."
Gaetz point out how Schiff had deceived the public about what was said on the Trump phone
call with Ukraine's President Zelensky, making up things that were not in fact said and
claiming Trump's words were "'like a classic organized crime shakedown'" on the call. Gaetz
also referenced the lie that Schiff told about the Russia investigation claiming that there was
"more than circumstantial evidence" that Trump had colluded with Russia.
Additionally, Gaetz noted
rules Schiff was in violation of including, "A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner
may not be excluded from nonparticipatory attendance at a hearing of a committee or
subcommittee [ ] unless the House by majority vote authorizes a particular committee or
subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of hearings on a particular article of
legislation or on a particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to Members,
Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner by the same procedures specified in this subparagraph
for closing hearings to the public."
Holding a closed hearing for impeachment hearings that do not contain classified information
or have any specific reason to be closed is outrageous.
Schiff also didn't tell the truth about prior contacts that he and his aide had had with the
Ukraine whistleblower. On that basis alone, he really should recuse himself from the
matter.
Gaetz's filing comes the day after a big dust-up when Schiff intervened during a hearing and
wouldn't let Republicans ask questions of Lt. Col Alexander Vindman. Schiff stopped Rep. Jim
Jordan (R-OH) from asking Vindman who he had spoken to about the matter. According to Jordan,
Schiff said, "No, no, no, we're not going to let him answer that question," as though he were
Vindman's lawyer and not the head of a committee which is supposed to be impartial and getting
at the truth.
Rep. Steve Scalise told
Fox News that Pelosi needed to declare a "mistrial."
"This has been a tainted process from the start. What happened today confirms even worse
just how poorly Adam Schiff is handling this process, denying the ability for Republicans to
even ask basic questions that are critical to the heart of whether or not a President of the
United States is impeached."
The impeachment inquiry Democrats launched last month may ultimately hinge on a simple
question: Did President Trump try to force a foreign power (or powers) to help him take down a
political opponent, Joe Biden?
But the backdrop of their effort is far more complex and convoluted, connected not just to
Trump's phone call with the president of Ukraine and related evidence but the three-year war of
attrition the Democrats have waged against the president. Their main instrument was the
Trump-Russia collusion story that roiled the capital until Special Counsel Robert Mueller
pronounced it unfounded. Now they have moved on to one or more "whistleblower" complaints
from within the intelligence community .
Given all the focus on nefarious Russia, you could be forgiven for missing the fact that
Ukraine was always at the center of the Trump-Russia affair.
Viewed in this light, the Trump-Ukraine quid pro quo bribery narrative must compete with
another explanation: Trump's determination to get to the bottom of an underhanded years-long
campaign arrayed against him. One of the first things he did after the Mueller report debunked
the collusion narrative was to call the Ukranian president and ask him to help do just
that.
The impeachment battle is not just about congressional probes and alleged presidential
strong-arming, but about the Russiagate narrative. Anti-Trump forces in the government and
media are working to vindicate their previous efforts and discredit a forthcoming Justice
Department inquiry into the origins of Russiagate by again connecting Trump and a foreign power
to a U.S. election.
I've covered the Trump-Russia story for three years. Even before these operations emerged
publicly after Trump's 2016 victory, I doubted the pre-election whisper campaign circulating
throughout the Washington press corps that held Trump was clandestinely cooperating with
Moscow.
First, the idea that Trump had for many years been a Russian ally, even an agent, was hard
to believe given that there had been no mention of this during a long career lived entirely in
the spotlight. I was especially skeptical of this claim because Trump's business concerns were
based largely in the most media-saturated city in the world, and because they involved
industries – especially real estate and casinos – that attract the attention of
legal authorities.
Family matters: Joe Biden, right, and his son Hunter at a commemoraton
for the Vice President's late son late Beau. AP Photo/Visar Kryeziu
Second, candidate Trump's proposed policies toward Russia were similar to those of the Obama
administration – and would prove tougher after he was elected – making it hard to
see how he was secretly beholden to Moscow.
I was not surprised when the special counsel concluded the story was false. Neither was it
surprising, given the amount of money, time, and prestige spent on pushing collusion, to see
Russiagate rebooted two weeks ago in the form of a whistleblower's complaint.
So far the basic facts are these: An active, and unnamed, CIA officer alleged that Trump had
sought information from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky regarding Biden's involvement in
a Ukrainian prosecution possibly involving his son Hunter. In exchange for information that,
according to the CIA officer, would assist Trump's 2020 re-election, the president would
release military aid to Ukraine.
Although the details are different – no mention this time of hookers and golden
showers – the whistleblower's central claim closely resembles the thesis laid out in the
anti-Trump dossier compiled by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele,
which the FBI used as its roadmap to collusion: That Trump took or solicited dirt on his
Democratic opponent from a foreign power in exchange for favors to that country's
government.
Once again, much of the media seem to be treating every allegation against Trump as probable
fact, while dismissing any questions and concerns as conspiracy theories.
Attorney General
William Barr and President Trump: "Our country has been through a lot," Trump told President
Zelensky. "They say a lot of it started with Ukraine." AP Photo/Alex Brandon
Although the whistleblower complaint seems to have emerged quickly, it must be viewed in
context of the long war against Trump and its numerous elements tied to Ukraine.
Recent interviews with senior sources on Capitol Hill and newly acquired documents show that
Ukraine was and continues to be central to the effort to take down Trump.
That's why Trump's most urgent request of the Ukrainian president was to assist Attorney
General William Barr in his investigation of the origins of the FBI's Trump-Russia probe.
"Our country has been through a lot," Trump told President Zelensky. "They say a lot of it
started with Ukraine."
This assertion was not wrong. And yet for all of the foreigners, including Ukrainians, who
played roles in Russiagate, this is a story about Americans with the sort of scruples,
ambitions, and labyrinthine connections found in a Dostoevsky novel.
Origins of Clinton-Tied Ukraine Dirt-Digging
It is significant, in this time of separate left and right media echo chambers, that an
early account of Hillary Clinton campaign efforts to dig up dirt on Team Trump using Ukraine
didn't originate on the right: It was a Politico
report by Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern. (A repeat seems unlikely now: Vogel's current
employer, the New York Times, has dismissed Trump's claims about Ukraine's role in Russiagate
as part of a right-wing conspiracy theory.)
The Ukraine story starts no later than March 2016, when Democratic Party operative and
Ukrainian-American activist Alexandra Chalupa approached the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington
for information on the Trump campaign.
As John Solomon of The Hill newspaper wrote in May, Chalupa asked Ukrainian diplomats for
"evidence that Trump, his organization and [campaign manager Paul] Manafort were Russian
assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with Putin against the U.S. interests."
Chalupa emailed Democratic National Committee officials that she was briefing U.S. media on
Manafort's work in Ukraine. One of the journalists was Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News, who would
later publish one of the key stories advancing the collusion narrative.
Ukraine's ambassador to Washington
told Solomon that Chalupa wanted to approach a member of Congress to initiate hearings on
Manafort or arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort's alleged
Kremlin ties during a visit to Washington.
Keep that in mind when Democrats and their media allies routinely suggest it is treasonous
to seek foreign aid during an election.
As Chalupa was pursuing these channels, the Clinton campaign stepped up its efforts to find
foreign dirt on Trump by hiring the Washington, D.C., firm Fusion GPS that March to compile and
distribute opposition research on Trump. One of the company's co-founders, Glenn Simpson, was a
former Wall Street Journal reporter who had written several articles about Manafort's work for
former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
In a 2007 article, Simpson wrote that Yanukovych "favors closer ties with [Russian President
Vladimir] Putin's administration."
That view would inform much of the operation to come. It would use Manafort's close ties to
Yanukovych as the kernel of truth from which grew the vast Russiagate conspiracy.
From one of at least two dossiers on Paul Manafort
and Ukraine circulated by Fusion GPS.
One is an eight-page document titled "Paul Manafort – Ukraine and Lichtenstein," the
other is nine pages, titled "UPDATE – Paul Manafort." Links to Ukrainian- and
Russian-language Internet portals show that the research was compiled by someone who knew the
languages. In October 2015, Fusion GPS had brought on former Russian history professor Nellie
Ohr for Trump-Russia research. Ohr's husband, top Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr,
would later help spread Clinton-financed opposition research to the federal government, helping
prompt the Trump/Russia collusion probe.
The documents reference flight records, travel documents, and business agreements while
noting Manafort's relationships with several Ukrainian officials, including Yanukovych's chief
of staff, and oligarchs such as Clinton Foundation donor Victor Pinchuk, described as a
"Yanukovych booster."
Without evidence, one of the dossiers alleges that "the Russian government played a leading
role in promoting the Yanukovych presidency and Manafort worked closely with several Russians
during his time in Ukraine."
The other makes the speculative, if ominious-sounding, claim that "Manafort's newfound role
as campaign manager to Trump could offer Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin a new way to
exert influence on Trump."
Driving the Manafort-Yanukovych Narrative
Even as Clinton operatives sought the help of Ukrainian officials, they and their allies in
the press routinely mischaracterized Yanukovych as pro-Putin, advancing the Russia collusion
narrative.
Biden at a Kyiv memorial to protesters, 2014: Later his son Hunter was hired by an ally of the just-exiled
President, questionably tarred by Clinton operatives as a Putin stooge.
Ukraine is a buffer state, caught between European neighbors to the west and Russia to the
east. Its challenge is to balance the two against each other. Failure to do so is apt to lead
to conflict, such as the present war between the Kyiv government and Russian-backed separatists
in eastern Ukraine.
After Yanukovych became president in 2010, Manafort recommended that he draw closer to the
European Union with a trade deal. Putin saw that as a threat, and gave Yanukovych a choice
between crippling economic measures and a $15 billion aid package.
Ultimately, Yanukovych rejected Manafort's advice, bowing to Putin in late 2013, touching
off protests in the Ukrainian capital that led to deadly violence.
That turmoil started a new chapter in U.S.-Ukraine relations as the Obama White House made
then Vice President Joe Biden the point man on the issue.
Biden had known Yanukovych since
2009 and spoke with him frequently during the crisis.
The Obama administration, however, had little confidence in Yanukovych. State Department
officials on the ground the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, including Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland scrambled to piece together a coalition
government. Yanukovych fled his country for sanctuary in Russia in February 2014, just days
after his final phone call with Biden, when government snipers killed at least 88 protesters in
the capital.
In April 2014, Biden traveled to Kyiv with a small economic aid package, and warned the
Ukrainians to rein in corruption. A month later, his son Hunter was named to the board of
Burisma, one of Ukraine's largest independent energy companies. Although he had no experience
in the energy sector, Hunter was paid as
much as $50,000 a month for his services.
Here's where the politics get even more interesting. Burisma's owner was not a reformer, but
an
ally of the just-exiled Yanukovych, having served as his minister of natural resources.
Despite the Biden family's financial relationship with the Yanukovych circle, Clinton
operatives painted Manafort's association with Yanukovych as evidence of the Trump campaign's
pro-Putin sentiments.
In a three-day period at the end of April 2016, for instance, Slate, the
Washington Post and
Guardian all published articles alleging that Manafort's work for Yanukovych showed the
Trump team was close to Russia.
This is another reminder of the double-standard that has driven so much media coverage: the
eagerness to buy Clinton's spin on Manafort and then connect Trump to it all while dismissing
Biden's clear conflicts.
Clinton Operative Alleges a Ukrainian-Related Quid Pro Quo
Indeed, Manafort's relationship with Yanukovych became a keystone of the Trump-Russia
narrative. A July 18, 2016 Washington Post
article , for example, cited it before reporting new "evidence" that the campaign was
cozying up to Putin.
Paul Manafort, right, behind Ivanka Trump during a rehearsal at the
Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Next to the future President is Manafort's chief
deputy, Rick Gates, later indicted along with his boss.
Trump staffers, according to the article, "stripped out" the Republican National Convention
platform's call for giving Ukraine "lethal defensive weapons."
That was inaccurate
. One GOP delegate proposed an amendment calling for giving lethal aid to Ukraine. The
amendment was toned down by a Trump adviser, changing it to "appropriate assistance." The
result was that the amendment was softened but the platform's position on Ukraine was
strengthened. In office, the Trump administration, unlike Obama's, sent weapons to Kyiv.
That Post story illustrates the success of the Clinton operation in convincing many media
outlets and government agencies to interpret – and misinterpret – the Trump
campaign through the lens of Russian collusion. This, in turn, erased skepticism they should
have had in assessing the charges leveled for Clinton through Christopher Steele and Fusion
GPS.
In a July memo written after the DNC emails had been leaked during the Democrats'
convention, Steele alleged that the operation – the hack and the release of the emails
– had been orchestrated by the Russians. Then he claimed Moscow had done it with the full
knowledge of the Trump campaign. Manafort, Steele falsely claimed, was managing the
"well-developed conspiracy" for the Trump side.
Further, Steele claimed, in exchange for the DNC hack and subsequent publication of the
emails by WikiLeaks, the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a
campaign issue. This was the Clinton campaign's first allegation of a Ukraine-related quid pro
quo. This was also false.
As Clinton operatives used Ukraine to falsely smear Trump, Manafort's ties to that country
threw the Trump campaign into disarray. On Aug. 19, 2016, Manafort resigned as campaign manager
following what the New York Times and others described as a wave of stories about his "dealings
with Russia-aligned leaders." The Times pushed the larger collusion narrative being spun by
Clinton, reporting that the Manafort dismissal "threw a spotlight on a glaring vulnerability
for Mr. Trump: his admiration for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia."
The Times story also referenced its earlier article reporting that Manafort received illegal
cash payments for his Ukraine work. Manafort denied it.
One source for the Times story was former Ukrainian parliamentarian Serhiy Leshchenko, also
referred to in the whistleblower complaint. According to former Fusion GPS contractor Nellie
Ohr ,
Leshchenko was a source for Fusion GPS as well.
Two years later, in August 2018, Manafort pleaded guilty to tax and bank fraud connected to
his work in the Ukraine undertaken years before he joined the Trump campaign.
The Steele-Isikoff Nexus
With Manafort driven from the campaign just two months before the election, Clinton
operatives and the FBI zeroed in on another Trump adviser, Carter Page. Once again an alleged
Ukraine quid pro quo was at the center of it.
In July, Steele had alleged that Page was one of Manafort's "intermediaries" in the
"well-developed conspiracy" between Trump and Russia. The former British spy's second-hand
sources claimed that Page had met secretly with a Russian energy executive.
The executive, according to Steele, raised with Page the prospect of U.S.-Russia energy
cooperation in exchange for dropping sanctions imposed on Russia in 2014 for invading
Ukraine.
This second Ukraine-related quid pro quo was the subject of Michael Isikoff's Sept. 23 Yahoo
News article, based on information from Steele, whom Isikoff describes as an anonymous "Western
intelligence source."
A few weeks later, Steele revised his reporting on Page's meeting for a memo dated Oct. 18.
The British spy's unnamed sources changed their story, contending that the Trump adviser had
been offered a bribe if he convinced Trump to drop Ukraine-related sanctions. In a sign of how
deeply the media and FBI had accepted the Russiagate hoax, no one seemed to question that
laughably large amount of this alleged bribe – a brokerage fee on a sale of 19% of the
Russian oil giant Rosneft, which would have been worth at least tens of millions of
dollars.
On Oct. 21, the FBI obtained a warrant to spy on Page. The still heavily redacted warrant
shows that Steele's account of Page's meeting with the Russian energy executive to discuss
Ukraine sanctions was a key piece of evidence.
As supporting evidence, the bureau used Isikoff's article and two other Ukraine-related news
reports. One was the July Washington Post story alleging that the Trump campaign had weakened
the party's convention platform. The second article claimed that Trump had softened his support
for Ukraine after Page and Manafort joined the campaign.
This is one reason many consider the Steele dossier to be one of the least credible and most
successful pieces of opposition research in U.S. history.
Allegations Tie Up Incoming Trump Team
John Brennan: "High confidence" Putin had
developed a preference for Trump because of his "Russia-friendly positions" on Ukraine. AP
Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
Even as Clinton tied Trump to Russia and blamed both for hacks of the DNC servers, the Obama
administration downplayed Russian interference in the 2016 election so as not to taint
Clinton's widely expected victory. After Trump won, Obama retaliated. In late December, he
expelled Russian diplomats, closed their diplomatic facilities, and sanctioned Russia's
military intelligence service (GRU) and four of its senior officers.
A document released the following week showed why the administration had targeted the GRU.
According to the January 2017 intelligence community assessment of Russia's interference in the
2016 elections, the GRU was behind the DNC hack.
Further, then-CIA director John Brennan's handpicked teams of analysts assessed with "high
confidence" that Putin had developed a preference for Trump because of his "Russia-friendly
positions" on Ukraine.
Days later, Steele's reports were made public. According to his sources, the DNC hack was
part of a quid pro quo regarding Ukraine.
Now the connections between Trump and the Russians were lit up like a string of holiday
lights -- Obama had sanctioned the GRU because of the DNC hack, which the Russians engineered
on behalf of the Trump campaign in exchange for sidelining Ukraine as a campaign
issue.
Robert Mueller, testifying. His report made no mention of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson,
or Alexandra Chalupa. It discussed Ukraine only in relation to Manafort and Gates.
The operation continued to unfold as the FBI and DoJ pursued their counterintelligence probe
of Trump and associates, eventually leading to Mueller's appointment as special counsel.
Mueller's probe focused almost entirely on Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election
and its possible connections to Trump. He and his team displayed no interest in exploring how
Clinton operatives had worked with foreign interests to sway the same election.
Still, Mueller's report found no evidence of collusion between the Trump circle and Russian
officials. The report makes no mention of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, or Alexandra Chalupa.
Leshschenko appears only in a footnote. The report discusses Ukraine only in relation to
Manafort and his business associate Rick Gates.
Now, the Ukraine Chapter
But Ukraine's new starring role was still to come. The Intelligence Community's Inspector
General relayed the newly disclosed "whistleblower" complaint from the CIA analyst to the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence during a transitional period. Both DNI Dan
Coats and Deputy Director Sue Gordon had
just resigned when the whistleblower's complaint reached Acting DNI Joseph Maguire on Aug.
16, his first day on the job.
Previously, the ICIG's whistleblower's form required first-hand knowledge of the reported
concern to file a complaint. The
updated form , which was "revised after press inquiries" regarding the whistleblower's
complaint,
eliminated the requirement of first-hand knowledge. The CIA officer's complaint appears to
provide only hearsay.
Adam Schiff: Apparently knew of whistleblower complaint before he subpoenaed it.
In September, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff issued a subpoena to Maguire
to produce the complaint. Yet Schiff apparently already knew its contents. More than two weeks
earlier, he'd written on Twitter , "Trump
is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the
Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent." A New York Times story last week reported that Schiff was briefed
by an aide on the substance of the whistleblower's complaint before it was filed with the
ICIG.
In driving the whistleblower chapter of the Russiagate operation, Schiff reprised the part
he played in its earlier chapters. For nearly two years the California congressman filled the
media with claims there was more than circumstantial evidence of collusion that would bring
down the president.
On Sept. 13, ODNI's general counsel wrote Schiff and other leaders of the House and Senate
intelligence committees that since the whistleblower's complaint did not deal with intelligence
activities or the conduct a member of the intelligence community (i.e., the president is not a
member of the IC), it did not find it a matter of urgent concern.
Greg Miller, Washington
Post: Whistleblower news was leaked to him and other journalists who earlier shared a
Pulitzer Prize
relying on similar leaks against Trump about a Russia conspiracy, which proved unfounded.
Regardless, the subject matter, Trump's "promise" to a foreign official, was leaked for a
Sept. 18 Washington Post story
including the bylines of Greg Miller and Ellen Nakashima, two of the reporters who in February
2017 received a seminal leak in the Trump-Russia case, regarding a conversation between Trump's
erstwhile national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
The same political operatives and journalists appear throughout the anti-Trump operation, as
do the same themes and even the same language.
The main charge in the whistleblower's complaint – that Trump solicited "interference
from a foreign country in the 2020 election" – echoes the title of the Mueller report,
"Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election . " The
whistleblower's thesis is identical to the dossier's: Trump sought dirt on a political rival
regarding Ukraine-related issues on a quid pro quo basis.
The nature of the call to Zelensky so alarmed Trump officials seeking to protect the
president, according to the unnamed CIA officer, that they stored the transcript in a secure
system usually reserved for programs like covert action. It was a detail contrived to further
smear Trump as deceptive, but Trump deputies had begun using the system after his conversations
with world leaders were leaked to the press early during the administration.
In February 2017, the Washington Post's Miller had the lead byline on a
story based on leaks of Trump's conversations with Australia's prime minister and Mexico's
president. Six months later, the Post published the entire transcripts
of both conversations in another Miller story.
It was through such national security correspondents that anti-Trump sources -- intelligence
officials -- pushed leaks of classified information and other tidbits intended to damage Trump
into the media. There it merged with other anti-Trump currents in nearly every corner of the
press, where it blossomed into Russiagate.
After a nearly two-year investigation, the special counsel found no evidence of collusion.
But given the scale of the damage done to the public sphere, clearly something had happened.
Among other things, the FBI had put a presidential campaign under surveillance.
It was logical that Trump, and millions of other Americans, wanted to know the origins of
the Russia probe and that the investigative work would be taken up by the Department of
Justice. Since DoJ and FBI officials at the highest levels were implicated, it was natural that
the attorney general himself would have a hand in the investigation.
Thus the panicked clamor coursing through the press at present is not about Joe Biden or
his son or Trump's alleged commerce with foreign powers. Rather, it is the fear that the
Russiagate bubble is likely to burst. And the fear that none of the reporters, intelligence
officials, and political operatives responsible for pushing the largest and most destructive
conspiracy theory in American history will escape the ruin.
Recently, one of my email pals sent me an incredible opinion piece from Howell Woltz at The
International Centre for Justice, in Warsaw, Poland. He is the author of " Justice Denied: The
United States vs. the People," a very interesting book about the US justice system and federal
prisons and the need for some serious reform. Occasionally, an opinion piece is so profound
that it simply MUST be disseminated to a much wider audience than a simple blog post. This is
one of such article. In this commentary, he opines on the DoJ/FBI cabal's ongoing coup against
POTUS while explaining some key connections among John Brennan , Mitt Romney, Cofer Black,
Burisma Holdings (Ukraine), Bararck Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all the rest. It fills in a lot
of gaps and explains much about what is going on with respect to the Ukraine kerfuffle.
While I can't vouch for the veracity of all the claims here, this just rings true to me and
connects a lot of very interesting dots. As usual, I caution you to "trust but verify." If
nothing else, it serves as a departure point for your own dot-connecting activities. The more
independent analysis is conducted by all, the clearer picture becomes over time. These are some
extended excerpts from Woltz's opinion piece. More than a few light bulbs may be turned on for
you after reading this. Note: this article was published on 8 October, so keep this in mind as
you read it.
Donald J. Trump is not a RINO or DC insider. He's a tough-guy billionaire from Queens, New
York and a street-fighter. When the Democrats realised last week that Trump was actually
heading up his own investigation rather than leaving it to their Deep State apparatchiks -- and
doing so directly with the leaders of Ukraine, Australia, and Italy (and perhaps the U.K.) --
they did the political equivalent of starting a fire in a theatre. House of Representatives
Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, announced impeachment proceedings against the president just three hours
after stating in a speech that she would not. Speaker Pelosi had zero evidence, cause, stated
reason and lacked the required vote of the House of Representatives to do so, but announced it
anyway.
Strangely enough and what caught my attention Mitt Romney jumped on the "Impeach Trump"
train that same day. How did Nancy go from "There will be no impeachment proceedings," that
morning in New York to announcing impeachment proceedings that afternoon when she got back to
Washington, DC? Meet the Grand Master of the Deep State in America. Admitted Communist, John
Brennan, who has some serious explaining to do now that his attempted coup of U.S. President
Donald Trump has been exposed and continues! So why did Romney want to shut down any
investigation of Ukraine's role as well? That's the question that got this investigation
started and it's shocking.
Romney's National Security Advisor, Joseph Cofer Black, sits on the Board of the same
Burisma Holdings that was being investigated for corruption back in 2014, and the Vice
President and Obama Administration demanded be shut down. Why? Because Burisma was/is their
vehicle for corrupt practices in Eastern Europe. And CIA Director, John Brennan's 9/11 Deep
State partner, Cofer Black, is still the link to all that goes on there. In fact, I can state
unequivocally that Burisma is the centre of Ukraine corruption and the Democrats' shadow
organisation for corrupt activities. I live in Eastern Europe (Poland) and my sources are
first-hand. And I know this matters greatly to Mitt Romney as he is not yet done with politics.
If Black is busted, it will reflect on Romney, and it only makes sense that Cofer Black is the
Deep State 'plant' in case Romney ever rises above polishing knobs in the U.S. Senate. Romney
wants to run for President again in 2024 and if he wins, Cofer Black will be back with his
fingers on the strings either as DNI or CIA Chief of Corruption. Burisma Holdings is the hub of
U.S. Democrat activities to corrupt both Ukraine and American politics and there is proof.
Ukraine President Zelenskyy's win surprised both Brennan and Black's Deep State ops as much as
Trump's did in 2016 in America.
So who is this Cofer Black guy? Joseph Cofer Black, joined the CIA in 1974 and rose to be
Director of The National Counterterrorism Center, before joining Mitt Romney. If it were not
for researching this article, I admit, he was unknown to me as well. What a revelation. Black
was also the Head of Counterintelligence who somehow missed the 9/11 attacks on New York and
Washington, though according to The Economist , 16 foreign leaders and heads of
intelligence agencies warned him it was not only going to happen but when. Oh well. And nothing
was done about Cofer Black for this, indicating this is what the Deep State wanted. But it goes
deeper. John Brennan and this guy, Cofer Black, are how 19 terrorists got into the U.S.A. to
attack the U.S. on 9/11.
Editor Harry will jump on me or make Nurse Ratched give me a dose of Castor Oil if I say
something I can't prove, so I'm just going to quote the CIA whistleblower at the Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia CIA staff hearing, who is the source: "According to Freedom Outpost, Brennan was the CIA
station chief in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, when the 9/11 hijackers were given visas to travel to
the United States. In September 2014, a whistleblower named Greg Ford, a former military
intelligence officer, told Ground Zero Radio's Clyde Lewis that the CIA had objections to the
approval of those visas but Brennan actually overrode them."
The second in command of the CIA station was directly quoted by the whistleblower as saying,
'No way, absolutely we are not going to stamp those visas.' But CIA Saudi station chief, John
Brennan, overrode the officer in charge and ordered the visas to be stamped and issued. They
came, they learned to 'take off' an airplane but said they were not interested in 'how to
land.' Cofer Black ignored the reports about this strange behaviour, though it was made, I know
as a fact, from the people who made it. I was also a Florida-based pilot in 2001.
You know the rest of the story. America lost over 3,000 citizens that day, and I sat for an
hour trying to get past the terrorist pilots' apartment in Coral Springs, Florida. Freedom
Outpost concluded, "If it weren't for John Brennan, 9/11 may never have happened." I'd add to
that, if Cofer Black weren't the head of Counterterrorism, Brennan could not have gotten his
men in to do the job. It took (these) two to tango. That's an opinion, not news, but I'll bet
money I don't have, that I'm right as it's a no risk bet. These are partners in crime.
"Joseph Cofer Black – the former Director of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center
(1999-2002) and Ambassador at Large for counter-terrorism (2002-2004)."
"Mr. Black is an internationally recognized authority on counterterrorism, cyber security,
national security, and foreign affairs." (these are quotes from Burisma's website)
Brennan definitely had help in this. These terrorists had to have someone at the highest
level in U.S. Counterintelligence to let their mission come to pass and succeed by ignoring all
the warnings. They even took their flight training near my home, and I remember being locked
down in Coral Springs, FL after 9/11 where they lived for three days while the FBI went through
their apartment just a few blocks away. And this is where Romney's man, Joseph Cofer Black,
comes in. He was the partner in crime of John Brennan, (the Deep State Master), as well as
being Mitt Romney's National Security Advisor. Bad news for Mittens. And Cofer Black is the
reason Romney is desperate to have President Trump's real investigation shut down. As Obama's
CIA Director, John Brennan was also in charge of the dirty tricks campaign against
then-candidate, Donald Trump. All of that has now been uncovered by investigative reporters
Gregg Jarrett ( The Russia Hoax) and Peter Schweizer ( Secret Empires) with
enough references to satisfy Editor Harry and Nurse Ratched.
Amazingly, the plot was actually laid by the Deep State in 2014 before they even knew Trump
would be Hillary's foil in 2016. I found that part pretty amazing. The Ukraine/Russia story was
created for whomever was the candidate to run against Hillary Clinton.
For John Brennan, it really didn't matter to him who ran on the Republican side. He just
cared that whomever it was, lost to the Deep State's choice – Hillary Clinton. Brennan,
Black, James Clapper, James Comey and a host of others were prepared to make sure of it. It was
exposed just last week that Brennan flew under a fake passport to avoid detection on his trip
to set this up in Eastern Europe as early as 2015. There is no explanation for a CIA Director
to do this unless what he was doing was illegal.
Now let's go back to Joseph Cofer Black. He is Romney's Ukraine man, and Brennan's long-time
associate who is still covering here in Eastern Europe (from where I am reporting) for the Deep
State in America. Brennan came back Stateside from the Saudi Arabian CIA office the year after
arranging for the 9/11 attackers to get into America. So what did he do? He took over CIA
Counterintelligence from his partner, Cofer Black. Convenient, eh? The Counterintelligence guy
who 'missed' the 16 warnings on 9/11, and the guy who granted the attackers visas to get into
the U.S. to take pilot training and do it, swap jobs, perhaps to prevent detection? Well it
worked until now.
And history repeats. The tag team is back at it. Barack Obama chose (or was told) to make
John Brennan his CIA Director. Brennan then sets up the Russian hoax through the Ukraine
government and intel operatives covertly in 2015 to target any candidate who might face Hillary
Clinton in 2016.
Once Trump became the Republican candidate, President Obama authorised illegal spying on
Trump's campaign, we now know, because it was labeled a 'counterintelligence operation' which
can only be authorised by a President.
The script for the Ukraine/Russia hoax was actually written back in 2007 to use against
Republican candidate, John McCain. It was temporarily deployed but then shut down and recycled
when it was clear RINO McCain would get his ass handed to him by Obama in 2008 without CIA
involvement.. So, Brennan decided to use the script in 2016. The Republican's candidate would
be targeted using the same plan, according to one of Obama's own secret service agents, now
author, Dan Bongino, in his new book, Exonerated (just out last week).
The original script was written by Fusion GPS owner, Glenn Simpson. That's the same man and
company who would be paid $12 million by the Clinton Campaign, The Democrat National Committee
and the FBI in 2016 for "the Steele dossier" that caused the Russia Hoax against Trump --
though actually written years earlier. Glenn Simpson simply changed the names.
Unfortunately, there was a problem. Socialist Bernie Sanders was leading the Democrats side
over the Chosen, Hillary, and had to be eliminated. To achieve this, the Clintons literally did
a forced takeover of The Democrat National Committee and its funds. They immediately cut off
Hillary's rival, Bernie Sander's campaign (as admitted by former DNC Director, Donna Brazille,
on television) eliminating Bernie from the race.
John Brennan then began leaking the 'dossier' to Congressional Democrats, including
then-[Senate Minority Leader], Harry Reid and their media co-conspirators to begin the take
down of the Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump. Ironically, Brennan also leaked the fake
dossier to Sen. John McCain, it's original target, and McCain leaked it back to its original
source -- the FBI -- to apply for warrants to spy on Trump using their own laundered
information. The FBI literally paid for the fabricated information, leaked it to the media and
politicians who hated Trump, then used their reports and that dossier when fed back to them, to
get warrants to spy on Trump. But then the kimchee hits the fan for real. Trump gets elected!
So, who jumps over to Ukraine to protect the conspiracy from being found out? Brennan's 9/11
partner, Joseph Cofer Black
Within days of Trump's inauguration was immediately put in place in Ukraine to prevent
anyone from talking. The Board of Burisma Holdings -- the same centre of Ukraine corruption
used by Joe Biden in 2014 to enrich his kid -- was the base from which to shield the Democrat
origins of the Russia Hoax and its intel roots from any real investigation.
By February of 2017, Cofer Black was a voting member of the Board of Burisma. You'll hear
the screams around the world this week as the democrats realise that Trump has taken this
investigation on personally rather than leaving it to the deep state vermin. It's all starting
to fit together now, isn't it? So, here's what to expect.
Yes. There will be wailing a-plenty and gnashing of teeth over coming days, and this is the
point where the president's security needs to be at an all-time high, cause The Deep State is
spinning out of control and desperate. If the new leaders of the nations that aided Brennan,
Black and the Dems -- all of whom are admirers of POTUS -- have investigated the crimes of
their predecessors as Trump asked, he likely has the evidence on his desk rather than having it
hidden by the Deep State criminals.
This past Friday, it became known that President Trump had not only launched his own
investigation with foreign leaders into the 2016 Election tampering, but that it was almost
complete. As soon as that happened, the freak-out began. At 65 years of age, I've not seen one
quite like it. The Deep State was and is in paroxysms of unmitigated fear and psychosis. They
ramped up an immediate media assault using the usual outlets -- CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times
and Washington Post -- and the same exact leak specialists who put America through The Russia
Hoax.
The media spectacle on Friday past was immediately followed with a sua sponte
announcement by Speaker Pelosi that she was impeaching the President -- a power she does not
possess no matter how many cocktails she's had. A completely false narrative was spun of what
was said in President Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, knowing Trump
would never allow them to have a copy of the classified transcript to disprove their lies. But
guess what? Within 24 hours, in another act of unprecedented transparency The Donald did just
that. He released the full, unredacted transcript of the call, publicly proving them all to be
Pinocchios. And I just watched his Attorney, Rudy Giuliani, announce that he is drafting a
lawsuit to file against those who lied about his client, Donald Trump -- another unprecedented
event to my knowledge.
For a town that leaks like a sieve, Washington has done an astonishingly effective job
keeping from the American public the name of the anonymous "whistleblower" who triggered
impeachment proceedings against President Trump -- even though his identity is an open secret
inside the Beltway.
Eric Ciaramella as a class of 2004 Connecticut prep student: He later
moved on to Yale and the White House. Now he could be at the center of an impeachment storm.
Chase Collegiate School, Waterbury, Conn./The Magpie
More than two months after the official filed his complaint, pretty much all that's known
publicly about him is that he is a CIA analyst who at one point was detailed to the White House
and is now back working at the CIA.
But the name of a government official fitting that description -- Eric Ciaramella -- has
been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge
of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not
involved in the impeachment inquiry. Fearing their anonymous witness could be exposed,
Democrats this week blocked Republicans from asking more questions about him and intend to
redact his name from all deposition transcripts.
RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public's interest in learning
details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official's status
as a "whistleblower" is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the
president, one who has "some indicia of an arguable political bias in favor of a rival
political candidate" -- as the Intelligence Community Inspector General
phrased it circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint.
Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over
from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former
CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia "collusion"
investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
Joe Biden: Invited Ciaramella
to state luncheon with Italian premier. Also invited: Brennan, Comey, Clapper. AP Photo/Matt
Rourke
Further, Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in
the White House's West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has
since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
"He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump," said a former NSC
official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
Also, Ciaramella huddled for "guidance" with the staff of House Intelligence Committee
Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom
Schiff's office had recently recruited from the NSC. (Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the
impeachment inquiry.)
And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up
dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for
meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a
Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign
to the Russian government. "He knows her. He had her in the White House," said one former
co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
Alexandra Chalupa: DNC
oppo researcher was invited to the Obama White House by Ciaramella. Afric Vision
NouvelleTV/YouTube
Documents
confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella
in November 2015. She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials
lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.
With Ciaramella's name long under wraps, interest in the intelligence analyst has become so
high that a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on
him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill, and briefings have
been conducted based on it. One briefed Republican has been planning to unmask the
whistleblower in a speech on the House floor.
On the Internet, meanwhile, Ciaramella's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter
feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president. The
mainstream media are also aware of his name.
Fred Fleitz, Trump adviser: "Everyone knows who
he is." fredfleitz.com/Wikimedia
"Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows.
Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is," said Fred Fleitz, a
former CIA analyst and national security adviser to Trump, who has fielded dozens of calls from
the media.
Yet a rare hush has swept across the Potomac. The usually gossipy nation's capital remains
uncharacteristically -- and curiously -- mum, especially considering the magnitude of this
story, only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history.
Trump supporters blame the conspiracy of silence on a "corrupt" and "biased" media trying to
protect the whistleblower from due scrutiny about his political motives. They also complain
Democrats have falsely claimed that exposing his identity would violate whistleblower
protections, even though the relevant statute provides limited, not blanket, anonymity –
and doesn't cover press disclosures. His Democrat attorneys, meanwhile, have warned that outing
him would put him and his family "at risk of harm," although government security personnel have
been assigned to protect him.
"They're hiding him," Fleitz asserted. "They're hiding him because of his political
bias."
A CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine, Ciaramella was detailed over to the
National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice,
President Obama's national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice
president.
Susan Rice: Ciaramella worked under Obama's national security adviser. AP
Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File
Federal
records show that Biden's office invited Ciaramella to an October 2016 state luncheon the
vice president hosted for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Other invited guests included
Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey and then-National Intelligence Director James
Clapper.
Several U.S. officials told RealClearInvestigations that the invitation that was extended to
Ciaramella, a relatively low-level GS-13 federal employee, was unusual and signaled he was
politically connected inside the Obama White House.
Former White House officials said Ciaramella worked on Ukrainian policy issues for Biden in
2015 and 2016, when the vice president was President Obama's "point man" for Ukraine. A Yale
graduate, Ciaramella is said to speak Russian and Ukrainian, as well as Arabic. He had been
assigned to the NSC by Brennan.
He was held over into the Trump administration, and headed the Ukraine desk at the NSC,
eventually transitioning into the West Wing, until June 2017.
"He was moved over to the front office" to temporarily fill a vacancy, said a former White
House official, where he "saw everything, read everything."
The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that Ciaramella opposed the new
Republican president's foreign policies. "My recollection of Eric is that he was very smart and
very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing – Ukraine," he
said. "He didn't exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing
to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the president's policies."
"So I wouldn't be surprised if he was the whistleblower," the official said.
In May 2017, Ciaramella went "outside his chain of command," according to a former NSC
co-worker, to send an email alerting another agency that Trump
happened to hold a meeting with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing
Comey, who led the Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President
Vladimir Putin had phoned the president a week earlier.
Contents of the email appear to have ended up in the media, which reported Trump boasted to
the Russian officials about firing Comey, whom he allegedly called "crazy, a real nut job."
In effect, Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative, according to the
research dossier making the rounds in Congress, a copy of which was obtained by
RealClearInvestigations.
Ciaramella allegedly argued that "President Putin suggested that President Trump fire
Comey," the report said. "In the days after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used
to further political and media calls for the standup [sic] of the special counsel to
investigate 'Russia collusion.' "
In the end, Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no conspiracy between Trump and Putin.
Ciaramella's email was cited in a footnote in his report, which mentions only
Ciaramella's name, the date and the recipients "Kelly et al." Former colleagues said the main
recipient was then-Homeland Security Director John Kelly..
House Intelligence Committee
Chairman Adam Schiff: "Whistleblower" complaint amounts to impeachable offense. AP Photo/J.
Scott Applewhite
Ciaramella left the Trump White House soon after Mueller was appointed. Attempts to reach
Ciaramella were unsuccessful, although his father said in a phone interview from Hartford,
where he is a bank executive, that he doubted his son was the whistleblower. "He didn't have
that kind of access to that kind of information," Tony Ciaramella said. "He's just a guy going
to work every day." The whistleblower's lawyers did not answer emails and phone calls seeking
comment. CIA spokesman Luis Rossello declined comment, saying, "Anything on the whistleblower,
we are referring to ODNI." The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond
to requests for comment.
In his complaint ,
the whistleblower charged that the president used "the power of his office to solicit
interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election." Specifically, he cited a
controversial July 25 phone call from the White House residence in which Trump asked Ukraine's
new president to help investigate the origins of the Russia "collusion" investigation the Obama
administration initiated against his campaign, citing reports that "a lot of it started with
Ukraine," where the former pro-Hillary Clinton regime in Kiev worked with Obama diplomats and
Chalupa to try to "sabotage"
Trump's run for president.
Later in the conversation
, Trump also requested information about Biden and his son, since "Biden went around bragging
that he" had fired the chief Ukrainian prosecutor at the time a Ukrainian oligarch, who gave
Biden's son a lucrative seat on the board of his energy conglomerate, was under investigation
for corruption.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff argued the
whistleblower's complaint, though admittedly based on second-hand information, amounts to an
impeachable offense, and they subsequently launched an impeachment inquiry that has largely
been conducted in secret.
The whistleblower filed his "urgent" report against Trump with the I.C. inspector general on
Aug. 12, but it was not publicly released until Sept. 26.
Prior to filing, he had met with Schiff's Democratic staff for "guidance." At first, the
California lawmaker denied the contacts, but later admitted that his office did, in fact, meet
with the whistleblower early on.
Sean Misko: One of Ciaramella's closest allies at the NSC,
now on Schiff's staff. Center for a New American Security
Earlier this year, Schiff recruited two of Ciaramella's closest allies at the NSC -- both
whom were also Obama holdovers -- to join his committee staff. He hired one, Sean Misko, in
August -- the same month the whistleblower complaint was filed.
During closed-door depositions taken in the impeachment inquiry, Misko has been observed
handing notes to the lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Daniel Goldman, as he asks
questions of Trump administration witnesses, officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings
told RealClearInvestigations.
Republicans participating in the restricted inquiry hearings have been asking witnesses
about Ciaramella and repeatedly injecting his name into the deposition record, angering Schiff
and Democrats, who sources say are planning to scrub the references to Ciaramella from any
transcripts of the hearings they may agree to release.
"Their reaction tells you something," said one official familiar with the inquiry.
For example, sources said Ciaramella's name was invoked by GOP committee members during the
closed-door testimony of former NSC official Fiona Hill on Oct. 14. Ciaramella worked with
Hill, another Obama holdover, in the West Wing.
During Tuesday's deposition of NSC official Alexander Vindman, Democrats shut down a line of
inquiry by Republicans because they said it risked revealing the identity of the whistleblower.
Republicans wanted to know with whom Vindman spoke within the administration about his concerns
regarding Trump's call to Ukraine. But Schiff instructed the witness not to answer the
questions, which
reportedly sparked a shouting match between Democrats and Republicans.
Determined to keep the whistleblower's identity secret, Schiff recently announced it may not
be necessary for him to testify even in closed session. Republicans argue that by hiding his
identity, the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they
worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it's exposed.
Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, asserted the American
people have the right to know the person who is trying to bring down the president for whom 63
million voted.
"It's tough to determine someone's credibility if you can't put them under oath and ask them
questions," he said.
Added Jordan: "The people want to know. I want to get to the truth."
Rep. Louis Gohmert:
Ciaramella was "supposed to be a point person on Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its
most corrupt, and he didn't blow any whistles on their corruption." AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
In an open House Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
seemingly out of left field asked a witness about "Eric Ciaramella of the Obama National
Security Council," in what the Washington press corps took as a bid to out the whistleblower.
He later told a Dallas radio station he knew the whistleblower's name. "A lot of us in
Washington know who it is," Gohmert said, adding he's a "very staunch Democrat" who was
"supposed to be a point person on Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its most corrupt,
and he didn't blow any whistles on their corruption."
The Washington Post ran a
news story over the weekend critical of Republicans for allegedly trying to "unmask" the
whistleblower, for attempting to do the job journalists would normally do. Last week, the paper
ran an
op-ed by the whistleblower's attorneys claiming he was no longer relevant to the inquiry
and beseeching the public to let their client slip back into obscurity.
For its part, the New York Times ran a
story last month reporting details about the whistleblower's background, but stopped short
of fully identifying him, suggesting it didn't know his politics or even his name. "Little else
is known about him," the paper claimed.
On Thursday, Democrats plan a House vote on new impeachment-inquiry rules that would give
Republicans for the first time the ability to call their own witnesses. Only, their requests
must first be approved by the Democrats. So there is a good chance the whistleblower, perhaps
the most important witness of all, will remain protected from critical examination.
This and all other original articles created by RealClearInvestigations may be republished
for free with attribution. (These terms do not apply to outside articles linked on the
site.)
Yesterday, Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, an officer on loan to the National
Security Agency, testified before Congress on his feelings, and I'll underscore that word
because we already know the facts, about President Trump's conversation with Ukraine President
Zelensky. I'm pretty much in agreement with my colleague Bonchie (see
Alexander Vindman's Impeachment Testimony Is Largely Irrelevant, Stop Freaking Out About It
), as we already know what was said and what happened, the color commentary of a mid-grade
officer might sell some papers and get some clicks and create a new hero for the #Resistance,
but it is pretty close to meaningless.
Two major things came out of this: a full-throated hagiographic defense of Vindman by the
left and the media and NeverTrumpo and fewer, but vitriolic attacks, on Vindman.
This is my two cents on the controversy.
The hero tag gets used rather indiscriminately and so it has been applied to Vindman. I
don't know the guy but I can tell you a lot about him by his ribbon bar.
This is what we have:
First row:
Purple Heart
Defense Meritorious Service Medal w/1 Oak Leaf Cluster
Second row:
Meritorious Service Medal
Army Commendation Medal w/3 Oak Leaf Clusters
Army Achievement Medal w/1 Oak Leaf Cluster
Third row:
National Defense Service Medal
Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
Korean Defense Service Medal
Army Service Ribbon
Army Overseas Service Ribbon w/numeral 2
There are no ribbons for combat heroism. The absence of a Bronze Star, with or without 'V'
device, indicates he got an Army Commendation Medal during his combat tour. I won't throw shade
on the "wrong time, wrong place" medal (my ROTC detachment commander was an SF officer who had
six Purple Hearts, that's what he called them), the Purple Heart, but I will note that Dan
Crenshaw got one and lost an eye. John Kerry got three and never went to a hospital. He's
served at least two tours as a field grade officer in a high-level Defense staff position. He's
only served overseas twice, once in Iraq and once in Korea. It is sort of a shock to me to see
an infantry officer wear an Army Achievement Medal. I have three and never bothered putting
them on my ribbon bar.
The primary reason I'm even mentioning this is because this bullsh** is circulating on
Twitter. It is mostly false, starting with his bio. He was commissioned via Army ROTC in
January 1999. He has never completed the Special Forces Officers Qualification Course. He has
no prior enlisted service. He has very few of the 'scare badges' attributed to him in this
tweet. This is not a ding on Vindman but it shows the lack of honesty and absence of integrity
common to his loudest defenders.
He's a foreign area officer which means he has not served in a combat unit since he was in
Iraq. I was selected to be an FAO, but I sobered up and applied for reclassification into
Operations, Plans, and Training.
Without getting into parsing words over what "hero" means, we know with great certainty that
his service in combat was average, it was meritorious but pedestrian. NTTAWWT.
The veneration for guys in uniform only attaches to people who are supporting leftist
causes. Oliver North, an actual combat stud, and John Poindexter, who had a distinguished
career, were vilified. Tulsi Gabbard was a hero until she took a 2×4 to Kamala Harris.
Now she's a Russian tool. James Comey and Robert Mueller are heroes. Michael Flynn, a guy with
an outstanding record and who, personally, saved dozens if not hundreds of American lives by
his reforming of tactical intelligence operations, is facing prison based on an indictment that
hardly passes the laugh test.
So spare me the hero bunkum. And regardless, as Greg "Pappy" Boyington was fond of saying,
"Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum." He is right more often than we'd care to admit. The
man most responsible for the defeat of the British Army at Saratoga and turning the tide of the
war in favor of our young nation was none other than Benedict Arnold.
There is also an effort, like
this by obnoxious RINO Charlie Dent , to drape the robe of patriotism on Vindman. As Samuel
Johnson noted a couple of centuries ago, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." He
was referring to the practice of Prime Minister William Pitt and his administration of excusing
all of their actions by an appeal to patriotism. That is what I see going on with the
impeachment process. A truly illegitimate attempt to overturn an election is underway and its
fluffers call it patriotic. Vindman may very well be a patriot. Or he could be a time-serving
staff officer working his way towards a consulting job upon retirement. Or he could be any
number of other things. I don't know and neither does Charlie Dent or anyone else opining on
the subject. What I do know is that a lot of us have had our patriotism questioned constantly
for the past three years, so sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As they say,
#NewRules, baby. I'm not going to question Vindman's patriotism but I'm certainly not going to
run interference for him either.
While I don't subscribe to questioning Vindman's loyalty, neither do I think deification is
in order. In my view, there is a huge open question about the degree to which he's
collaborating in a partisan hit on the Commander-in-Chief. It is fair–if not
required–to ask the questions and Vindman should be answering them publicly and with
alacrity.
At a minimum, we need to know why Vindman tried to
change the transcript of the president's phone call . We need to know why a FARA registered
agent of the Ukraine government lists him as among the people they have lobbied and if that is
considered acceptable for military officers on the National Security Council. If is it
acceptable, how does Vindman's record of contacts with one known Ukrainian agent compare to
those of his peers?
And we need a clear answer on Vindman's contact with agents of the Ukraine government to
help them develop strategies to improve their standing with the administration:
I don't know about the propriety of that; it becomes decidedly improper unless he was
cleared to do so and debriefed his superiors on the conversations. This NYT clip reads, to me,
like he didn't have clearance to help the Ukraine government develop negotiating strategies and
he's trying to elide past it now. I have to say that Chuck Schumer pulling out all the stops to
protect him sort of starts the sirens flashing: Ironically, as all military officer promotions
require the president to forward a list to the Senate for their advise and consent role, if
Trump doesn't want Vindman promoted there is precious little anyone can do about it until after
Trump leaves office.
We are also being told that criticizing Vindman is anti-Semitic. But, somehow, labeling
Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian asset is not anti-Hindu.
This is the bottom line. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman decided to inject himself into the
impeachment process. That is his right, and he might see it as his responsibility. But he
should have had no illusion about how this was going to play out. I, and many others, view the
impeachment process as part of a slow-motion coup that began shortly after November 6, 2016. To
expect to enlist for the coup attempt and be treated with kid gloves is simply not reasonable.
There are legitimate questions about Vindman's actions and motives and his service does not
give him access to the Immunity Idol.
In addition to the fired Shokin's claim that President Poroshenko warned him not to
investigate Burisma because it was not in the Bidens' interest, the notes say, the prosecutor
also said he "was warned to stop" by the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt .
The State Department declined to explain this assertion about Pyatt, who was ambassador to
Ukraine from 2013 to 2016 and now is Ambassador to Greece. The Biden presidential campaign did
not respond to a request for comment.
Recounting Shokin's version of events, the notes say he "was called into Mr. Poroshenko's
office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter
Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to
Ukraine." Poroshenko later told Shokin that "he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was
being withheld by Joe Biden," the Giuliani interview notes say.
Trump has claimed that Vice
President Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin because he was investigating
his son's employer.
"I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really
unfair," the president said, referring to Shokin in his July 25 phone call with Ukraine's
president, Volodymyr Zelensky. That call triggered the current impeachment crisis after a CIA
whistleblower alleged that Trump had pressured the Ukrainian leader to investigate Biden in
return for military aid.
A Politico
investigation in 2017 found that officials in Poroshenko's government helped Hillary
Clinton allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, notably Paul Manafort,
who before joining the Trump campaign was a political consultant for ousted Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych.
Poroshenko's administration insisted at the time that Ukraine stayed neutral in the
race.
"... Update : House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) responded to Monday's announcement, tweeting "It's been 34 days since Nancy Pelosi unilaterally declared her impeachment inquiry. Today's backtracking is an admission that this process has been botched from the start. We will not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment . ..."
"... The resolution will authorize the disclosure of deposition transcripts as well as set forth due process rights for President Trump, according to Pelosi. It will also establish a procedure for open hearings. ..."
Update : House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) responded to Monday's announcement,
tweeting "It's been 34 days since Nancy Pelosi unilaterally declared her impeachment inquiry.
Today's backtracking is an admission that this process has been botched from the start. We will
not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment ."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Monday that a vote will be held this Thursday "that
affirms the ongoing, existing investigation that is currently being conducted by our
committees" as part of the Democrats' impeachment inquiry, according to the
Washington Post .
House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-MA) said the vote would "ensure transparency
and provide a clear path forward" as their investigations continue.
The resolution will authorize the disclosure of deposition transcripts as well as set forth
due process rights for President Trump, according to Pelosi. It will also establish a procedure
for open hearings.
Pelosi sent the following letter to House Democrats (emphasis ours):
Dear Democratic Colleague,
For weeks, the President, his Counsel in the White House, and his allies in Congress have
made the baseless claim that the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry "lacks the
necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding." They argue that, because the
House has not taken a vote, they may simply pretend the impeachment inquiry does not exist.
Of course, this argument has no merit. The Constitution provides that the House of
Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Multiple past impeachments have
gone forward without any authorizing resolutions. Just last week, a federal court confirmed
that the House is not required to hold a vote and that imposing such a requirement would be
"an impermissible intrusion on the House's constitutional authority." More than 300 legal
scholars have also refuted this argument, concluding that " the Constitution does not mandate
the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of
Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins. "
The Trump Administration has made up this argument -- apparently out of whole cloth -- in
order to justify its unprecedented cover-up, withhold key documents from multiple federal
agencies, prevent critical witnesses from cooperating, and defy duly authorized
subpoenas.
This week, we will bring a resolution to the Floor that affirms the ongoing, existing
investigation that is currently being conducted by our committees as part of this impeachment
inquiry , including all requests for documents, subpoenas for records and testimony, and any
other investigative steps previously taken or to be taken as part of this investigation.
This resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the American people,
authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence
to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and sets forth
due process rights for the President and his Counsel. We are taking this step to eliminate
any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness
testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of
Representatives.
Nobody is above the law.
The announcement comes after former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman - who
served as a deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton - filed a Friday lawsuit
seeking guidance from a federal judge as to whether he should follow the advice of the
executive branch, which has instructed him not to attend, or Congress, according to the Post
.
As the judge has yet to rule on his request, Kupperman declined to appear.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), meanwhile, said that a
former deputy national security adviser had "no basis in law" to skip a deposition Monday and
that his failure to appear was further evidence of Trump's efforts to obstruct Congress. -
Washington Post
Kupperman was on the line when President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky
held a July 25 discussion in which Trump requested investigations into Democratic rival Joe
Biden, as well as allegations of Ukrainian election meddling in 2016 to benefit Hillary
Clinton.
"... You'd think that the failure of Mr. Mueller's extravaganza might have chastened them just a little - a $32 million-dollar effort starring the most vicious partisan lawyers inside-the-Beltway, 2,800 subpoenas issued over two years, 500 search warrants exercised, and finally nothing whatever to pin on Mr. Trump - except the contra-legal assertion that now he must prove his innocence. ..."
"... General Michael Flynn , for ditto? You may have noticed that General Flynn's case is shaping up to be the biggest instance of prosecutorial misconduct since the Dreyfus affair (France, 1894-1906, which badly-educated Americans most certainly know nothing about). ..."
"... Last week he put out a narrative that US Chargé d'Affaires to Ukraine Bill Taylor fired a gun-that-smoked fer sure in testimony. Except, of course, as per Mr. Schiff's usual practice, he refused to issue any actual transcript of the interview in evidence, while there are plenty of indications that Mr. Taylor's second-hand gossip was roundly refuted under counter-questioning by the non-Jacobin minority members of the House intel Committee. ..."
"... Mr. Schiff's pattern lo these many months of strife has been to claim ultimate proof of wrongdoing only to have it blow up in his face. It's a face that many Americans are sick of seeing and hearing from, and I am serenely confident that before this colossal scandal is resolved, the Congressman from Hollywood will be fatally disgraced, as was his role-model, Senator Joseph McCarthy, before him. ..."
Judging by the volume of intemperate emails and angry social media blasts that come my way, the party of impeachment seems to
be inhaling way too much gas from the smoking guns it keeps finding in the various star chambers of its inquisition against you-know-who.
You'd think that the failure of Mr. Mueller's extravaganza might have chastened them just a little - a $32 million-dollar effort
starring the most vicious partisan lawyers inside-the-Beltway, 2,800 subpoenas issued over two years, 500 search warrants exercised,
and finally nothing whatever to pin on Mr. Trump - except the contra-legal assertion that now he must prove his innocence.
When you state just that, these frothing hysterics reply that many background figures - if not the Golden Golem of Greatness himself
- were indicted and convicted of crimes by Mr. Mueller's crew. Oh yes!
The Russian troll farm called the Internet Research Agency was indicted for spending $400,000 on Facebook ads (and never extradited
or tried in a court-of-law). Pretty impressive victory there!
The hacking of Hillary Clinton's emails by "Russia"? Still just alleged, never proven, with plenty of shady business around
the search for evidence.
Paul Manafort, on tax evasion of money earned in Ukraine, 2014? We'll see about that as the whole filthy business of the 2014
Ukraine regime change op under Mr. Obama gets reviewed in the months ahead.
George Papadopoulos for lying to the FBI? Stand by on that one, too; still a developing story.
General Michael Flynn , for ditto? You may have noticed that General Flynn's case is shaping up to be the biggest instance
of prosecutorial misconduct since the Dreyfus affair (France, 1894-1906, which badly-educated Americans most certainly know nothing
about).
To set the record straight I'm forced to repeat something that these New Age Jacobins seem unable to process: you don't have to
be a Trump cheerleader to be revolted by the behavior of his antagonists, which is a stunning spectacle of bad faith, dishonesty,
incompetence, and malice -- and is surely way more toxic to the American project than anything the president has done . Every time
I entertain the complaints of these angry auditors, I'm forced to remind myself that these are the same people who think that "inclusion"
means shutting down free speech, who believe that the US should not have borders, who promote transsexual reading hours in the grammar
schools, and who fiercely desire to start a war with Russia.
That's not a polity I want to be associated with and until it screws its head back on, I will remain the enemy of it. In fact,
in early November I'm traveling to New York City, where the Jacobin city council has just made it a crime to utter the phrase illegal
alien in a public place, with a $250,000 penalty attached. I challenge their agents to meet me in Penn Station and arrest me when
I go to the information kiosk and inquire if they know what is the best place in midtown Manhattan to meet illegal aliens.
The volume of Jacobin hysteria ratcheted up to "11" late last week when the news broke that the Attorney General's study of RussiaGate's
origins was upgraded to a criminal investigation, and that a voluminous report from the DOJ Inspector General is also about to be
released. What do you suppose they're worried about? Naturally the Jacobins' bulletin board, a.k.a The New York Times ,
fired a salvo denouncing William Barr -- so expect his reputation to be the next battle zone for these ever more desperate fanatics.
Talk of preemptively impeaching him is already crackling through the Twitter channels. That will be an excellent sideshow.
Meanwhile, how is Rep, Adam Schiff's secret proceeding going?
Last week he put out a narrative that US Chargé d'Affaires to Ukraine Bill Taylor fired a gun-that-smoked fer sure in testimony.
Except, of course, as per Mr. Schiff's usual practice, he refused to issue any actual transcript of the interview in evidence, while
there are plenty of indications that Mr. Taylor's second-hand gossip was roundly refuted under counter-questioning by the non-Jacobin
minority members of the House intel Committee.
Mr. Schiff's pattern lo these many months of strife has been to claim ultimate proof of wrongdoing only to have it blow up
in his face. It's a face that many Americans are sick of seeing and hearing from, and I am serenely confident that before this colossal
scandal is resolved, the Congressman from Hollywood will be fatally disgraced, as was his role-model, Senator Joseph McCarthy, before
him.
"... The Democrats are the ones who are twisting the "protocols" regarding private hearings to protect the seditious liars and their lies... To paraphrase the Washington Post : "Democracy Dies In The Darkness"... The Darkness created by the shadowy deep state and those who dwell in it ! ..."
"... Without expressing any opinion on the truth or falsity of Taylor's testimony or any of it, the idea that being a West Point graduate and Vietnam vet is some kind of assurance of probity is a joke. ..."
"... Have you learned nothing from RussiaGate, from the various imperial wars on Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Serbia, etc.? All these were based on flat out lies promoted by cleancut, well dressed, well spoken, impeccably credentialed monsters. Many of them veterans themselves. All of them lying without shame, and lauded for telling lies. ..."
"... You realize that we are an empire, and our institutions act the way that imperial institutions do? Imperial institutions cannot be hindered by things like honesty and "rule of law", because the empire cannot survive if its freedom of action is restrained. ..."
"... Is your anti Russian phobia a product of Slavic racism or of disliking orthodox countries or what? Why do you pro war liberals obsess over Russia so much? I think it is empire envy. ..."
"... I Keep reading about this "aid to ukraine" improperly tied to an investigation of a rival. But this "aid" to Ukraine is really just weapons isn't it? Weapons meant to stoke conflict with a nuclear power. The deep state and the pro war liberals will never let This country move past militarism ..."
I'd like to commend Rep. Gaetz for this very well justified act of 'civil disobedience' to draw attention to this farce of a travesty
of a sham of a mockery of a witchhunt. This so-called "impeachment" is totally consistent with the manufacturing of "evidence"
to justify an "investigation" of Trump's campaign to keep him from being elected as well.
I'm glad we have someone standing up to these corrupt lying leaking Democrat bullies. It would be nice if we could have an
investigation of the actual and documented illegal campaign contributions of Hillary to her attorney to Chris Steele, but that
water has passed under the bridge by now.
But if we're going to go down the rabbit hole of campaign finance law violations, I'd like to propose that the quite obvious
main and only real (non-manufactured) reason for these so-called "impeachment" hearings is to prevent Trump from being re-elected
(as opposed to investigating "corruption").
Thus the Democrats' activities are quite obviously a misappropriation of taxpayer funds and an illegal donation to the political
campaigns of the Democratic party. I demand an investigation. In secret of course.
As you rightfully said, the rule of law is a pain in the butt, after all. The double standard is infuriating.
We are coming to a point in American society where the only meaningful "truth" belongs to whoever wins. If that is true, under
those circumstances, you've got to decide whom you trust more to protect your interests. Is it Adam Schiff or Donald Trump? If
you choose not to decide, you've still made a choice. Or are elections only supposed to have consequences if Democrats win them?
Matt Gaetz is one of those few Republicans in on the fundamental truth of our country: We are an empire in decline and politics
is 100% theatre. And so he puts on one of the best shows on television.
Yeah, he is likely a nihilist, but I can't really call him a grifter any more than you could call Milo or Jacob Wohl grifters.
They are performance artists, dressing up in conservative drag and giving everyone the show of their lifetime, and they are so
dedicated to it they don't break character. In wrestling it is called kayfebe.
If you are in on the joke, these people are amazing, true heroes of late capitalism, exposing the absurdities of our commodified
democracy and news cycle.
The standards for a sitting Congressman representing 800,000 Americans should probably be a bit higher than the standards for
alt-right YouTube dancing bears.
As our country winds down and enters the end of its natural lifespan, and every country has a lifespan, don't fool yourself, because
no human creations last forever, some of the dancing bears we get aren't going to be quite as funny as Matt Gaetz, and there are
only going to be more and more of them coming out of the woodwork.
So I think we should appreciate people like him while we can, who at least elevate the art to something legitimately entertaining,
and are generally pretty harmless. "I love the president so much I may never love another president again." is an amazing line,
for instance, and I'll never understand anyone who doesn't appreciate it. That's something he put care and thought into.
People like entertainment. They elected an entertainer as president for a reason, and he is representing a lot more than 800,000
Americans. But I'm sure those 800,000 Americans are pretty happy with the entertainment they are getting from Gaetz too, even
if they might not appreciate the nuances of his performance and only like that he is "triggering the libs" or somesuch. And maybe
some of them do see how his performance implicates them too and they just don't care because it is such a fun show. I know if
Matt Gaetz were running for president (Against some neo-liberal like Buttigieg, not against someone I like) I'd be tempted to
vote for him just to add fuel to the fire.
The Democrats are the ones who are twisting the "protocols" regarding private hearings to protect the seditious liars and their
lies...
To paraphrase the Washington Post : "Democracy Dies In The Darkness"... The Darkness created by the shadowy deep state and those who dwell in it !
"The seditions liars and their lies"? Bill Taylor is a West Point graduate, decorated Vietnam vet, and was G.W. Bush's appointee
to be Ukraine ambassador. The smears aren't going to stick to him.
Like they didn't stick to Mueller, Comey, Mattis, McCain, Romney, and whoever else is the white knight of the week who will save
liberal decadence from Trump. As if!
He will be down in the mud with the rest of them, loathed by Trump's base and forgotten by the Democrats once the next savior
conservative messiah comes along. Eventually there won't be enough Never Trump zombies in the Bush establishment morgue left to
revive, and what then?
They certainly aren't going to work with the left to concentrate on substance and policy rather than the Trump news cycle,
so I imagine liberals will just all collectively die from despair
Without expressing any opinion on the truth or falsity of Taylor's testimony or any of it, the idea that being a West Point graduate
and Vietnam vet is some kind of assurance of probity is a joke.
Have you learned nothing from RussiaGate, from the various imperial wars on Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Serbia, etc.? All these
were based on flat out lies promoted by cleancut, well dressed, well spoken, impeccably credentialed monsters. Many of them veterans
themselves. All of them lying without shame, and lauded for telling lies.
Not "misspeaking", as if they were merely overenthusiastic in defense of the Freedom, but lying. And their lies killed innocent
people on a hitlerian scale.
You only don't recognize this, because you are fortunate enough to live in America, where you don't have to see your children
droned and your country destroyed because some monster claims to be bringing you the freedom.
You realize that we are an empire, and our institutions act the way that imperial institutions do? Imperial institutions cannot
be hindered by things like honesty and "rule of law", because the empire cannot survive if its freedom of action is restrained.
Is your anti Russian phobia a product of Slavic racism or of disliking orthodox countries or what? Why do you pro war liberals
obsess over Russia so much? I think it is empire envy.
If the Democrats are so concerned with confidentiality then why are the anti-Trump snippets of testimony the only things getting
leaked?
Bill Taylor's testimony was shredded in 90 seconds of cross-examination by a Republican member of the Committee. Funny, that
didn't make the time breathless coverage of the umpteenth bombshell. (Or is it "The Walls Are Closing In!" this week?
By any standard of fairness, Schiff should have recused himself due to a monumental conflict of interest. He had contact with
the main complainant prior to the filing of the complaint. A Dem Senator visited Taylor in the Ukraine several weeks ago. Nothing
to see here.
As Ben Franklin was noted as saying: "Well, Doctor, what have we got -- a Republic or a Monarchy?"
"A Republic, if you can keep it."
Well, we didn't keep it. This is purely Political Kabuki Theater. Both sides deserve to lose. At this point, with the Dems
tilting so hard left, and the Rockefeller Wing (Re-branded as NeoCons for some silly reason) of the Republicans ever-waiting for
their ascendance it remains for most of the country wish both sides could lose - if for nothing else than to just stop the noise.
"A nation is born a stoic and dies an epicurean" Will Durant
I do not trust our "betters" to hold closed door trials. After 2 years of Russia Russia Russia I don't believe a word they say.
Shiff told us he had ironclad evidence of Russian collusion, I saw him say it at the interview. He lied. When a politician says
"trust me" the last thing we should do is trust him. Open hearings, transparency, due process...we should demand
That's what they're afraid of: a veritable conga line of skeletons, loosed from the Trumpian closet, cha-chaing across the Senate
chamber in front of the whole world.
Actually that did involve intelligence NOT an impeachment. Apples and oranges. But thanks for reminding us of the lies and ineptitude
that got American's killed by Obama and Clinton in Libya. They lied and people died.
If Schiff weren't selectively leaking like a sieve, your argument might have some merit.
As it is, easily the best reason to believe they are doing as they are doing is FOR the purpose of only leaking the parts they
want.
And it goes far beyond simply "closed door" - the controls enacted are extreme, at least for the Republicans, yet somehow,
certain *very convenient* bits find their way to the press, time after time. After time. After TIME.
The whole thing is a farce, designed to allow control of the narrative, facts be hanged.
Brilliant comparison to that Animal House scene - thanks for that! The facts on the ground are so devastating to Trump than even
his most lickspittle toadies can't properly defend them, and so they scheme up weak stunts like this. The mind boggles.
I suppose all the Trump supporters would be on this very page defending Barack Obama if he called the Saudi Crown Prince in 2011
and told him that any military aid is contingent on investigating the Bush family and any business ties they have with Saudi Arabia
because Jeb Bush might run in 2012. Totally legal. No problem and nothing to see.
That is not the point. What you write is simply deflection. If any President other than Trump did this, Republicans would be (correctly)
moving to impeach and remove. So I ask again: would it have been OK if Obama called the Saudis and held up military aid until
they provided him information damaging to the Bush family?
The picture is funny, but you're on the wrong side of this, Dreher. I've finally realized why Schiff and his merry men, but especially
Schiff, give me such agita.
Let's pick a date, or an incident: Bork. Since then, long before then, but let's pick a date, the Democrats have stood for
moral anarchy . The only chance they had to show they retained a shred of principle was the Gulf War (both Gulf Wars, actually,
but let's take the second), and there their response was, at least legislatively, muted to say the least (considering their Senatorial
champion was the Lion of Chappaquiddick...) Since then it's been what? Feminism, abortion, and that more abundantly, all LGBTQ
all the time, micro regulation of speech and behavior, race hustling, and--ha ha--more unjust unnecessary wars and the destruction
of the white middle class. The soft totalitarianism we talk about in these boxes--no need to go on. The usual menu of "liberal"
horror.
And this guy is to be impeached because he cusses in public? It's not adding up for me. Schiff's behavior is outrageous (read
Kim Strassel today) but he's getting the job done. You might want to call it soft Leninism.
Not sure why so many conservatives hang their hat on Bork. This man was the guy who committed the Saturday Night Massacre, this
is who you stake your moral ground on?
Conservatives are so angry Dems stopped the guy who tried to shield Nixon from accountability? It's moral anarchy for Congress
to refuse to confirm a president's nomination for the Supreme Court? Congress is supposed to give a president's nominee a hearing
and a vote, not a rubber stamp. Congress if fully within it's constitutional rights to not confirm a president's nominee, and
it's hard to find a less fit man for the Supreme Court than Bork was.
Meanwhile your guys refused to even grant a hearing to President Obama's nominee. I guess that's OK because you don't acknowledge
the rights of Democrats under the Constitution.
You don't really think the Democrats got together to destroy Bork professionally and personally because he signed off on Nixon's
firings, do you? You can't be that dumb. If you'd like to know why, it was keeping Roe v. Wade alive. And that is moral anarchy,
pal.
You know what's moral anarchy? Supporting an immoral character like Bork because you think he's going to help you get rid of
Roe vs Wade. Kind of reminds of the deal you RWers have struck with Trump. You support a man you know is morally debased because
you think he will help you restore a white Christian conservative America.
It just boggles my mind you RWers are mad Democrats refused to confirm a man who help cover up one of the most egregious acts
an American president has ever committed. A person who would commit such an unethical act was not fit for a seat on the Supreme
Court, I shouldn't even have to say this.
And you offer an unsupported calumny. Bork was "morally debased"? By what standard? By whose standard? John Dean's? Elliot Richardson's?
Remember when they rifled through his borrowing habits at Blockbuster and it turned out he was a Fred Astaire fan? They were expecting
maybe Leni Riefenstahl. Or hoping for it. And a conspiracy is usually thought of as somewhat secret. The Lion of Chappaquiddick
was pretty up front about what he didn't like about Bork.
And I think Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was far worse than anything Nixon did. Have fun with that one, pal.
"The Democrats have offered no plausible and persuasive rationale for holding these proceedings in secret and keeping the evidence
and testimony behind closed doors."
Other than that they're simply following the rules established by a previous Republican congress.
Below, someone wrote: "By any standard of fairness, Schiff should have recused himself due to a
monumental conflict of interest. He had contact with the main
complainant prior to the filing of the complaint."
Using that standard, Barr should have recused himself a thousand times over, no?
Coined by a Randian objectivist fantasy author. It is absolute truth, but knowing the source will become the utmost irony because
for some, it will be personal proof of it.
People will believe a lie because they're afraid it might be true, or because they want it to be true.
The Trump candidacy and tenure in office is a non-stop series of examples proving this.
Yet again, I note Rod, that there is more than one explanation over this hysterical impeach Trump nonsense.
This 'aid' is actually 'US military assistance'. Did it ever occur to you 'impeachers' that Trump may have deliberately been
avoiding such a meeting with his top 4 warmongers precisely so as to avoid US 'aid' escalating the military tension betwen Ukraine
and Russia? (and getting the US firmly tied into that fight?)
Trump was elected in part on a platform of no more foreign wars, and he seems genuinely committed to that (at least when he
thinks he can). Maybe the withheld 'aid' was all just leverage for a Biden investigation, but it may also be Trump trying not
to get pressured and bullied into more conflicts (which all prior Presidents were happy to go along with) in the face of a deep
state totally committed to a condition of forever war.
As an anti-war activist who campaigned against the Afghan and Iraq wars, in Trump's shoes I would also have tried to avoid
fueling an existing dangerous conflict that brings no benefit to my nation (other than a few arms sales) but may drag us into
a war with major nations. Same situation repeating right now in Syria - no major benefit to US in staying, and staying may drag
US into conflict between Turks and Kurds and Syria & Russia.
Not saying Trump has acted lawfully always - just that he may have been trying to avoid military escalation (at the same time
as getting dirt on Biden). Lets not jump to obvious conclusions when they may not be so obvious.
Thugs disrupting a Constitutional and legal proceeding doing the people's business in order to protect their Dear Leader -- that's
not frat-boy stuff. There's a much better "f" word to label that.
If these people were testifying in public, I'm sure the Trumpists would find a reason to oppose that as well. But I hope they
are ready for the public phase when they will need to defend Trump on the substance rather than voice procedural complaints. And
calling people like Taylor never-Trumpist "human scum" (what a classy president we have) is not going to cut it.
Democrats say these House Intelligence Committee procedures
aren't official hearings, but rather the equivalent of depositions,
meant to gather facts that will later be examined and argued over in
public hearings.
If that's the case they shouldn't be characterizing themselves as having an "impeachment inquiry." This is not in any legal
sense an impeachment. It's an inquiry without a cause...political games. The abberant activities of Dems trying to remove the
US President where there are no crimes justifies abberant reactions from the opposition. Since they are going to abuse the House
of Representatives and pursue unprincipled and unprecedented antagonism of a co-equal branch of government, why should the GOP
be idealistic and proper under such circumstances? I find Schiff to be a lot more of a problem than Gaetz.
No, it's the first stage of an inquiry. They're gathering evidence -- and Republican reps are there to question too -- that will
be used in open impeachment hearings.
Concerning Republican reps on the committee...apparently they're not getting all the evidence. If they're not it's not bi-partisan,
and it's irregular. Also, Schiff did not notify Republicans on the committee of an intelligence official who came to one of his
aides with concerns about President Trump before filing a whistleblower complaint. If that's true he's withholding evidence. I'm
sure he has a good reason for that...if you know what I mean.
October 18, 2019 By Chrissy Clark
All nine GOP members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence penned a letter to Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.,
lambasting him for hiding documents related to Democrats' impeachment inquiry.
"We are concerned that the Majority is knowingly withholding Committee documents related to your so-called 'impeachment
inquiry' from the Minority," the letter reads. " it has come to our attention that the Majority is not uploading (or providing
physical copies of) certain
Committee documents related to your 'impeachment inquiry' to its document repository, thus withholding the existence of such
documents from the Minority."
I think you don't like the Republicans playing by the same rules and tricks Democrats do. Looks different when the shoe is on
the other foot, huh? Think KFC eating and setting all night on the senate floor.
"The Democrats have offered no plausible and persuasive rationale for holding these proceedings in secret and keeping the evidence
and testimony behind closed doors. Given the character of the people in question, it is safe to assume that their reasons for
doing so are corrupt and motivated by narrowly calculated political self-interest. "
That's a heck of a leap in logic there, Kevin. And kind of incredible in light of Kevin McCarthy previously admitting on national
television that the Benghazi Select Committee's purpose was to tank Clinton's poll numbers. Would Kevin agree that committee was
corrupt then, I guess?
These are depositions, not hearings. Public hearings come later, once depositions are complete, and there's no more opportunity
for deposed subjects to coordinate details. Then a Senate trial after that, where Trump gets all the "due process" he has been
disingenuously complaining about.
It's amusing to me how it seems to be lost in all of this, that half of the people sitting in on these depositions are REPUBLICANS.
I Keep reading about this "aid to ukraine" improperly tied to an investigation of a rival. But this "aid" to Ukraine is really
just weapons isn't it? Weapons meant to stoke conflict with a nuclear power. The deep state and the pro war liberals will never
let This country move past militarism
If you supported the Schiff parody-as-truth from the other week but this bothers you, then you are an anti-Trump partisan. Conversely,
if you support this but had a problem with Schiff, you are a pro-Trump partisan. And that is okay because impeachment is a political
act. Just don't dress it up and pretend your side follows the rule of law and the other side doesn't. Both sides are engaging
in politics to convince the public. And we'll be just fine as long as both sides stick with that, and obey the constitutional
rules for impeachment. We'll only get in serious trouble if folks decide to go extra constitutional:
The picture is funny, but you're on the wrong side of this, Dreher. I've finally realized why Schiff and his merry men, but especially
Schiff, give me such agita.
Let's pick a date, or an incident: Bork. Since then, long before then, but let's pick a date, the Democrats have stood for
moral anarchy . The only chance they had to show they retained a shred of principle was the Gulf War (both Gulf Wars, actually,
but let's take the second), and there their response was, at least legislatively, muted to say the least (considering their Senatorial
champion was the Lion of Chappaquiddick...) Since then it's been what? Feminism, abortion, and that more abundantly, all LGBTQ
all the time, micro regulation of speech and behavior, race hustling, and--ha ha--more unjust unnecessary wars and the destruction
of the white middle class. The soft totalitarianism we talk about in these boxes--no need to go on. The usual menu of "liberal"
horror.
And this guy is to be impeached because he cusses in public? It's not adding up for me. Schiff's behavior is outrageous (read
Kim Strassel today) but he's getting the job done. You might want to call it soft Leninism.
Yet again, I note Rod, that there is more than one explanation over this hysterical impeach Trump nonsense.
This 'aid' is actually 'US military assistance'. Did it ever occur to you 'impeachers' that Trump may have deliberately been
avoiding such a meeting with his top 4 warmongers precisely so as to avoid US 'aid' escalating the military tension betwen Ukraine
and Russia? (and getting the US firmly tied into that fight?)
Trump was elected in part on a platform of no more foreign wars, and he seems genuinely committed to that (at least when he
thinks he can). Maybe the withheld 'aid' was all just leverage for a Biden investigation, but it may also be Trump trying not
to get pressured and bullied into more conflicts (which all prior Presidents were happy to go along with) in the face of a deep
state totally committed to a condition of forever war.
As an anti-war activist who campaigned against the Afghan and Iraq wars, in Trump's shoes I would also have tried to avoid
fueling an existing dangerous conflict that brings no benefit to my nation (other than a few arms sales) but may drag us into
a war with major nations. Same situation repeating right now in Syria - no major benefit to US in staying, and staying may drag
US into conflict between Turks and Kurds and Syria & Russia.
Not saying Trump has acted lawfully always - just that he may have been trying to avoid military escalation (at the same time
as getting dirt on Biden). Lets not jump to obvious conclusions when they may not be so obvious.
"The Democrats have offered no plausible and persuasive rationale for holding these proceedings in secret and keeping the evidence
and testimony behind closed doors. Given the character of the people in question, it is safe to assume that their reasons for
doing so are corrupt and motivated by narrowly calculated political self-interest. "
That's a heck of a leap in logic there, Kevin. And kind of incredible in light of Kevin McCarthy previously admitting on national
television that the Benghazi Select Committee's purpose was to tank Clinton's poll numbers. Would Kevin agree that committee was
corrupt then, I guess?
These are depositions, not hearings. Public hearings come later, once depositions are complete, and there's no more opportunity
for deposed subjects to coordinate details. Then a Senate trial after that, where Trump gets all the "due process" he has been
disingenuously complaining about.
It's amusing to me how it seems to be lost in all of this, that half of the people sitting in on these depositions are REPUBLICANS.
I Keep reading about this "aid to ukraine" improperly tied to an investigation of a rival. But this "aid" to Ukraine is really
just weapons isn't it? Weapons meant to stoke conflict with a nuclear power. The deep state and the pro war liberals will never
let This country move past militarism
If you supported the Schiff parody-as-truth from the other week but this bothers you, then you are an anti-Trump partisan. Conversely,
if you support this but had a problem with Schiff, you are a pro-Trump partisan. And that is okay because impeachment is a political
act. Just don't dress it up and pretend your side follows the rule of law and the other side doesn't. Both sides are engaging
in politics to convince the public. And we'll be just fine as long as both sides stick with that, and obey the constitutional
rules for impeachment. We'll only get in serious trouble if folks decide to go extra constitutional:
"... Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him. ..."
"... Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure. ..."
"... These [neoliberal] politicians are the absolute dregs of our society. Human cesspits. They make the pirates of old look like kindergarten. And they mass murder to get the loot. ..."
"... Author does not mention approx 40 tons of gold transferred to US at night, covered lorries, darkened airfield. Coincidentally just a few hours before MH370 went missing ..."
"... Implementation of Western values and democracy cost Libia more than 134 ton of gold. Not including shares and valuable papers..How democracy working in Libya? ..."
"... Regarding the Ukraine, about 12 oligarch holding of 60% of the wealth.Today the Ukrainian oligarch have to pay USA democrats oligarch for protection. Whatever who is Ukraine President-they must to pay to USA.Ukraine today is like banana republic :Honduras or Guatemala with 60% of population living below poverty line. Just do the homework all of you readers. ..."
"... All Democrats and RINO's who are currently participating in the impeachment hoax in order to keep themselves from being indicted, prosecuted, and imprisoned for their parts in this corruption are automatically guilty of obstruction of justice, because that's exactly what they're doing. ..."
"... She was never supposed to lose. ..."
"... DNC types always show up at these poor countries to plunder them. Haiti: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Biden Family foundation. ..."
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one.
During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised
transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine; the money was stolen,
and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit of a few corruptioners, American and
Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its dependence on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural
gas, sufficient for domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the Ukrainians got used to pay
pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine could provide all its households with free gas for
heating and cooking, just like Libya did. Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma) had very high profits and
very little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to European levels, and the new president
Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and
heating; and huge profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices, President Poroshenko
demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his projects. He said that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be
considered a partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its founder and owner Mr Nicolai
Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's
appetites. He had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney General Shokin to investigate Burisma
trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and
150 thousand dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax code; it can't
be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours to close the case against his son.
Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US taxpayers' funds won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner,
paid Biden well for this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to different sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and installed Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko
was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma, but he also could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could
not keep his trap shut: by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself. Meanwhile Mr Shokin gave
evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and now it was confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers
in connection with another case, Firtash case.
... ... ...
This is not the only case of US-connected corruption in Ukraine. There is
Amos J. Hochstein, a protege of former VP Joe Biden, who has served
in the Barack Obama administration as the Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources. He still hangs on the Ukraine.
Together with an American citizen Andrew Favorov, the Deputy Director
of Naftogas he organised very expensive "reverse gas import" into Ukraine. In this scheme, the Russian gas is bought by
Europeans and afterwards sold to Ukraine with a wonderful margin. In reality, gas comes from Russia directly, but payments go
via Hochstein. It is much more costly than to buy directly from Russia; Ukrainian people pay, while the margin is collected
by Hochstein and Favorov. Now they plan to import liquefied gas from the United States, at even higher price. Again, the price
will be paid by the Ukrainians, while profits will go to Hochstein and Favorov.
In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the Democratic Party.
A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of Directors of Velta,
producing Ukrainian titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the
Project for the New American Century (PNAC),
pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian
ore deposits.
One of the best Ukrainian corruption stories is connected with
Audrius Butkevicius, the former Minister of Defence (1996
to 2000) and a Member of the Seimas (Parliament) of post-Soviet Lithuania. Mr AB is supposedly working for MI6, and now
is a member of the notorious Institute for Statecraft, a UK
deep state propaganda outfit involved in disinformation operations, subversion of the democratic process and promoting
Russophobia and the idea of a new cold war. In 1991 he commanded snipers that shoot Lithuanian protesters. The kills were ascribed
to the Soviet armed forces, and the last Soviet President Mr Gorbachev ordered speedy withdrawal of his troops from Lithuania.
Mr AB became the Minister of Defence of his independent nation. In 1997 the Honourable Minister of Defence "had requested 300,000
USD from a senior executive of a troubled oil company for his assistance in obtaining the discontinuance of criminal proceedings
concerning the company's vast debts", in the language of the court judgement. He was arrested on receipt of the bribe, had been
sentenced to five years of jail, but a man with such qualifications was not left to rot in a prison.
In 2005 he commanded the snipers who killed protesters in Kyrgyzstan, in Georgia he repeated the feat in 2003 during the Rose
Revolution. In 2014 he did it again in Kiev, where his snipers killed around a hundred men, protesters and police. He was brought
to Kiev by Mr Turchinov, who called himself the "acting President" and who countersigned Joe Biden's billion dollars' grant.
In October 2018 the name of Mr AB came up again. Military warehouses of Chernigov had caught fire; allegedly
thousands of shells stored for fighting the separatists had been destroyed by fire. And it was not the first fire of this kind:
the previous one, equally huge, torched Ukrainian army warehouses in Vinnitsa in 2017. Altogether, there were 12 huge army arsenal
fires for the last few years. Just for 2018, the damage was over $2 billion.
When Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine Anatoly Matios
investigated the fires, he discovered that 80% of weapons and shells in the warehouses were missing. They weren't destroyed
by fire, they weren't there in the first place. Instead of being used to kill the Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Donetsk, the
hardware had been shipped from the port of Nikolaev to Syria, to the Islamic rebels and to ISIS. And the man who organised this
enormous operation was our Mr AB, the old fighter for democracy on behalf of MI6, acting in cahoots with the Minister of Defence
Poltorak and Mr Turchinov, the friend of Mr Biden. (They say Mr Matios
was given $10 million for his silence).
The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep State, which is probably
just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and politicians.
The Plundering Of Ukraine By Corrupt American Democrats. Whats new. The plundering of Syria - the Golan. Genie oil - Every
leading democrat name is on that Shareholder's list. Plundering of Serbia. Kosovo, its Gold mines and Minerals. Speciality per
Madeleine Albright . Wesley Clark and the Clintons. Sniff around where the Libyan gold went....not Fort Knox
These [neoliberal] politicians are the absolute dregs of our society. Human cesspits. They make the pirates of old look
like kindergarten. And they mass murder to get the loot.
Author does not mention approx 40 tons of gold transferred to US at night, covered lorries, darkened airfield. Coincidentally
just a few hours before MH370 went missing .
Implementation of Western values and democracy cost Libia more than 134 ton of gold. Not including shares and valuable
papers..How democracy working in Libya?
Fantastic article. Thanks for Israel. Thanks God, whatever you believe or not, majority of the World citizens are good and
friendly. Were did not nuke each other despite 1% of our corrupted elites. They hold about 90% of media, can give Hollywood Oscar
Price or Nobel Price to my lovely dog. If I paid them.
Regarding the Ukraine, about 12 oligarch holding of 60% of the wealth.Today
the Ukrainian oligarch have to pay USA democrats oligarch for protection. Whatever who is Ukraine President-they must to pay
to USA.Ukraine today is like banana republic :Honduras or Guatemala with 60% of population living below poverty line. Just do
the homework all of you readers.
You will NOT see once micron of this on the lame stream Media.....nor out of the mouths of Dems anywhere.....THIS info if true
should ensure the Dem corrupt Party is dissolved and a new one using pro-USA model is erected.
That we have seen little of this story in the Wall Street Journal nor Fox News shows just who controls those networks for sure.....This
story MUST become a part of the Congressional record....ASAP.....and ALL these folks no matter which Party MUST be held accountable
for lost US Funds...OUR TAX DOLLARS. Imagine what could be done with 3 BILLION for OUR Vets or the homeless......yet you see little
exposure of this corruption any where in US papers or even conservative outfits...????
All Democrats and RINO's who are currently participating in the impeachment hoax in order to keep themselves from being
indicted, prosecuted, and imprisoned for their parts in this corruption are automatically guilty of obstruction of justice, because
that's exactly what they're doing.
DNC types always show up at these poor countries to plunder them. Haiti: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Clinton Foundation.
Ukraine: Biden Family foundation.
Corrupt American Democrats AND Corrupt American Republicans . . . who gave Standing Ovations in Washington, District of Columbia,
United States Capitol for the Murders and Burning Humans Alive. United States President Trump never received 5 minute Standing
Ovations in Washington, District of Columbia, United States Capitol by the Capitalist Political Party composed of two factions:
Corrupt American Republicans AND Corrupt American Democrats.
So Shamir says that Tsarev is claiming Daniluk is the "whistleblower"? A foreigner can be a whistleblower?
And " Daniluk was supposed to accompany President Zelensky on his visit to Washington; but he was informed that there is an
order for his arrest. He remained in Kiev." ?? An order to arrest Daniluk in Washington, is that the claim? Why and who would
arrest him in Washington?
We would all be better off, including the Ukrainians, if they had stayed with Russia, where they were.
My thought about Barr holding fire on Epstein is that he may have known that was a red
herring, false flag, or whatever you want to call it. That whole Epstein affair sounded like
a juicy distraction to me, in the manner of "if it bleeds it leads". When someone actually
dies who is the center of contraversial activity, you may be sure, unfortunately, that
someone, he or another, is getting close to truths that ought not see the light of day.
Somewhat in the nature of the baiting of Putin as Ukraine was beginning its time of troubles.
The old revolutionary dictum "Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes" may have
been in Barr's mind at the time of Epstein's demise.
Certainly such investigations as the one he is involved in take much time to sort out the
who-what-where in terms sufficiently damaging to become a credible enterprise. We have seen
such attempts fail in the past. I hope he takes his time and gets all his ducks in a row
before the hammer falls as fall it must. It is so vital to this country that this attempt
succeed; for if it fails only the shambles of Kiev style fisticuffs in Congress can be the
result. Not pretty.
In b's post we are reminded of the power of the press to misinform. I would suggest we
badly need divestiture of our media from the huge corporations now more wealthy than some
countries. The latter are too powerful in this country now, and they do need to be whittled
down to size. We not only need fact finders, we need eloquent voices to present those facts
to the public. We need free speech!
He is a deep state creature...his father Donald Barr was an OSS guy and original CIA
[which morphed from the wartime OSS]...
Barr senior was also Epstein's mentor and got him his start at the deeply establishment
Dalton School [and probably Epstein's handler as an asset or 'agent' as they are
called]...
So things go a bit deeper than the surface when it comes to Barr junior...and what he is
doing here...
There is a probably valid school of thought that the deep establishment has a faction that
is pro-Trump and behind the general idea of disengaging from wasteful overseas adventures,
since it is becoming clear that this is a ruinous path that the US cannot really afford
anymore...
I would also agree with the theory that says that these two 'deep' factions ['nationalist'
vs 'globalist'] are at war...with the 'DNC-Hillary-MSM-interventionist faction' possibly on
the decline, but still powerful enough to blow up a lot of the plans that Trump and his deep
backers would like to get done...
Epstein is a whole 'nuther can of worms here and I would not be surprised if he was not
actually dead...Trump himself is deeply entangled with many of the prime players in the
Epstein web...it all depends if he is more useful alive than dead...
Btw...pulling off a deception like a fake death is kindergarten level for these kinds of
operators and the unlimited resources they possess to shape so-called 'reality' as brought to
us on our little screens...
So really I find it kind of silly that the right wingers are looking at Barr as some kind
of White Knight...there really are none of those in these circles...as much as the sheeple
would like to believe that...
re: source of "God has an infinite sense of humor"...
Was told that in 1994[?] conversation w Jerry, a fellow worker, abt the baffling condition
of Mankind. Never heard it before or since. At the time it was one of most incisive and
impinging viewpoints; it still is.
It was said to me dryly, not coy and no smile, almost plaintively as tho it would be
ignored and pass thru unrecognized. I never met a more rational or sharper mind.
Once, I remarked I was looking for an obscure book that was mentioned in another book, as
"1 of the 3 best autobios ever written in English" by someone I never heard of. J:"Who and
what?" Me:"Kropotkin and Revolutionist".
J:"Oh, sure! I think my wife still has a copy" and he brought it in next day.[An awesome
read, too!]
Thanks for your reply! I was also thinking that perhaps it was a cynical observation made
by a stoic son of a Baptist or Methodist Minister, like the retort in M*A*S*H about
how someone like that (Hawkeye, IIRC) got into the Army--"He got drafted," which caused the
audience to erupt in laughter (definitely a context-dependent joke).
flankerbandit 111
"There is a probably valid school of thought that the deep establishment has a faction that
is pro-Trump and behind the general idea of disengaging from wasteful overseas adventures,
since it is becoming clear that this is a ruinous path that the US cannot really afford
anymore..."
I think this what is occuring. And when Trump says swamp, I think it is the section of the
swamp that this faction believe set the US on a ruinous path.
Good post my friend, no wonder the demoncrazies went berserk over Trump dipping in to
their honeypot. I could never definitively find a reason for those spectacular ammunition
storage bonfires in Ukraine. I figured it was either to disable their sale or cover up
theft.
W. Gruff, thanks for the process insight.
I was long-aware the removal of the Smith-Mundt Act was loaded into the 2012 NDAA. No attempt
on Trump's watch has been made to bring a needed, modern form of it back. I didn't vote for
Trump, and until the damn looney media is reeled back into factual, in-context reporting, it
will remain obvious Trump is only expanding a variety of nefarious things on the absence of
legislation such as the S-M Act.
"... On February 2 Shokin confiscated four large houses Zlochevsky owned plus a Rolls-Royce Phantom and a "Knott 924-5014 trainer". (Anyone know what that is?) Ten days later Biden goes into overdrive to get him fired. Within one week he personally calls Poroshenko three times with only one major aim: to get Shokin fired. ..."
"... Zlochevsky had hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for at least $50,000 per month. In 2015 Shokin started to investigate him in two cases. During the fall of 2015 Joe Biden's team begins to lobby against him. On February 2 Shokin seizes Zlochevsky's houses. Shortly afterwards the Biden camp goes berserk with Biden himself making nearly daily phonecalls. Shokin goes on vacation while Poroshenko (falsely) claims that he resigned. When Shokin comes back into office Biden again takes to the phone. A week later Shokin is out. ..."
"... Biden got the new prosecutor general he wanted. The new guy made a bit of show and then closed the case against Zlochevsky. ..."
"... Is the "conspiracy theory" about Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election really "debunked"? It is, of course, not. The facts show that the interference happened. It was requested by the Democratic National Committee and was willingly provided by Ukrainian officials. ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia , according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. ..."
"... In March 2016 Chalupa went to the Ukrainian embassy in Washington DC and requested help from the Ukrainian ambassador to go after Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort. In August 2016 the Ukrainians delivered a secret "black ledger" that allegedly showed that Manafort had illegally received money for his previous work for the campaign of the former Ukrainian president Yanukovych. ..."
"... Serhin A. Leshchenko, the member of the Ukrainian parliament who published the dubious ledger, was rabidly anti-Trump. Shortly after providing the "secret ledger" he talked with the Financial Times and promised to continue to meddle in the U.S. election. The FT headline emphasized the fact: ..."
"... insisting on innocence of Biden will have a political cost. ..."
"... That term "conspiracy theory" has been so widely abused that, to me at least, it now means something that the author wishes were not true but almost certainly is. ..."
"... Joe Biden needs to STFU, and go away. He and his ilk are part of the problem, not the solution. The rulers of America insist on pushing this sycophant for the empire down our throats. And, he can take HRC and her crowd with him. It's high time for some new blood, IF, TPTB, will even allow that to happen, which I very much doubt.... ..."
"... If you were referring to Trump's convo with Zelensky specifically, reasonable people might disagree over whether that was an abuse of power or sleazy and dumb (in being unnecessary)--which of course shouldn't mean the Bidens get a pass here, which none of these young journalists are suggesting. ..."
"... Well, there you have it--proof that BigLie Media indeed specializes in publishing Big Lies that ought to reduce such outlets to the status of Tabloids. Of course, the media is free to lie all it wants within the limits of slander and libel, but most people don't like being lied to particularly over matters of importance. ..."
"... Larry Johnson has a piece at SST on a CIA task force set up to compromise Trump and prevent him becoming president. That Trump avoided all the traps set for him (even the Mueller investigation could pin nothing on Trump) and won the election says a bit for Trump ..."
"... Alexandra Chalupa's connection to the thinktank The Atlantic Council should be borne in mind in the developing discussion in the comments forum. Her sister Irena is or has been a non-resident Senior Fellow there. Irena Chalupa has also been a senior editor at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. ..."
"... Also the founder and CEO of the Crowdstrike company in charge of cybersecurity for the DNC during the 2016 presidential election campaign was Dmitri Alperovich who is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council. It was Crowdstrike who came up with the idea that Trump had to be under the Kremlin's thumb and from there the hysterical witch-hunt and associated actions known as Russiagate began. ..."
"... I'm surprised that at this point in time, Bellingcat has not been included in digging up "dirt" on Trump ..."
"... Lee Stranahan of Radio Sputnik has been reporting on Alexandra Chalupa's role for a number of years now. I hope he gets proper credit as this story comes out. ..."
"... It seems some corners are coming unglued if the ZH link below is any indication: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fbi-entrapped-flynn-manipulated-evidence-clapper-allegedly-issued-kill-shot-order ..."
"... The take away quote from a Matt Taibbi twit "LOL. Barack Obama is going to love this interview his former DIA James Clapper just gave to CNN about the Durham probe: "It's frankly disconcerting to be investigated for having done... what we were told to do by the president of the United States." ..."
"... Prescient observation by Aaron Mate : "When CNN & MSNBC now cover the criminal inquiry into conduct of intel officials in Russia probe, they are literally covering their employees -- John Brennan (MSNBC); James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, James Baker (CNN). I avoid the term, but it's appropriate here: Deep State TV." ..."
"... The take away quote: "Joe Biden intervened at least two times on matters his son Hunter's firms was being paid to lobby on, according to government records reviewed by the Washington Examiner." ..."
"... Indeed, the guilty are hiding in plain sight. It appears sinister, and is, but I think its a positive development of late, as it would suggest that big media are scrambling to preserve the status quo by legitimising these deep state actors. ..."
"... Obama orchestrated the regime change operation in Ukraine. As we know from Wayne Madsen's little book, "The Manufacturing of a President", Obama has been a CIA asset since he was a suckling babe. To promote containment of the Russian menace, the US got in bed with Ukrainian fascists and successfully exploited political tensions in that country resulting in the removal of the duly elected Yanukovitch. A right wing billionaire then took the reigns and Putin orchestrated a referendum in Crimea in retaliation that resulted in its return to Russia. The Crimeans were and continue to be happy, happier than the rest of Ukrainians under Kiev neo-fascist free market exploitation. ..."
"... It is natural that neo-fascist Ukrainians would express their disapproval of Trump, who was making nice with Putin. No matter what his motives were, he was bucking US anti-Russian policy. I liked Trump at that time for this willingness to end a Cold War policy sponsored by the US military industrial complex. You can cal it "deep state" if you like. It's not deep and it's not a shadow government. It's the war party. It's the elite profiting from weapons manufacture. Trump has no principles except expedience and his pro-Russian stance is likely owing to the money laundering he's been doing for Russian criminals since he is such a lousy business man. ..."
"... The general charge against Trump is that he was "digging up dirt" on opponents. Well laddy-dah. So what. Welcome to Politics 101. ..."
"... Empires don't act on facts: they are all-powerful, so they sculpt reality as they see fit. What determines this is class struggle: the inner contradictions of a society that results in a given consensus, thus forming a hegemony. ..."
"... Again, not surprised at all. Pro-democratic/anti-Trump media write articles (obviously made-to-order) to whitewash already badly discredited Biden, and present all the arguments in favor of his dark connections with Ukraine as a kind of "conspiracy theory". This is a common practice. Not having sufficient competence to reasonably refute the arguments of opponents, MSM (as well as all sorts of "experts") immediately mark the position of opponents with "conspiracy theory" (there are also other options to choose from: "Putin's agent", "Putin's useful idiot", "Kremlin's agent", "pro-Russian propaganda", etc.). It is assumed that this makes unnecessary/optional (and even "toxic") all further conversations with the opponent (that is, there is no need to answer him, to prove something with facts, etc.), because his position is a "conspiracy theory". ..."
"... Western MSM are actively using this simplest propaganda technique of information warfare. For example, this was the case when reporting on events in Syria - those journalists, the media, experts who did not agree with the lie of MSM about Assad's use of the chemical weapons were declared "conspiracy theorists" (and also "Assad apologists"). This method was also used to cover "the Skripal case" - those who questioned the British authorities' version of the "Novichok poisoning" were declared "conspiracy theorists". ..."
"... This is the way the controlled media works. They provide half a story, half truths, straw-man facts, selective quotes and 'expert' comment, opinion and unwarranted assumption presented as fact that all together cover the spectrum from black to white, spread across the many titles. ..."
"... They also disseminate a fine dusting of lies and actual truth here and there. The result is the public have a dozen 'truths' to pick from, none of which are real, while the outright lies and actual truths get dismissed as not credible and the half-truths and straw-man truths appear to carry some validity. ..."
"... If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge. ..."
"... as Caitlin Johnstone lets to say - who gets to decide what the narrative is here? i don't have an answer for this, but those who appear to be taking a side in all of this - including you with the quote i make - seem to think that it has to be the issue of trumps extortion of Ukraine, verses what appears to me the CIA - Dem party extortion of the ordinary USA persons mind... ..."
"... Has mccarthyism version 2 come to life since the advent of what happened in the Ukraine from 2014 onward?? is the issue of a new cold war with Russia been on the burner for at least 5 or more years here and began before trump was even considered a potential candidate for the republican party? did Russia take back Crimea, which wasn't supposed to happen? is this good for military industrial complex sales? and etc. etc. ..."
"... i am sure biden is small potatoes in the bigger picture here, but if taking a closer examination of what took place in ukraine leading into 2014, with the victoria nulands and geoffrey pyatts and etc. etc. of usa diplomatic corps, usa dept of state and etc. could lead to a better understanding of how the usa has went down the road it has for the past 60 years of foreign policy on the world stage, it would be a good start... so, to me - it ain't about trump.. it is about usa foreign policy and how it has sucked the big one on the world stage for at least since the time of vietnam when i was a teenager.. ..."
Several mainstream media have made claims that Joe Biden's intervention in the Ukraine and
the Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election are "conspiracy theories" and "debunked". The
public record proves them wrong. By ignoring or even contradicting the facts the media create
an opening for Trump to rightfully accuse them of providing "fake news".
[In late 2018], Giuliani began speaking to current and former Ukrainian officials about the
Biden conspiracy theory, and meeting with them repeatedly in New York and Europe. Among those
officials was Viktor Shokin, a former top Ukrainian prosecutor who was sacked in March, 2016,
after European and U.S. officials, including Joe Biden, complained that he was lax in curbing
corruption. Shokin claimed that he had lost his powerful post not because of his poor
performance but rather because Biden wanted to stop his investigation of Burisma, in order to
protect his son. The facts didn't back this up. The Burisma investigation had been dormant
under Shokin.
Several other
media outlets also made the highlighted claim to debunk the "conspiracy theory". But is it
correct?
We have looked into the claim that Shorkin's investigation against Burisma owner Zlochevsky
was dormant, as the New Yorker says, and found it to be false :
The above accounts are incorrect. Shokin did go after Zlochevsky. He opened two cases against
him in 2015. After he did that Biden and his crew started to lobby for his firing. Shokin was
aggressively pursuing the case. He did so just before Biden's campaign against him went into
a frenzy.
... On February 2 Shokin confiscated four large houses Zlochevsky owned plus a Rolls-Royce
Phantom and a "Knott 924-5014 trainer". (Anyone know what that is?) Ten days later Biden goes
into overdrive to get him fired. Within one week he personally calls Poroshenko three times
with only one major aim: to get Shokin fired.
... Zlochevsky had hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for at least $50,000 per month. In 2015 Shokin
started to investigate him in two cases. During the fall of 2015 Joe Biden's team begins to
lobby against him. On February 2 Shokin seizes Zlochevsky's houses. Shortly afterwards the
Biden camp goes berserk with Biden himself making nearly daily phonecalls. Shokin goes on
vacation while Poroshenko (falsely) claims that he resigned. When Shokin comes back into
office Biden again takes to the phone. A week later Shokin is out.
Biden got the new prosecutor general he wanted. The new guy made a bit of
show and then closed the case against Zlochevsky.
It is quite astonishing that the false claims, that Shokin did not go after Burisma owner
Zlochevsky, is repeated again and again despite the fact that the public record , in form of a report
by Interfax-Ukraine , contradicts it.
On Thursday Buzzfeed Newswrote
about a different Ukrainian prosecutor who in early 2019 was approached to set up meetings
with President Donald Trump's private lawyer Rudy Giuliani:
[Gyunduz] Mamedov's role was key. He was an intermediary in Giuliani's efforts to press
Ukraine to open investigations into former vice president Joe Biden and the debunked
conspiracy theory about the country's interference in the 2016 presidential election , a
collaboration between BuzzFeed News, NBC News, and the Organized Crime and Corruption
Reporting Project (OCCRP) can reveal.
The OCCRP is funded by the
UK Foreign Office, the US State Dept, USAID, Omidyar Network, Soros' Open Society, the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund and others. Most of these entities were involved in the 2014 coup
against the elected government of the Ukraine.
Is the "conspiracy theory" about Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election really
"debunked"? It is, of course, not. The facts show that the interference happened. It was requested by
the Democratic National Committee and was willingly provided by Ukrainian officials.
As Politico reported shortly after Trump had won the election, it was the Democratic
Party organization, the DNC, which had asked the
Ukrainians for dirt that could be used against the campaign on Donald Trump:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly
questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump
aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after
the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his
advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee
met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties
between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia , according to people with direct
knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation
and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to
the east, Russia.
The Ukrainian-American who was the go between the DNC and the government of Ukraine had
earlier worked for the Clinton administration:
Manafort's work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named
Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the
Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for
Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to
Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that
time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC's arm for engaging expatriate Democrats
around the world.
In March 2016 Chalupa went to the Ukrainian embassy in Washington DC and requested help from
the Ukrainian ambassador to go after Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort. In August 2016 the
Ukrainians delivered
a secret "black ledger" that allegedly showed that Manafort had illegally received money
for his previous work for the campaign of the former Ukrainian president Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to
Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the
disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included
election officials.
"Paul Manafort is among those names on the list of so-called 'black accounts of the Party
of Regions,' which the detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine are
investigating," the statement said. "We emphasize that the presence of P. Manafort's name in
the list does not mean that he actually got the money, because the signatures that appear in
the column of recipients could belong to other people."
The provenance of the ledger is highly dubious. It was allegedly found in a burned out
office of Yanukovych's old party:
The papers, known in Ukraine as the "black ledger," are a chicken-scratch of Cyrillic
covering about 400 pages taken from books once kept in a third-floor room in the former Party
of Regions headquarters on Lipskaya Street in Kiev.
...
The accounting records surfaced this year, when Serhiy A. Leshchenko, a member of Parliament
who said he had received a partial copy from a source he did not identify, published line
items covering six months of outlays in 2012 totaling $66 million. In an interview, Mr.
Leshchenko said another source had provided the entire multiyear ledger to Viktor M. Trepak,
a former deputy director of the domestic intelligence agency of Ukraine, the S.B.U., who
passed it to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau.
Anti-corruption groups in Ukraine said the black ledger detailing payments was probably
seized when protesters ransacked the Party of Regions headquarters in February 2014.
The pages from the ledger, which had come from anonymous sources probably
supported by John Brennan's CIA , were never proven to be genuine. But the claims were
strong enough to get Manafort fired as campaign manager for Donald Trump. He was later
sentenced for unrelated cases of tax evasion.
Serhin A. Leshchenko, the member of the Ukrainian parliament who published the dubious
ledger, was rabidly anti-Trump. Shortly after providing the "secret ledger" he talked with the
Financial Times and promised to continue to meddle in the U.S. election. The FT
headline emphasized the fact:
The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming
leader of the country's biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider
political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene,
however indirectly, in a U.S. election.
...
Mr. Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue with their efforts
to prevent a candidate - who recently suggested Russia might keep Crimea, which it annexed
two years ago - from reaching the summit of American political power.
"A Trump presidency would change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American foreign policy," Mr
Leshchenko, an investigative journalist turned MP, told the Financial Times. "For me it was
important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate
who can break the geopolitical balance in the world."
...
If the Republican candidate loses in November, some observers suggest Kiev's action may have
played at least a small role.
A Democratic Party operative asked the Ukrainian ambassador to find dirt on Trump's campaign
manger Paul Manafort. A few month later a secret "black ledger" emerges from nowhere into the
hands of dubious Ukrainian actors including a 'former' domestic intelligence director.
The ledger may or may not show that Manafort received money from Yanukovych's party. It was
never verified. But it left Trump no choice but to fire Manafort. Ukrainian figures who were
involved in the stunt openly admitted that they had meddled in the U.S. election, promised to
do more of it and probably did.
The Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election is well documented. How the Buzzfeed
News author can claim that it is a "debunked conspiracy theory" is beyond me.
1. The Contracting States shall provide mutual assistance, in accordance with the provisions
of this Treaty, in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of
offenses, and in proceedings related to criminal matters.
2. Assistance shall include: (a) taking the testimony or statements of persons; (b)
providing documents, records, and other items; (c) locating or identifying persons or items;
(d) serving documents; (e) transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes;
(f) executing searches and seizures; (g) assisting in proceedings related to immobilization
and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and (h) any other form of
assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State.
3. Assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct that is the subject
of the investigation, prosecution, or proceeding in the Requesting State would constitute an
offense under the laws of the Requested State.
When Trump
asked the current Ukrainian President Zelensky to help with an investigation into the above
matters he acted well within the law and within the framework of the treaty. It was certainly
not illegitimate to do that.
But when mainstream media deny that Biden's interference in Ukraine's prosecutor office is
suspect, or claim that the Ukraine did not interfere in the U.S. elections, they make it look
as if Trump did something crazy or illegal. He does plenty of that but not in this case. To use
it a basis of an 'impeachment inquiry' is political bullshit.
Making these false claims will come back to haunt those media outlets. Sooner or later the
public will recognize that those claims are false. It will lessen the already low trust in the
media even more.
Posted by b on October 26, 2019 at 17:51 UTC |
Permalink
"Sooner or later the public will recognize that those claims are false. It will lessen the
already low trust in the media even more."
More precisely, there exit Trump-friendly media with millions of followers, so insisting
on innocence of Biden will have a political cost. Not to mention leftist media reminiscing
how Senator Biden championed the cause of MBNA (credit cart giant) when it was also a
generous employer of his dear son. Of course, given the size of Delaware, it could be just a
coincidence.
Thanks b for providing the nitty gritty details of this sorry saga. That term "conspiracy
theory" has been so widely abused that, to me at least, it now means something that the
author wishes were not true but almost certainly is.
What is certain is that if Biden is selected as the Dem candidate and ends up as President,
the GOP (if it retains influence in Congress) will open an investigation into his actions on
behalf of his son. Russia-gate is the gift that keeps on giving!
Thanks b, for the reality check.
Joe Biden needs to STFU, and go away. He and his ilk are part of the problem, not the
solution. The rulers of America insist on pushing this sycophant for the empire down our
throats. And, he can take HRC and her crowd with him. It's high time for some new blood, IF, TPTB, will even allow that to happen, which I very
much doubt....
Thanks for another informative and insightful commentary, B. It's like a drink of cool, clean
water after staggering through a volcanic landscape full of fumaroles belching sulfurous
plumes of superheated gas.
Sometimes my hobby horses merrily hop along under me without any effort on my part. I just
hang onto the reins and howl. So: it's bad enough that the US mass-media
consent-manufacturers, aka the CIA/Deep State's "Mighty Wurlitzer", gin up endless propaganda
to discredit the facts you mention; their mission is to fool enough of the public that
there's no "there" there, and prop up Biden's presidential campaign in the bargain.
But what increasingly bugs me is so-called "alternative" news outlets and independent
journalists buying into the spin that Trump and his associates are using the pretext of
investigating corruption as a means to illegally and illicitly "dig up dirt on political
rivals". Put the other way around, they concede that Biden and other Team Obama honchos are
indeed "dirty", and that their Ukraine adventure was reprehensibly illicit or illegal and
self-serving-- but they return to faulting Trump for impermissibly exploiting these
circumstances in order to gain political advantage.
It doesn't surprise me that talented but co-opted journalists like Matt Taibbi are careful
to affirm that Trump et al 's conduct is manifestly an abuse of power. But, sadly,
even journalists like Aaron Maté, Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, and Michael Tracey have
echoed this rote condemnation.
My guess is that this arises from two acronyms: incipient TDS, which compels even
"alternative" US journalists to regard Trump as the "heel" in the staged
"professional"-wrestling scam of US electoral politics. Also, CYA; I suspect that these
relatively young, professionally vulnerable journalists are terrified of coming off as
"defending" or "excusing" Trump, lest they trigger wrathful excoriation from their peers and
the hordes of social-media users whose custom they cultivate.
This is why I appreciate your clarity and forthrightness on this fraught topic.
Rereading your post, and agreeing with some it, I find I disagree less with its conclusions
than on first reading.
If you were referring to Trump's convo with Zelensky specifically, reasonable people might
disagree over whether that was an abuse of power or sleazy and dumb (in being
unnecessary)--which of course shouldn't mean the Bidens get a pass here, which none of these
young journalists are suggesting.
But where I would disagree is if you were suggesting that Taibbi, Mate and Blumenthal are
making obligatory objections to Trump more generally, in order to curry favour with their
peers. I think each of them would readily reel off lists of things (more substantive than
Ukrainegate -- and probably not including Russia collusion) that they think Trump should be
castigated, impeached and perhaps prosecuted for.
Well, there you have it--proof that BigLie Media indeed specializes in publishing Big Lies
that ought to reduce such outlets to the status of Tabloids. Of course, the media is free to
lie all it wants within the limits of slander and libel, but most people don't like being
lied to particularly over matters of importance.
Larry Johnson has a piece at SST on a CIA task force set up to compromise Trump and prevent
him becoming president.
That Trump avoided all the traps set for him (even the Mueller investigation could pin
nothing on Trump) and won the election says a bit for Trump. He definitely is more than the
twitter reality TV persona that he puts up as a public face.
With the Barr investigation, it looks like the non Trump section of the swamp will be drained
in the near future.
Possibly an irrelevant point, but Shokin's replacement Lutsenko was the prosecutor who
resurrected the "deceased", self declared journalist, Arkady Babchenko. The story was full of
plot twists, involving a Boris German/Herman, who was Russian. B kept Us regaled with events.
I'd post a link, but have witnessed too many thread expansions too risk it.
I think a lot of people give the MSM too much credit. Of course editorials etc. can influence
people's thinking but the media, and journalists in general, are loathed by the people who
voted for Trump. It's a big reason he was elected.
Ort @ 8 said;"It doesn't surprise me that talented but co-opted journalists like Matt Taibbi
are careful to affirm that Trump et al's conduct is manifestly an abuse of power."
Co-Opted, or truthful, depending on what you believe. You, have every right to your
opinion, but, when push comes to shove, think I'll give my opinion being swayed or not, by
giving more credibility to the five names you've decided to "shade".
DJT has a record of behavior, and so do the five you've mentioned. My choice is clear,
I'll believe the five..
Alexandra Chalupa's connection to the thinktank The Atlantic Council should be borne in mind
in the developing discussion in the comments forum. Her sister Irena is or has been a
non-resident Senior Fellow there. Irena Chalupa has also been a senior editor at Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty.
Also the founder and CEO of the Crowdstrike company in charge of cybersecurity for the DNC
during the 2016 presidential election campaign was Dmitri Alperovich who is a Senior Fellow
at The Atlantic Council. It was Crowdstrike who came up with the idea that Trump had to be
under the Kremlin's thumb and from there the hysterical witch-hunt and associated actions
known as Russiagate began.
I'm surprised that at this point in time, Bellingcat has not been included in digging up
"dirt" on Trump, Manafort or anyone Manafort supposedly had connections with who is also
mentioned in the "black ledger" but maybe that's because with the garbage that Bellingcat has
so delivered, Eliot Higgins and company can't be trusted any more. Their masters should have
known though, that when you give your subordinates base material to work with, they can only
come up with base results: garbage in, garbage out.
Thanks for your ongoing documentation of the political criminality in the US b. The recent events are playing out like a two-bit soap opera rerun in a nursing home for
America's brainwashed. Maybe Trump could start a new TV game show called Apprentice Corruption and instead of
saying "Your Fired!" it could be "Your Guilty!"
As an American it is difficult to watch the country that I was taught such good things
about in school be exposed as a criminal enterprise running cover for the elite cult that
owns global private finance and manipulates Western not-so-civilized culture.
I hope all this BS we are going through wakes up enough of the semi-literate public to
overthrow the criminal sect and restore the Founding Fathers motto and concept of E Pluribus
Unum.
Lee Stranahan of Radio Sputnik has been reporting on Alexandra Chalupa's role for a number of
years now. I hope he gets proper credit as this story comes out.
Given the fact that she got a first hand look at the Outlaw US Empire's injustice system and
its tie-in with BigLie Media, the comments by the now back in Russia Maria Butina carry some legitimate weight that're
worth reading: "'I believe that the Americans are wonderful people, but they have lost their legal
system,' Butina said. 'What is more, they are routinely losing their country. They will lose
it unless they do something'.... "'I am very proud of my country, of my origin,' Butina stressed. 'And I come to realize it
more and more.'"
Should I bold the following, maybe make the lettering red, and put it in all caps:
"They are routinely losing their country."
I know this is an international bar, but the general focus has long been on the Outlaw US
Empire. IMO, Maria Butina is 100% correct. The topic of this thread is just further proof of
that fact. As I tirelessly point out, the federal government has routinely violated its own
fundamental law daily since October 1945. The media goes along with it robotically. And aside
from myself, I know of no other US citizen that's raised the issue--not Chomsky, not Zinn,
not anyone with more credentials and public accessibility than I. I sorta feel like Winston
Smith: Am I the only one who sees and understands what's actually happening?! Well, I've
shared what I know, so I'm no longer alone. But that's not very satisfying, nor is it
satisfactory.
The take away quote from a Matt Taibbi twit
"LOL. Barack Obama is going to love this interview his former DIA James Clapper just gave to
CNN about the Durham probe: "It's frankly disconcerting to be investigated for having done...
what we were told to do by the president of the United States."
"
Prescient observation by Aaron Mate :
"When CNN & MSNBC now cover the criminal inquiry into conduct of intel officials in
Russia probe, they are literally covering their employees -- John Brennan (MSNBC); James
Clapper, Andrew McCabe, James Baker (CNN). I avoid the term, but it's appropriate here: Deep
State TV."
Sure, he sees it, many of us barflies see it, but it's the public within the Outlaw US
Empire that must see and understand this dynamic. If they don't or won't, then
Butina's words are even more correct--They are losing their country.
The take away quote:
"Joe Biden intervened at least two times on matters his son Hunter's firms was being paid to
lobby on, according to government records reviewed by the Washington Examiner."
The merry-go-round scenario you post would indicate a broken state. Biden's been in office
for 43 years, Trump 3 yrs... the potential for dirt is large, mix it with even larger GOP
vengeance should that scenario arise and this will drag on through the decades.
Part and parcel of democracy. Western style democracy at least. Perhaps others can set
theirs up better, though allways, the achilles heel of democracy is information, or media.
Who oversees ensuring voters recieve accurate information.
It took complaints from the public and investigated them. They did not have power to bring
charges, but for a time findings were made public. Once it got onto a money trail it would
keep following and that would lead to other money trails. It was a state agency and had to
stop at state borders but most money trails led to federal politics. It was defanged when
they came too close to federal politics.
Something like this in a countries constitution could work though it could be corrupted the
same as anything else.
Indeed, the guilty are hiding in plain sight. It appears sinister, and is, but I think its a
positive development of late, as it would suggest that big media are scrambling to preserve
the status quo by legitimising these deep state actors.
It wasn't so long ago these deep state types would rather steer clear of the media. Now
they are out there earning bread driving the narrative. Are these deep state media faces a
tactical last resort...?
Obama orchestrated the regime change operation in Ukraine. As we know from Wayne Madsen's
little book, "The Manufacturing of a President", Obama has been a CIA asset since he was a
suckling babe. To promote containment of the Russian menace, the US got in bed with Ukrainian
fascists and successfully exploited political tensions in that country resulting in the
removal of the duly elected Yanukovitch. A right wing billionaire then took the reigns and
Putin orchestrated a referendum in Crimea in retaliation that resulted in its return to
Russia. The Crimeans were and continue to be happy, happier than the rest of Ukrainians under
Kiev neo-fascist free market exploitation.
It is natural that neo-fascist Ukrainians would express their disapproval of Trump, who was making nice with Putin. No
matter what his motives were, he was bucking US anti-Russian policy. I liked Trump at that time for this willingness to end a
Cold War policy sponsored by the US military industrial complex. You can cal it "deep state" if you like. It's not deep and
it's not a shadow government. It's the war party. It's the elite profiting from weapons manufacture. Trump has no principles
except expedience and his pro-Russian stance is likely owing to the money laundering he's been doing for Russian criminals
since he is such a lousy business man. Putin and other Russian kleptocrats saved Trump boy's bacon. So it's very
confusing when bed actors do good things.
Biden is no doubt quite corrupt. But that's got little to do with Trumps quid pro quo with
Ukraine. You say that Ukrainian interference in US elections is well documented. You don't
offer any documents, b. Anti-Putin Ukrainians were naturally anti-Trump. So what? Where's the
beef? Show me how that little piss ant country that can't even pay its fuel bills and gave
the world Chernobyl, interfered in US elections.
Your defense of Trump is getting tiresome. He's a criminal with no respect for the US
Constitution and he deserves to be impeached. This is not to say that Joe Biden or his drug
addict son are not also shit stains. I am just dismayed that you, an ostensibly intelligent
independent commentator would go to bat for an ignoramus like Trump.
The general charge against Trump is that he was "digging up dirt" on opponents. Well
laddy-dah. So what. Welcome to Politics 101.
President Harry Truman probably received as much flak as any politician ever did,
especially after he canned war-hero General MacArthur. But Truman wasn't a candy-ass current
politician complaining about dirt-digging. No, he gave back more than he got, in spades.
What was "give-em-hell" Harry Truman's attitude? Some Truman quotes:
--"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."
--"It's the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform
that I plan to take apart"
--"I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he
was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them
would be in jail."
-- "I'll stand by [you] but if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen ."
That's what Trump is doing and will probably continue to do with fake news. (And he coined
the phrase.)
I'll repeat what I posted here some days ago: this is not a battle between truth vs lies, but
between which is the truth that will guide the USA for the forseeable future.
Empires don't act on facts: they are all-powerful, so they sculpt reality as they see fit.
What determines this is class struggle: the inner contradictions of a society that results
in a given consensus, thus forming a hegemony.
It's not that the liberals deny Biden did what he did, but that they disagree with Trump's
interpretation over what he did. This is what the doctrine of the vital center is all about:
some facts are more facts than others, prevailing the one which maintains the cohesion of the
empire.
There's a battle for America's soul; the American elite is in flux: Russia or China?
In 1984 , the narrative was now 100% in your face and everything had to be
manipulated to match it, which apparently hadn't been needed previously. But we aren't told
if that was done as a "last resort." I would think not given continuing polls showing ongoing
distrust of media, thus the difficulty of manufacturing consent. Look at the great popularity
enjoyed by Sanders amongst 18-30 year-olds who get most of their information online or via
social media and the measures being taken to try and manipulate those realms. Then there're
efforts to counter the misinformation and manipulation by numerous activists, many of which
get cited here.
Another thought: They're out front now because the Establishment's deemed the fight to
control the narrative's being lost, and they've been drafted to rectify the situation. If
correct, they ought to keep failing.
The international nature of this bar and its many flies is that mostly (from what I read)
they have an immense respect for the rule of law. It is this singular concept that we trust
will transcend religion and the quasi religiosity of political allegiances.
The rule of law is a deity-like singularity that embraces all beings equally, or
should. Assaulting that legitimate expectation of the law applying equally is what confronts us
daily in so many ways and when it is observed being assaulted by the highest office bearers
in political and corporate life that we barflies get mighty annoyed. The gross vista of assumed immunity demonstrated by Nixon is equaled by the antics of the
Clinton foundation and its Directors. Each and every one of them.
But it is far worse than that as the assault on the rule of law is daily carried out by
the mafias that infest our societies, the corrupt and violent police that cant/wont protect
our citizens, the international warmongering criminal classes that propagandise us to accept
warring as a legitimate exercise of power even though we recognise it as a crime against
humanity.
So when we see the deplorable state of media and jurisprudence and fairness we can only
think as Maria Butina does "that we are routinely losing our countries" and I would add our
civil societies. The latter is vastly more concerning than the former IMO.
Again, not surprised at all. Pro-democratic/anti-Trump media write articles (obviously
made-to-order) to whitewash already badly discredited Biden, and present all the arguments in
favor of his dark connections with Ukraine as a kind of "conspiracy theory". This is a common
practice. Not having sufficient competence to reasonably refute the arguments of opponents,
MSM (as well as all sorts of "experts") immediately mark the position of opponents with
"conspiracy theory" (there are also other options to choose from: "Putin's agent", "Putin's
useful idiot", "Kremlin's agent", "pro-Russian propaganda", etc.). It is assumed that this
makes unnecessary/optional (and even "toxic") all further conversations with the opponent
(that is, there is no need to answer him, to prove something with facts, etc.), because his
position is a "conspiracy theory".
Western MSM are actively using this simplest propaganda technique of information warfare.
For example, this
was the case when reporting on events in Syria - those journalists, the media, experts
who did not agree with the lie of MSM about Assad's use of the chemical weapons
were declared "conspiracy theorists" (and also "Assad apologists"). This method was
also used to cover "the Skripal case" - those who questioned the British authorities'
version of the "Novichok poisoning" were declared "conspiracy
theorists".
When I see words like "conspiracy theory" in the headlines and see what media use them,
then, you know, it's all clear. No chance for such articles/media to be taken seriously.
@32 jadan quote "Show me how that little piss ant country that can't even pay its fuel
bills...." are you familiar with the name porkoshenko, or any other one of the numbers of
kleptomaniacs in positions of power in the ukraine? how do you think they got their, if
''that little piss ant country' can't even pay it's bills? i am sure you are capable of
adding 2 + 2...
b isn't defending trump here.. he's highlighting how corrupt the msm is! it looks like you
missed that.. check the headline..
This is the way the controlled media works. They provide half a story, half truths, straw-man
facts, selective quotes and 'expert' comment, opinion and unwarranted assumption presented as
fact that all together cover the spectrum from black to white, spread across the many titles.
They also disseminate a fine dusting of lies and actual truth here and there. The result is
the public have a dozen 'truths' to pick from, none of which are real, while the outright
lies and actual truths get dismissed as not credible and the half-truths and straw-man truths
appear to carry some validity. If you look for it you can find it applying in almost every
bit of 'news', if it is in any way controversial, whether it is partisan politics, Climate
Change or Brexit to give examples.
As we know from Wayne Madsen's little book, "The Manufacturing of a President", Obama
has been a CIA asset since he was a suckling babe.
If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas
drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about
Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge.
Ukraine was just one hell of a honey pot that too many couldn't resist visiting.
Kind of like Russia (Uranium One and HRC) or China (Biden for a start).
Giulani is going to be very busy - he still hasn't produced anything that wasn't already
published, but I bet he has much more.
... smart enough to understand and agree that they needed someone like Trump?
Yes, I do think they are smart enough and agreed to act in their collective best interest.
Kissinger first wrote of MAGA in a WSJ Op-Ed in August 2014. Trump entered the race in June
2015, IIRC.
Do you think that Trump - who failed at multiple businesses - just woke up one day and
became a political and geopolitical genius? As a candidate he said he'd "take the oil" and
now, more than 3 years later, he has! LOL.
And JUST AFTER the Mueller investigation formally ends, Trump ONCE AGAIN solicits a
foreign power to interfere in a US election. The biggest beneficiary? Deep State BIDEN! Who
now gets all the media attention.
FYI Wm Gruff makes your same point often: that Deep State mistakes demonstrate that they
couldn't possible pull of a Trump win (if that's what they wanted). I disagree.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I very much doubt that anyone will go to jail - or serve any meaningful jail time if they
do - over the Deep State shenanigans. Nor will people 'wake up' and see how they've been
played anytime soon. Even the smarter, more savvy denizens of the moa bar have much
difficulty connecting dots. Dots that they don't want to see.
If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas
drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about
Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge
Trump at first threw down the gauntlet to the spies and proclaimed his autocratic
prerogative when God held off the rain for his inauguration (!) but now he would gladly get
on his knees between Gina Haspel's legs if the CIA would only help him stay in power.
What
distinguishes Obama from other presidents is the degree to which he was manufactured. He made
it to the WH without much of a political base. Control of the political context, media and
process, launched Obama to the top. It was fulfillment of the liberal American dream. It was
a great coup. Talk about the "deep state"! It's staring us all in the face.
Oh, but Deep State DID interfere.
FACT: Deep Stater Hillary colluded with DNC against Sanders. ( But she would NEVER
participate in collusion that caused her to lose an election./sarc LOL)
And now pro-Trump people say Clapper, Brennan, and Comey interfered in the 2016 election
OR committed treason by trying to unseat the President!
So we can talk about Deep State interference . . . as long as it follows the partisan
narrative that's been established for us.
I have news for you. USA Presidents use strong coercive persuasive arguments or means of
speech ALL THE TIME. And always have. Sometimes they can be subtle and allude to an action
that might make them happy and sometimes they can be blunt. Its a presidential thing. It is
what statespeople do when they 'negotiate' for their desired outcome.
It is not illegal or corrupt. It is power nakedly exercised. Just because Biden is a
candidate for the same presidential role does not confer immunity for Biden's graft in favor
of his son a few years back. You make a mockery of your position.
One USA President visited Australia once and when confronted with a roadblock of
demonstrators seeking peace in Vietnam demanded of the Australian Premier to "drive over the
bastards". That didn't happen but the President continued to drive all over the Vietnamese
innocents.
Trump may be a grifter and a scumbag but there are warmongers well ahead of him in the cue
for justice. Take Hillary Clinton for example. She is a ruthless killer and the greatest
breach of USA national Security ever with her Secretary of State emails held on an unsecured
server in her closet.
The same powers some call "deep state," are the same powers that have given us ALL modern day
presidents, probably from FDR on.
IMO, they are nothing more, nothing less than the "captains of commerce", who, through the
vast accumulation of wealth by monopoly, buy our "representatives" to legislate rules and
regulations to benefit themselves.
Our so-called "leaders" work for them, with very few exceptions, and transcends all
political parties, and now also the Supreme Court.
$ has been ruled speech, unlimited $ is allowed to be given to politicians for elections.
How could anything but massive corruption take place under this kind of system?
they make it look as if Trump did something crazy or illegal. He does plenty of that but not
in this case.
You suffer from TDS. What on Earth are you talking about here? Plenty of that? Say what?
Why do you undercut your entire point in your article with this little piece of utter
nonsense?
Name one thing that Trump that has done that is illegal. Name one thing that is crazy. Stop apologizing to the crazies by denigrating Trump. Your entire article was all about
how none of the bs is true. And then you put your own brand of bs in there at the end. Cut it
out.
@ 54 jadan... thanks for your comments... i am feeling more philosophical tonight, as i don't
have a gig and have some time to express myself a bit more here.. first off, i don't like any
of these characters - trump, biden, and etc. etc.. i have no horse in the game here, and it
sounds like you don't either.. your comment- "The issue is Trump's extortion of Ukraine, not
Biden's extortion of Ukraine." i can go along with that until i reflect back onto what
increasingly looks like an agenda to get trump even prior to when he was elected, at which
point i want to say why are we only examining trump in all of this? who gets to decide what
the issue is, or as Caitlin Johnstone lets to say - who gets to decide what the narrative is
here? i don't have an answer for this, but those who appear to be taking a side in all of
this - including you with the quote i make - seem to think that it has to be the issue of
trumps extortion of Ukraine, verses what appears to me the CIA - Dem party extortion of the
ordinary USA persons mind...
let me back up... Has mccarthyism version 2 come to life since the advent of what happened
in the Ukraine from 2014 onward?? is the issue of a new cold war with Russia been on the
burner for at least 5 or more years here and began before trump was even considered a
potential candidate for the republican party? did Russia take back Crimea, which wasn't
supposed to happen? is this good for military industrial complex sales? and etc. etc..
so, i don't think it is fair to only consider the latest boneheaded thing trump did when i
consider the bigger picture unfolding here.. now, maybe you think i am a trump apologist... i
am just saying what the backdrop looks like to me here.. i am sure biden is small potatoes in
the bigger picture here, but if taking a closer examination of what took place in ukraine
leading into 2014, with the victoria nulands and geoffrey pyatts and etc. etc. of usa
diplomatic corps, usa dept of state and etc. could lead to a better understanding of how the
usa has went down the road it has for the past 60 years of foreign policy on the world stage,
it would be a good start... so, to me - it ain't about trump.. it is about usa foreign policy
and how it has sucked the big one on the world stage for at least since the time of vietnam
when i was a teenager..
i suppose it depends on the time frame one wants to take.. my time frame will be
considered an evasion of the moment to some, but it is how i see it.. sure, trump is scum,
but the bigger issue to me is the usa's foreign policy agenda.. anything that can pull back
the covers on that would be an extremely good thing... now, perhaps this is the straw that
broke trumps back and the deep state will not tolerate being scrutinized.. that i could
understand, but i am not going to be putting it all on trump as the reason the covers have to
remain on all the shit the usa has been responsible for on the world stage to date and
especially the past 10 years.. i am not able to blame trump for all of that.. and as you can
see, i would prefer to get down to the nitty gritty of who is zooming who here... the msm for
all intensive purposes is complicit in duping the american public.. that to me is the gist of
b's comment here, not that he is cheer-leading for trump.. i just don't see it that way...i'm
definitely not!
The State Department is a neoliberal Trojan horse in the USA government, with strong
globalist ethos. They will sabotage any change of foreign policy. and they intend to kick the
neoliberal can down the road as long as possible. They are the same type of neoliberals as Joe
Biden and Hillary Clinton. Probably less corrupt them those two, but still.
They are imperial soldiers par excellence; these whole life concentrated on serving the
imperial interests, and strive for the strengthening and expansion of neoliberal empire via
opening new markets for the expansions of US based multinationals, staging wars and color
revolutions to overthrows the governments which resists Washington Consensus, etc.
They probably can't be reformed, only fired, or forced into retirement. 72 years old neocon
stooge Taylor is just the tip of the iceberg.
From Wikipedia: He directed a Defense Department think tank at Fort Lesley J. McNair . Following that
assignment, he went to Brussels for a five year assignment as the Special
Deputy Defense Advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to NATO From 1992 until 2002 Taylor served with the rank of
ambassador coordinating assistance to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union , followed by an assignment in
Kabul coordinating U.S. and
international assistance to Afghanistan . In 2004 he was transferred to
Baghdad as Director of the
Iraq Reconstruction Management Office
Taylor was nominated by President George W. Bush to be United States ambassador to
Ukraine while he was serving as Senior Consultant to the Coordinator of Reconstruction and
Stabilization at the Department of State. [10] He was
confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006, and was
sworn in on June 5, 2006. At the time Taylor assumed responsibilities at the embassy it was, with
over 650 employees from nine U.S. government departments and agencies, the fifth-largest
bilateral mission in Europe
Notable quotes:
"... As William Taylor's testimony about Ukraine creates shock waves in Washington, a self-anointed mandarin class or, if you prefer, deep state, that has largely operated unmolested until the advent of Trump now appears to believe that it can foil, or even subvert, the policies of a president it deems unfit for office, a development that should worry Democrats and Republicans alike. ..."
"... One reason is that those who seek to repair the damage caused by a thirty-year deterioration in trust and cooperation face an uphill battle against what recently has been given the colloquial name, "the Blob." The term, coined by Obama White House staffer Ben Rhodes, refers to the foreign-policy establishment, mostly located in Washington, DC and constantly focused on the putative decline of American influence abroad. It has been distinguished by its unwillingness, or inability, to reconsider or reprioritize national interests that were first defined after World War II, and then continued, by and large, on auto-pilot after the end of the Cold War. ..."
"... Another reason is that Trump himself has been largely indifferent to who assumes positions in his administration, calculating that by sheer force of will he, and he alone, can be the decider. In September, Trump referred to his search for a fresh national security adviser in the following terms: "It's great because it's a lot of fun to work with Donald Trump, and it's very easy, actually, to work with me. You know why it's easy? Because I make all the decisions. They don't have to work." This insouciant approach has now boomeranged on Trump. ..."
"... Taylor, as his testimony made clear, was able to observe first-hand many of the Trump administration's ham-fisted moves to extract, in one form another, concessions from Ukraine. But however clumsy and counterproductive Trump's moves may have been, Taylor offered an overly simplistic survey of events in the region. Indeed, his Manichean introductory and concluding remarks suggested that he views Russia as an inveterate enemy of America and Ukraine as a white knight. ..."
"... Foreign policy is rarely a morality play and the fairy-tale that Taylor presented was more redolent of a post–Cold War cold warrior who, like too many of his colleagues at the foreign desk, are committed to retrograde thinking, than of an official offering an incisive look at a complex and troubled region. It is not as though Ukraine, where Taylor served as ambassador during the George W. Bush administration, has ever been free from the plague of corruption or murky machinations by local competing factions. Reflexively taking the side of Ukraine does not serve American interests any more than trying to pummel it for political favors. The testimony of Taylor and other State Department witnesses before the House Intelligence Committee is a case in point. ..."
"... ow that the fight between Trump and the permanent bureaucracy is now in the open? ..."
"... Vice President Mike Pence told Laura Ingraham , host of Fox's The Ingraham Angle , "There is no question when President Trump said we were going to drain the swamp, but an awful lot of the swamp has been caught up in the State Department bureaucracy and we're just going to keep fighting it. And we are going to fight it with the truth." For his part, Evans thinks that there is a modicum of hope for improved relations with Moscow. "Taylor will have to resign now," he says. "We might even see a moderation of the uncritical support for Ukraine, as some of the ugly underside starts to emerge, although anti-Russian sentiment is the mother's milk of Congress." ..."
As William Taylor's testimony about Ukraine creates shock waves in Washington, a
self-anointed mandarin class or, if you prefer, deep state, that has largely operated
unmolested until the advent of Trump now appears to believe that it can foil, or even subvert,
the policies of a president it deems unfit for office, a development that should worry
Democrats and Republicans alike.
President Donald Trump campaigned and was elected on a platform of improved relations with
Russia. Yet, three years after his election, no real improvement has materialized and, if
anything, they have deteriorated. Why?
One reason is that those who seek to repair the damage caused by a thirty-year
deterioration in trust and cooperation face an uphill battle against what recently has been
given the colloquial name, "the Blob." The term,
coined by Obama White House staffer Ben Rhodes, refers to the foreign-policy establishment,
mostly located in Washington, DC and constantly focused on the putative decline of American
influence abroad. It has been distinguished by its unwillingness, or inability, to reconsider
or reprioritize national interests that were first defined after World War II, and then
continued, by and large, on auto-pilot after the end of the Cold War. Now Trump is
taking a wrecking ball to
this world order. But a self-anointed mandarin class or, if you prefer, deep state, that has
largely operated unmolested until the advent of Trump now appears to believe that it can foil,
or even subvert, the policies of a president it deems unfit for office, a development that
should worry Democrats and Republicans alike.
Another reason is that Trump himself has been largely indifferent to who assumes
positions in his administration, calculating that by sheer force of will he, and he alone, can
be the decider. In September, Trump referred to his search for a fresh national security
adviser in the following terms: "It's great because it's a lot of fun to work with Donald
Trump, and it's very easy, actually, to work with me. You know why it's easy? Because I make
all the decisions. They don't have to work." This insouciant approach has now boomeranged on
Trump.
Enter William B. Taylor, Jr. Taylor has been the U.S. Chargé d 'Affaires Ukraine
since June of this year (having previously held the position of ambassador 2006–2009),
and yesterday he testified behind-closed-doors as part of the House impeachment inquiry into
Trump. Taylor, as his testimony made clear, was able to observe first-hand many of the
Trump administration's ham-fisted moves to extract, in one form another, concessions from
Ukraine. But however clumsy and counterproductive Trump's moves may have been, Taylor offered
an overly simplistic survey of events in the region. Indeed, his Manichean introductory and
concluding remarks suggested that he views Russia as an inveterate enemy of America and Ukraine
as a white knight.
In his opening statement, Taylor emphasized that Ukraine is a strategic partner of the
United States that is "important for the security of our country as well as Europe," as well as
a country that is "under armed attack from Russia." Well, yes. But this sweeping description
occludes more than it reveals. Foreign policy is rarely a morality play and the fairy-tale
that Taylor presented was more redolent of a post–Cold War cold warrior who, like too
many of his colleagues at the foreign desk, are committed to retrograde thinking, than of an
official offering an incisive look at a complex and troubled region. It is not as though
Ukraine, where Taylor served as ambassador during the George W. Bush administration, has ever
been free from the plague of corruption or murky machinations by local competing factions.
Reflexively taking the side of Ukraine does not serve American interests any more than trying
to pummel it for political favors. The testimony of Taylor and other State Department witnesses
before the House Intelligence Committee is a case in point.
Will anything change n ow that the fight between Trump and the permanent bureaucracy is
now in the open? On Tuesday night, Vice President Mike Pence told Laura
Ingraham , host of Fox's The Ingraham Angle , "There is no question when President
Trump said we were going to drain the swamp, but an awful lot of the swamp has been caught up
in the State Department bureaucracy and we're just going to keep fighting it. And we are going
to fight it with the truth." For his part, Evans thinks that there is a modicum of hope for
improved relations with Moscow. "Taylor will have to resign now," he says. "We might even see a
moderation of the uncritical support for Ukraine, as some of the ugly underside starts to
emerge, although anti-Russian sentiment is the mother's milk of Congress."
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter at the National Interest .
There was always an element of this in US foreign policy. Teddy Roosevelt took the
opportunity of the Navy Sec being out for the weekend to send orders for the Asiatic
Fleet to move to position to attack the Philippines. The returning Sec was appalled, but
it was too late. For that adventure, he was rewarded by becoming President in due
time.
Forty years later, the US oil embargo on Japan happened the same way. The boss away
for the weekend, the deputy ordered it, and then left his bosses the options of
supporting it or appearing weak and appearing to make a concession by withdrawing it. For
that adventure, he was rewarded by becoming Sec of State in due time.
The pattern is not new. Doing it domestically is new. Doing it to remove a President
is new. Doing it to reverse a US election is new, though reversing foreign elections that
way by the same people was routine.
If we are to fix this, we need to face that it is a problem very deeply embedded. It
is not new, and does not have recent nor shallow roots.
"What goes unmentioned is that many of the dead are Eastern Ukrainians with deep
language and cultural connections to Russia, who acted upon secessionist impulses only
after the emergence of the new regime in Kiev."
This is true. Putin/Lavrov team gets a lot criticism for that in Russia. Maybe, of all
those Kalibrs going to Raqqa, Syria, just a few could make a detour to Lvov, Ukraine, for
demonstration purposes? While I greatly respect the diplomatic acumen of the Russian
leadership, i think support for pro-Russia East Ukrainians has been insufficient. More
could and should have been done. Donbass people were allowed to receive Russian passports
recently, so hopefully this will change things for the better, and more Russian support
will arrive, but we will see. West won't like a more pro-active Russian approach, but
since Russia-West relations won't improve in a foreseeable future, Russia can safely
discard Western opinion and agree to disagree on this particular matter.
According to Deng Xiaoping's maxim, we should "seek truth from facts," and after three
years Trump recognizes the fact that it is in U.S. national interest to avoid great power
conflict either with China or Russia. If we were to be honest and "seek truth from facts"
judging Putin with fairness by his action, we would see that Putin's intellect and
character have benefitted the international community at large in every regions across
the globe. Sadly, the American mandarin class is like Mao's Chinese Gang of Four who
insisted on continuing with outdated Cold War political ideology. Americans would never
vote for any chaos president, and Trump realizes that in time for 2020.
Russia has its own fair share of neo-naztis, so what?
Ukrainian neo-nazis (Azov etc.) get paided and armed by the Ukrainian state.
On Wednesday, New York Rep. Max Rose, who chairs the
counterterrorism subcommittee, submitted a letter to the State
Department, co-signed by 39 members of Congress . It urged the department
to designate Azov Battalion (a far-right paramilitary regiment in
Ukraine), National Action (a neo-Nazi group based in the U.K.), and
Nordic Resistance Movement (a neo-Nazi network from Scandinavia) as
terrorist organizations .
The reason they think Azov is neo-nasti organization is because the suspect in
Christchurch mosque got military
training in Ukraine.
I think this is typical illustration of the "Post hoc" fallacy.
There are no records of Azov perpetuating anti semitic or anti muslim actions in
Ukraine, so it is not clear if there is a relation.
Russia, on the other hand, openly peddling supremacy - Russian civilization, Russian
world, Russian character, Russian language - are the best and superior to anything
else.
Money quote: “Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts."
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine; the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils. ..."
"... Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016; one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment, discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen. ..."
"... The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive. ..."
"... Poroshenko was aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once the old man (he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent the night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally allied with Clinton camp. ..."
"... In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the Democratic Party. A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of Directors of Velta , producing Ukrainian titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian ore deposits. ..."
"... The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep State, which is probably just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and politicians. ..."
"... The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich. ..."
"... If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War childhood out of my head long enough to laugh. ..."
A talk with Oleg Tsarev reveals the alleged identity of the "Trump/Ukraine Whistleblower"
Israel Shamir October
25, 2019 2,400 Words 6 Comments Reply
Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts.
The mysterious 'whistleblower' whose report had unleashed the impeachment is named in the
exclusive interview given to the Unz Review by a prominent Ukrainian politician, an
ex-Member of Parliament of four terms, a candidate for Ukraine's presidency, Oleg Tsarev.
Mr Tsarev, a tall, agile and graceful man, a good speaker and a prolific writer, had been a
leading and popular Ukrainian politician before the 2014 putsch; he stayed in the Ukraine after
President Yanukovych's flight; ran for the Presidency against Mr Poroshenko, and eventually had
to go to exile due to multiple threats to his life. During the failed attempt to secede, he was
elected the speaker of the Parliament of Novorossia (South-Eastern Ukraine). I spoke to him in
Crimea, where he lives in the pleasant seaside town of Yalta. Tsarev still has many supporters
in the Ukraine, and is a leader of the opposition to the Kiev regime.
Oleg, you followed Biden story from its very inception. Biden is not the only Dem
politician involved in the Ukrainian corruption schemes, is he?
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his
partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US
proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer
of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine;
the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit of a
few corruptioners, American and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its dependence
on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural gas, sufficient for
domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the Ukrainians
got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine
could provide all its households with free gas for heating and cooking, just like Libya did.
Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma) had very high profits and very
little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to
European levels, and the new president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went sky-high.
The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and heating; and huge
profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices,
President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his projects. He said
that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be considered a partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its
founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the
company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He had brought in
Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney
General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin
immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand dollar
per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax
code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours
to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US taxpayers' funds
won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner, paid Biden well for
this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to different
sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and installed
Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma, but he also
could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could not keep his trap shut:
by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself. Meanwhile Mr
Shokin gave evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and now it was
confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers in connection with another case, Firtash
case.
What is Firtash Case?
The Democrats wanted to get another Ukrainian oligarch, Mr Firtash, to the US and make him
to confess that he illegally supported Trump's campaign for the sake of Russia. Firtash had
been arrested in Vienna, Austria; there he fought extradition to the US. His lawyers claimed it
is purely political case, and they used Mr Shokin's deposition to substantiate their claim. For
this reason, the evidence supplied by Shokin is not easily reversible, even if Shokin were
willing, and he is not. He also stated under oath that the Democrats pressurised him to help
and extradite Firtash to the US, though he had no standing in this purely American issue. It
seems that Mrs Clinton believes that Firtash's funds helped Trump to win elections, an
extremely unlikely thing [says Mr Tsarev].
Talking about Burisma and Biden; what is this billion dollars of aid that Biden could
give or withhold?
It is USAID money, the main channel of the US aid for "support of democracy". First billion
dollars of USAID came to the Ukraine in 2014. This was authorised by Joe Biden, while for
Ukraine, the papers were signed by Mr Turchinov, the "acting President". The Ukrainian
constitution does not know of such a position, and Turchinov, "the acting President" had no
right to sign neither a legal nor financial document. Thus, all the documents that were signed
by him, in fact, had no legal force. However, Biden countersigned the papers signed by
Turchynov and allocated money for Ukraine. And the money was stolen – by the Democrats
and their Ukrainian counterparts.
Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to
investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016;
one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the
money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment,
discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen.
As a result, in October 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a criminal case for
"Abuse of power and embezzlement of American taxpayers' money". Among the accused there are two
consecutive Finance Ministers of the Ukraine, Mrs Natalie Ann Jaresko who served 2014-2016 and
Mr Alexander Daniluk who served 2016-2018, and three US banks. The investigation caused the
USAID to cease issuing grants since August 2019. As Trump said, now the US does not give away
money and does not impose democracy.
The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk
assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a
substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without
documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by
the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive.
Sam Kislin was involved in this investigation. He is a good friend and associate of
Giuliani, Trump's lawyer and an ex-mayor of New York. Kislin is well known in Kiev, and I have
many friends who are Sam's friends [said Tsarev]. I learned of his progress, because some of my
friends were detained in the United States, or interrogated in Ukraine. They briefed me about
this. It appears that Burisma is just the tip of the scandal, the tip of the iceberg. If Trump
will carry on, and use what was already initiated and investigated, the whole headquarters of
the Democratic party will come down. They will not be able to hold elections. I have no right
to name names, but believe me, leading functionaries of the Democratic party are involved.
Poroshenko was aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once
the old man (he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent
the night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally
allied with Clinton camp.
And President Zelensky? Is he free from Clintonite Democrats' influence?
If he were, there would not be the scandal of Trump phone call. How the Democrats learned of
this call and its alleged content? The official version says there was a CIA man, a
whistle-blower, who reported to the Democrats. What the version does not clarify, where this
whistle-blower was located during the call. I tell you, he was located in Kiev, and he was
present at the conversation, at the Ukrainian President Zelensky's side. This man was (perhaps)
a CIA asset, but he also was a close associate of George Soros, and a Ukrainian high-ranking
official. His name is Mr Alexander Daniluk . He is also the man
the investigation of Sam Kislin and of the DoJ had led to, the Finance Minister of Ukraine at
the time, the man who was responsible for the embezzlement of three billion US taxpayer's best
dollars. The DoJ issued an order for his arrest. Naturally he is devoted to Biden personally,
and to the Dems in general. I would not trust his version of the phone call at all.
Daniluk was supposed to accompany President Zelensky on his visit to Washington; but he was
informed that there is an order for his arrest. He remained in Kiev. And soon afterwards, the
hell of the alleged leaked phone call broke out. Zelensky administration investigated and
concluded that the leak was done by Mr Alexander Daniluk, who is known for his close relations
with George Soros and with Mr Biden. Alexander Daniluk had been fired. (However, he did not
admit his guilt and said the leak was done by his sworn enemy, the head of president's
administration office, Mr Andrey Bogdan , who allegedly framed
Daniluk.)
This is not the only case of US-connected corruption in Ukraine. There is Amos J. Hochstein , a protege of former
VP Joe Biden, who has served in the Barack Obama administration as the Assistant Secretary of
State for Energy Resources. He still hangs on the Ukraine. Together with an American citizen
Andrew Favorov
, the Deputy Director of Naftogas he organised very expensive "reverse gas import" into
Ukraine. In this scheme, the Russian gas is bought by Europeans and afterwards sold to Ukraine
with a wonderful margin. In reality, gas comes from Russia directly, but payments go via
Hochstein. It is much more costly than to buy directly from Russia; Ukrainian people pay, while
the margin is collected by Hochstein and Favorov. Now they plan to import liquefied gas from
the United States, at even higher price. Again, the price will be paid by the Ukrainians, while
profits will go to Hochstein and Favorov.
In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the
Democratic Party. A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of
Directors of Velta , producing Ukrainian
titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq
war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian ore deposits.
One of the best Ukrainian corruption stories is connected with Audrius Butkevicius , the former
Minister of Defence (1996 to 2000) and a Member of the Seimas (Parliament) of post-Soviet
Lithuania. Mr AB is supposedly working for MI6, and now is a member of the notorious Institute for
Statecraft , a UK deep state propaganda outfit involved in disinformation operations,
subversion of the democratic process and promoting Russophobia and the idea of a new cold war.
In 1991 he commanded snipers that shoot Lithuanian protesters. The kills were ascribed to the
Soviet armed forces, and the last Soviet President Mr Gorbachev ordered speedy withdrawal of
his troops from Lithuania. Mr AB became the Minister of Defence of his independent nation. In
1997 the Honourable Minister of Defence "had requested 300,000 USD from a senior executive of a
troubled oil company for his assistance in obtaining the discontinuance of criminal proceedings
concerning the company's vast debts", in the language of the court judgement. He was arrested
on receipt of the bribe, had been sentenced to five years of jail, but a man with such
qualifications was not left to rot in a prison.
In 2005 he commanded the snipers who killed protesters in Kyrgyzstan, in Georgia he repeated
the feat in 2003 during the Rose Revolution. In 2014 he did it again in Kiev, where his snipers
killed around a hundred men, protesters and police. He was brought to Kiev by Mr Turchinov, who
called himself the "acting President" and who countersigned Joe Biden's billion dollars'
grant.
In October 2018 the name of Mr AB came up again. Military warehouses of Chernigov had caught
fire; allegedly thousands of shells stored for fighting the separatists had been destroyed by
fire. And it was not the first fire of this kind: the previous one, equally huge, torched
Ukrainian army warehouses in Vinnitsa in 2017. Altogether, there were 12 huge army arsenal
fires for the last few years. Just for 2018, the damage was over $2 billion.
When Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine Anatoly Matios investigated the fires, he
discovered that 80% of weapons and shells in the warehouses were missing. They weren't
destroyed by fire, they weren't there in the first place. Instead of being used to kill the
Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Donetsk, the hardware had been shipped from the port of Nikolaev
to Syria, to the Islamic rebels and to ISIS. And the man who organised this enormous operation
was our Mr AB, the old fighter for democracy on behalf of MI6, acting in cahoots with the
Minister of Defence Poltorak and Mr Turchinov, the friend of Mr
Biden. (They say Mr Matios was given $10 million for his silence).
The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep
State, which is probably just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and
politicians.
The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're
bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured
incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal
murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich. The cozy proximity of recently-murdered Epstein
himself to crypto-converso AG Barr's family only makes me more certain that they will get
away with this heist like they've done with dozens of other billion-dollar swindles.
If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same
grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty
hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine
Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War
childhood out of my head long enough to laugh.
Who will hold then responsible? The country appears to have been entirely taken over by
crookish spooks and politicians.
The US is now confirmed as a cleptocracy.
Ukraine is corrupted by outsiders (those who are not Ukrainian/Russian). In past centuries
there was a simple but effective answer to foreigners corrupting their country. The Cossacks
would sharpen up their sabres. saddle up their horses and have a slaughter. It was effective
then and would be effective today. Get rid of those who are not Slavic.
"... The official GOP talking points are that the Impeachment trial is a Deep State partisan witch hunt, being conducted in private and the equivalent of a coup or an attempt to overturn the 2016 elections. This is just being done to create some image that those talking points are substantiated. ..."
"... The impeachment is an Intelligence Community (aka Deep State) operation condoned by the Dems. They have decided to widen the scope to include lots of crimes, rather than just the phone call/funding block issue. This ups the ante, as Trump could easily get out of that, but being continuously assaulted with new claims will be much more difficult. Thus, transforming his investigation into the completely QueenOfWarmongers rubbish known as RussiaGate into a criminal probe with supeona power and so forth creates a counter narrative which Trump can use to defend himself. ..."
"... As for handcuffs, my targets would be Bush, Cheney, Clapper and Brennan, and possibly Mueller too (see his 'management' of the Anthrax attacks). ..."
"... Brennan in cuffs will require his partners in crime at the Oval Office meeting of the principles in late 2016 to be led away in handcuffs also. The 2016 Oval Office meeting which launched the FISA court referral will necessarily implicate the POTUS. ..."
"... Tax evasion took down gangster Al Capone. Like Al Capone a lesser charge will have John Brennan viewing the world through iron bars. For the intelligence community to actively attempt to decide an election and then actively attempt the coup of a President is damn, damn, damn serious but it pales in comparison to the 9/11 false flag. John Brennan stood at the apex of the 9/11 treachery (interestingly, Robert Mueller was involved too, but his role appears limited to the cover up). It appears John Brennan will get away with 9/11. ..."
"... In other words the Mueller investigation literally was a conspiracy theory. Any mass media organization that discusses "conspiracy theories" but fails to point out this biggest one of them all is engaged in deliberate deceit. ..."
"... I suspect that John Bolton is in fact the mastermind behind this fake "whistleblower" stunt. it's the sort of action Bolton would do as the master bureaucrat, spread false rumors of what the call between Trump and Zelensky contained among his subordinates and Neocon fellow travellers to feed into the narrative of a corrupt deal with Zelensky to derail Trumps plans in Ukraine and Russia and feed the Democrats impeachment push. Trump declassifying the transcript of the conversation probably caught him by surprise and threw a wrench into his plans since Trump has refused to declassify documents in the past and the State Department probably would have argued that Trump not declassify the conversation. ..."
"... In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors' handling of the case. Judge Sullivan insisted that the misconduct allegations were "too serious and too numerous" to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation. He appointed Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate whether members of the trial team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt. ..."
Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia
investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry,
according to two people familiar with the matter. The move gives the prosecutor running it,
John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to convene a grand
jury and to file criminal charges.
In contrast these formulations in Bezos' blog on the very same issue are confusing me.
The federal prosecutor tapped by Attorney General William P. Barr to examine the origins of
the FBI's probe of President Trump's 2016 campaign is conducting an investigation officials
consider criminal in nature, according to a person familiar with the matter.
...
The significance of officials deeming Durham's probe "criminal" is difficult to determine by
itself.
...
It was not immediately clear whether officials' consideration of his work as criminal
represented a shift in the seriousness of his investigation or whether a grand jury had been
convened.
Durham's work is considered as criminal? The investigation itself has committed a crime? The
attorney is a criminal?
One wonders if this choice of phrasing was intended to be ambiguous.
Anyway.
I for one will cheer when Durham puts handcuffs on John Brennan.
Posted by b on October 25, 2019 at 12:09 UTC | Permalink
The official GOP talking points are that the Impeachment trial is a Deep State partisan
witch hunt, being conducted in private and the equivalent of a coup or an attempt to overturn
the 2016 elections. This is just being done to create some image that those talking points
are substantiated.
In order to understand this, you need to start with impeachment, and then look at what is
behind that.
The impeachment is an Intelligence Community (aka Deep State) operation condoned by
the Dems. They have decided to widen the scope to include lots of crimes, rather than just
the phone call/funding block issue. This ups the ante, as Trump could easily get out of that,
but being continuously assaulted with new claims will be much more difficult. Thus,
transforming his investigation into the completely QueenOfWarmongers rubbish known as
RussiaGate into a criminal probe with supeona power and so forth creates a counter narrative
which Trump can use to defend himself.
This seems pretty obvious.
The more interesting thing is, why did Polosi take on the impeachment inquiry? Well, it
will burn Biden, which is probably good because he's lost it. And, it will create all this
anti-Trump sentiment. But, her job, via the DNC is to get a nominee who will keep the status
quo and defeat Trump. They are currently putting their apples in the Warren bucket. This is
acceptable to the powers behind the scenes (MIC/Oil/...) as she will do the least amount of
change.
But, Polosi and the core Dems bigger problems are Burnie and Gabbard. They represent
radical change and the powers that should not be will do whatever they can to prevent that.
And, the bigger problem there is that Bernie's strategy is to create a movement which will
continue to engage. From his 2016 campaign you get AOC and Omar who are also radical. Thus,
this is a threat which will need to be constantly fought. And, with the lack of engagement by
the younger generation with the standard media outlets, they are even harder to control.
Now that the cat is out of the bag about RussiaGate, I imagine that the powers that be are
pissed off with QueenOfWarmongers for her stupid claims about Gabbard and Stein being Russian
assets. Flogging a dead horse (does not make it run faster). This just further enrages those
who are for more radical change.
Meanwhile, the "gang of four" are learning, independently and from Bernie, how power works
in DC. This represents a further challenge.
As for handcuffs, my targets would be Bush, Cheney, Clapper and Brennan, and possibly
Mueller too (see his 'management' of the Anthrax attacks).
IMO this investigation of the Mueller investigation is one part revenge and the rest is
gathering the evidence against Trump in order to bury it ahead of Trumps reelection. The full
Mueller report nor the evidence to produce it have been released and with this new
investigation controlled by Trumps protector it never will be while Barr and Trump are still
in power.
The conservative ruling power elite are staging a coup in America in order to establish
permanent conservative minority control of the levers of power and they see this as their
last best hope of achieving that goal. Buckle up this is going to get ugly as the
conservatives are starting to panic.
Brennan in cuffs will require his partners in crime at the Oval Office meeting of the
principles in late 2016 to be led away in handcuffs also. The 2016 Oval Office meeting which
launched the FISA court referral will necessarily implicate the POTUS. However, I don't
see these events materializing because compared to the president Trump replaced, Trump has
been far less urbane, educated and civil. All we usually ask of presidents is to be cool and
sophisticated when ordering the drone murders of our fellow U.S. Citizens, case in point as
ordered by Barack Obama with the 8-year old Nasser al Awlaki and her 16-year old brother,
Abdulrahman.
Tax evasion took down gangster Al Capone. Like Al Capone a lesser charge will have John
Brennan viewing the world through iron bars. For the intelligence community to actively
attempt to decide an election and then actively attempt the coup of a President is damn,
damn, damn serious but it pales in comparison to the 9/11 false flag. John Brennan stood at
the apex of the 9/11 treachery (interestingly, Robert Mueller was involved too, but his role
appears limited to the cover up). It appears John Brennan will get away with 9/11.
But, like Al Capone, John Brennan will live out his life caged up with his own kind.
With any luck this may all lead back to Obama, he is a truly evil man who (literally) got
away with murder. Perhaps if he got dragged away in handcuffs with Trump, Brennan et al then
we'd finally get a true assessment of his time as president...
From the early days of Russiagate I expected that the truth would never come out. (This is
the US of A, after all) Democrats would continue to live in their media
shaped delusions. (I am a Green Party voter). What truth did come out would be shaped by the
media to keep the Democratic voters steadfast in their heartfelt delusions.
Reuters has an article linked from their front page that is similar in intent to the
Bezo-blog that b has pointed out. I tried to choose a couple of paragraphs from the Reuters
article so that you would get the intent of it, but it is the *whole* thing, so read it.
**While reading it** try and see the article from the viewpoint of a brainwashed Democrat.
The article was designed to feed confirmation bias.
Read the whole thing, please.
Here are two unsurprising paragraphs:
Democrats and some former law enforcement officials say Barr is using the Justice
Department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that could benefit the Republican
president politically and undermine former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia
investigation.
Mueller's investigation found that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump,
and led to criminal convictions of several former campaign aides. But Mueller concluded
that he did not have enough evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy with Russia.
The short of it: They're now already acting like a bunch of cockroaches scrambling when
the light's turned on, all looking to pin the blame on someone else.
He'd also love to see leading media propagandists charged, something I wholeheartedly
agree with. (Though I'd string up all the propagandists for much worse crimes than
Russiagate, which like "impeachment" was never anything more than retarded political
theater.)
Only two options here folks: Either the Washington Bezos Post is a) staffed
by deliberate liars or it is b) staffed by morons who cannot construct a comprehensible
sentence.
Well, there is a third possibility: c) Both of the above.
The US is now a country that has a growing cabal of current and past leadership that are
criminally complicit in deceiving the American public as is detailed in the Joe Rogan
Experience #1368 - Edward Snowden video that is almost 3 hours long....see Petri comment # 67
in Open Thread for link.....this is not Snowden the glitz movie but Snowden the very
intelligent and humanistically patriotic person.
The recent phase of deception, according to Snowden has its roots in the 3 letter spy
agencies having overstepped constitutional bounds after 9/11. While the deception about
monitoring of Americans is criminal, its long term underlying goal is, and has been, to cover
up the take over of America by the international cult behind private finance led empire.
In case all missed the slow frog boiling transition, what use to be a country that was
established to be by and for the people (E Pluribus Unum) has now been turned into a tool of
unilateral financial control of the world that is faltering because China/Russia, et al are
not going along with the program.
The ongoing deception house of cards is collapsing as Might-Makes-Right can no longer hold
it together. The demise of the private finance/property/inheritance centered social contract
of the West is not a straight forward collapse as we are seeing, but collapsing it is.
How so very interesting to watch unfold.....as Snowden would encourage you, each of us has
our opportunity to play our part in evolving our society.....play your part without fear like
Snowden encourages and has provided such moving example of.
I find it impossible to get my hopes up that justice will ever be served to anyone in a
position of authority or malign influence in this country because they're all part of the
same Kabuki theater designed to keep us divided, confused, and unable to coalesce around a
strategy to confront them.
These investigations are always the stalling tactic they use to keep one side hoping for
justice while making the opposing side feel that it's the victim of a witch hunt, and
invariable both sides will be disappointed in the results while the power structure will
remain intact.
The only time anything resembling "justice" is served is when some low-level persons with
enough name recognition to make headlines, i.e. Martha Steward or these celebrity parents who
paid to get their kids into college, are sacrificed in order to maintain the illusion of a
functioning justice system. In reality the justice system we have is nothing more than
another line in the phalanx of defense the ruling elites (see: globalists, capitalists,
zionists) have built to protect their corrupt position of power.
Nobody who lies us into wars, orchestrates terrorist attacks (real or synthetic) against
us, or smuggles heroin from Afghanistan to a city near you as part of a domestic
destabilization campaign will ever get into trouble until we bring that trouble directly to
them outside of official channels.
To your list of indictments of Mueller you might add his role in the run up to 9/11 and in
its (non)investigation; the Whitey Bulger travesty in Boston; Uranium One. I'm sure there's
more. Precisely contrary to the Paladin of integrity portrait of Mueller, the Swamp would
have so much on this guy as to make him a safe pair of hands with the Russiagate IO. Who else
(unless senile) would want that turkey on their record?
Fuzzball @ 6--
And to your list of other perps, we might consider adding:
Cheryl Mills, Clinton counsel
Susan Rice
Samantha Power
Comey the canary
Clinton herself
Glenn Simpson
and Mr. No-Scandal himself, Hoops and change $$ cha-ching.
That WashPost article, born to confuse, is bizarre. Good catch.
As for Durham, is it known here that he has a track record of covering up for CIA
misdeeds: viz. , briefly, torture and destruction of evidence of torture? A pretty odd
choice for Trump to have made to uncover the plot against him.
"...Mueller ... did not have enough evidence to establish a criminal
conspiracy..."
In other words the Mueller investigation literally was a conspiracy theory. Any mass
media organization that discusses "conspiracy theories" but fails to point out this
biggest one of them all is engaged in deliberate deceit.
In a seismic legal filing, lawyers for Michael Flynn, Donald Trump's former national
security adviser Michael Flynn, have produced evidence they allege points to a "plot to set
up an innocent man and create a crime" – conduct "so shocking to the conscience and
so inimical to our system" they argue the case against him must be dismissed.
In the document, Flynn's lead legal representative Sydney Powell contends the very
foundation of his prosecution, a 24th January 2017 FBI interview in which the Bureau
alleges he lied about speaking with Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak in December
2016.[.]
[.]
"I made your edits" to Michael Flynn's 302 -- his FBI report from the interview Mueller
used to convict him
This is a long inteview with Angelo Codevilla, a conservative writer, academic, and card
carrying member of the Borg. I first ran into him around the time Russia went in to save
Assad, in Asia Times. Some interesting views on the Borg, Russiagate, Snowden, Syria,
Kissinger, etc.
Once upon a time if a person having a superior position in government or business got caught
in an indisgression that impugned his/her honor, the individual would pull their pistol from
their desk drawer and solve the problem as that was deemed the right & proper course of
action -- the honorable thing to do to redeem one's self.
Thus once discovered after his first incident, for example, Bill Clinton would have spared
us all much crap by ending his days while Governor of Arkansas; and before him, Nixon; and
before him, Ike; and before him, Truman; Boeing's CEO; etc.
Alas, there's no sense of honor held by those seeking high office or corporate leadership.
Perhaps the only such person to ever have publicly expressed any contrition for his position
was Andrew Carnegie in his Gospel of Wealth .
But Philanthropy cannot ever atone for violation of the public trust. Even gangsters have
a Code of Honor, but US politicians and all too many bureaucrats--nah: their code is anything
goes in the pursuit of power. IMO, it's such Moral Bankruptcy that gnaws at most of us
barflies regardless of our politics. The Ds are just as guilty as the Rs but none ever go to
jail or get impeached, although occasionally one resigns. On more than one occasion, I've
thought it best just to liquidate the entire governing structure, instruments and denizens of
the federal government and begin again from scratch.
It seems fair to observe that the transition from the Depression to the final depravity of
WW2 must have collectively damaged/shifted the nation's moral center, or is that merely
wishful thinking in order to deal with the reality that at bottom the USA is a massively
immoral construct that must constantly lie to itself lest it wake up to its depravity. How
would kids today even sense that? Easy, through the utterly depraved levels of violence
present within things deemed games that teach how to dehumanize and kill other humans at a
very young age. So, it's actually very simple: A sick, depraved society produces a sick,
depraved government and businesses. One wonders what sort of entity is In God We Trust.
A number of weeks ago I was sent an email by one of my state Senators, Jeff Merkley. I shared
that email with fellow barflys as well as my response. Just today I received a "response" to
my rant about our failing country and below is that email which I think is indicative of how
lost America has become.....this is from what many would consider to be one of the
"better/progressive/representative of the people" Senators in the US....sigh
"
Dear James,
Thank you for contacting me to share your views about President Trump and the impeachment
inquiry opened in the House of Representatives. I appreciate hearing from you on this serious
issue.
I have heard from Oregonians in large numbers expressing their concerns about statements
made and actions taken by President Trump. I have also heard from some Oregonians who oppose
the impeachment inquiry. I would much prefer that the Senate take up the many House-passed
bills to address the real needs of working Oregonians, but I also believe we have a sworn
constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law and ensure that federal office-holders are
using their powers for the public interest, not their own.
Testimony and accounts from a number of people directly involved in U.S. foreign policy
lay out extensive efforts by President Trump and his aides to pressure the Ukrainian
government to investigate President Trump's political opponents and, it appears, to condition
U.S. aid on whether Ukraine succumbed to that pressure. The president also publicly called on
the governments of both Ukraine and China to investigate his political opponents during a
press conference on the White House lawn.
These actions are deeply concerning. The goal of U.S. foreign policy should always be to
protect American interests and American security. We cannot sacrifice those core objectives
for any individual's political or personal gain. The Founders were worried about exactly this
scenario, of a president corrupting U.S. foreign policy to serve himself, rather than the
American public, and explicitly discussed it during the Constitutional Convention as a prime
rationale for impeachment.
I also believe that the detailed case laid out by the Special Counsel of obstruction of
justice by the President warrants impeachment. Over 1,000 former federal prosecutors of both
parties have written to Congress to say that any other individual would be indicted on
multiple felony counts based on the evidence compiled by the Special Counsel.
I believe in those words carved above the Supreme Court, "Equal Justice Under Law." If the
Department of Justice will not indict a sitting president then impeachment is the only avenue
available to ensure that nobody, not even the president, is above the law.
Impeachment should never be taken lightly, and never be used as a tool of partisan
politics. Disliking a president or their policy choices is not grounds for impeachment, but a
president corrupting his office and subverting the rule of law is. If the House does take the
solemn step of impeaching the President, I will work to ensure that there is a fair trial in
the Senate that presents the American people with a complete picture of the evidence and the
appropriate context to understand its significance.
I will continue to fight for an America where every individual – no matter how
powerful – is held accountable to the law. America's founders created the impeachment
process precisely for that reason.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and your engagement in our democracy.
I hope you continue to contact me about issues that matter to you.
All my best,
Jeffrey A. Merkley
United States Senator
"
So the kabuki hiding the cult of global private finance empire continues
"Equal Justice Under Law" Why wasn't that applied to Obama and Clinton since Merkley was
Senator then? What about Pelosi for not doing her duty to impeach George W Bush? And as we
all know, the list could go on and on. As I wrote above @24, Immorality rules the roost.
There're an average of 135 suicides daily within the USA, but none of them are politicos.
IMO, they need to do their part too and not leave it up to veterans.
Senator Merkley's letter, although sounding nice and righteous, fails to address the
selectivity in "Equal justice under law" that plagues this judicial system, hence rendering
it useless. If there was equality in justice, they should go back to the crimes of Reagan,
the Bushes, the Clintons and Obama before they get to Trump. By the way, Trump is guilty of
many crimes and I'm not discounting them, worst of all posing as a president.
The exhibit below is just a sample of how the deep state is working feverishly to get
their agenda back on tack. John Bolton who is the embodiment of the rot and filth that that
exist in American politics is now throwing more fuel into this fire.
Goes to show that there is no line between the democrats and republicans. These animals
are all woven from the same cloth.
Brennan knows where all the bodys are buried, much as I'd like to see him behind bars,
Its about as likely as me keeping Unicorns in my back paddock.
Sorry, the game is delay, delay and delay.
Its a threat and warning from Trump, but a bluff, because it simply will not happen.
@Bemildred #23
Second the reference.
And I add this snippet: bold is David Samuels, not bold is Angelo Codevilla
There was one quote, I forget who it came from, but it came out of an interaction of one
of the reasonably high-up war planners in the Defense Department and a journalist for, I
think it was, The Atlantic. And the quote was that power creates its own reality. So it
doesn't matter what we say, because even if it's not true now, by the time we're finished
we will make it true. And therefore there is no real difference between statements that are
true or false, as long as we make them.
Do you have the sense that a similar attempt to manufacture reality was at play in
what at this point are the still-unknown interactions between the CIA, the FBI, and the
Obama White House with regard to the surveillance of Donald Trump's associates, and the
attempt to suggest some vast Putin-Trump conspiracy to game American elections, and
whatnot?
I don't think that it went that far. Or I should say, I don't think the people involved
thought about it that deeply.
I would agree.
I think what you had was a small pooling of resources to tweak the news cycle with
regard to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, which then turned into
something very major.
After the election.
After the election. It was, like Watergate, a minor attempt to gain marginal advantage.
Which then, unintended by the people involved at the time, became something very big, which
escaped everyone's control.
I believe that there are a whole bunch of people in Washington right now who are quaking
in their boots because the House Intelligence Committee has shaken loose some of the
documents involved. Because in the long run there are no secrets in Washington. And one can
then wonder about the quality of the people who imagined that the things they did could
remain secret.
It really was a marvel. The idea was that if we all say it together long enough and we
shout it loud so nothing else can be heard, then it will become the effective truth,
Machiavelli's verita effettuale. But I mean, there is a limit to this. I have some close
personal friends who are more on the left, and I said to them: OK. Where's the evidence?
Who did what when to whom? Where are the quids and where are the quos? What's going on
here? And all they could say is, "Well, the investigation is going on."
What is not clear is just how much of the reality will come into the public's
consciousness.
Whose fault is this?
The fault here is not of Democrats on the left. The fault here is of Donald Trump and
his friends who have refused to enforce the most basic laws here. The most obvious one is
Section 798, (18 U.S. Code), the simple comment statute. Now anybody in the intelligence
business knows that this is the live wire of security law. It is a strict liability
statute. It states that any revelation, regardless of circumstance or intent, any
revelation period, of anything having to do with U.S. communications intelligence is
punishable by the 10 and 10. Ten years in the slammer, and $10,000 fine. Per count.
Now the folks who went to The Washington Post and The New York Times in November and
December of 2016 and peddled this story of the intelligence community's conclusion that
Trump and the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, these people ipso facto violated
§798.
Considering these matters are highly classified, and that the number of the people
involved is necessarily very small, identifying them is child's play. But no effort to do
that has been made.
@ Posted by: Michael Droy | Oct 25 2019 18:08 utc | 28
I doubt it (the second part) -- are you familiar with the depth of delusion of his
supporters? It's all about perception; they never noticed the underlying reality of his
tenure, so why would they start? They'll be more than happy to attribute it all to Agent
Orange or whoever becomes their subsequent bête noire/obsessive hate figure.
>Why not the whole shebang?! They all have blood on their hands.
> Posted by: Barovsky | Oct 25 2019 13:45 utc | 11
Because there would be no one left to give orders to the peons! How would we know what to do
without self-important Dear Leaders incorrectly telling us how to do our jobs, like at
Boeing?
Yes they all have blood on their hands. The motto "We must all hang together or we shall
surely all hang separately" comes to mind, except that there is no honor among these thieves.
Instead the DC Dunces have formed a circular firing squad, and everyone is waiting to see who
will shoot first.
Here's a report saying the slogan to be used in protests this weekend against Trump is
"Nobody is Above the Law." Unfortunately, that's one of the biggest of all BigLies. If that
were true, then we wouldn't be having this Impeachment free-for-all at all because Trump and
all his predecessors would already be in jail along with most of Congress, numerous
bureaucrats and businesspeople. It's a crying shame I'm barred from commenting at the website
I cited, but that's because I called out the crimes of Obama and Clinton, et al--talk about
double standards and total lack of credibility. If I were to attend one of the protests, I'd
carry a placard calling out the BigLie. If any barflies do, I hope they'll carry a similar
placard as the wholesale lack of applying the law is at the root of our collective corruption
problem.
The Jeff Bozo Propaganda Rag article was written by one Matt Zapotosky who covers Justice
Dept issues for the newspaper's national security team. He has a Bachelor of Journalism
degree from Ohio University.
Does this background seem to MoA barflies to be a bit odd? Shouldn't writers specialising
in Justice Dept issues have some understanding of the legal system and its operations, to the
extent of having law degrees themselves? Does the national security team at WaPo not smell as
if it's stacked to the rafters with intel agents telling people what to write?
One wonders also what Journalism students are taught at universities in Western countries
these days.
How is it that Trump demonstrators, whether for him or against him, are unable to notice the
Empire's world-wide killing machine that never sleeps? Huge crowds around the world shouted
"Hands Off Iraq" before the 2003 invasion. What happened to them? Did they all get too old
and sick to do anything anymore?
I used to know a journalism professor. He said most of his students were preparing for a
corporate career in public relations. Not many were interested in learning how to reveal the
crimes of the empire.
It was similar with a labor law class I audited a long time ago. I was the only
labor-oriented student. The rest were headed for "human resources management" or to be
corporate anti-labor lawyers.
There aren't enough handcuffs for all of these treasonous, criminal scum going back a hundred
years. May I suggest hemp rope? It's reusable and environmentally friendly.
thanks b... it is hard to see this getting traction if the msm is unwilling to address the
news in an unbiased manner, or leaves out critical information on what is taking place inside
the political system of the usa and the role that the cia-fbi has played in creating the
mueller investigation... thus the question of just who is Joseph Mifsud, remains off the
radar of most, in spite of how important this question about who he is in all of this...
disobedient media was asking this same question back in an article from april 4 2018 -
All Russiagate Roads Lead To London As Evidence Emerges Of Joseph Mifsud's Links To UK
Intelligence
i just can't see the msm cooperating here and that means trumps pushback on all this is
going to be hard to get traction unless something changes.. it will be framed as 'trump
trying to evade the impeachment process on him'...
so just where is joseph mifsud and what role has he played in all this? the dem crowd
claim he is russian intel! who is he and what agencies was he connected to? he played George
Papadopoulos
like a fiddle.. what agency was he working for? we need to know the answer to this to get
some traction here..
It is all following the predictions of the mysterious Q-anon, who has not been heard from
since the message board 8 Chan was taken off-line in the wake of mass shootings and the MSM
claiming right-wing white supremacists etc used 8 Chan for manifestos of their sick views
(despite using FaceBook, Twitter, general internet etc as well).
There were - in the 3570 'Q drops' (posts) from 29 Oct 2017 to 2 Aug 2019 - many
indications that Q was a group of US military intelligence agents who had close access to the
Trump administration and were using 8 Chan as a back channel communication to the public to
circumvent the MSM. At least that is the narrative and it is worth doing your own research to
see what you think.
Q predicted a week or so before it happened that mass shootings would be used for that
purpose to silence this back channel - but that the 'plan' would still go ahead - involving
Barr, Durham and Horowitz to take down the 'deep state', starting by exposing and prosecuting
the 'Russiagate' fake conspiracy as the planned coup of the DNC-Clinton
campaign-FBI-CIA-elements within UK&Australia-CNN-MSNBC-NYT-WaPo etc.
That 'plan' seems to be now unfolding - right according to plan.
@16 psychohistorian
The eternal powers available inside a constant state of emergency. Bush enabled Obama enabled
Trump. Especially via the post 9-11 editions of the sure-to-be-passed NDAA, signed into the
next year, l sometimes on the eves of midnight before the turn of the new year.
Have listened to half the Rogan-Snowden podcast so far. It's the stuff we all know is
happening, but the fine detail of how we got here are just so compelling.
If Google knows what you had for breakfast then 'In Don We Trust'
re ...One wonders what sort of entity is In God We Trust.
There was an explanation that fit/s the observed scene quite closely and even yields/ed
some prescient results. When I 1st heard it, my pause-button locked:
This is smoke and mirrors to take the heat off Trump after Juliani's "drug deal" didn't
deliver. They have tried this before with Rosenstein and couldn't even get an indictment out
of the grand jury. A judge just ordered the elease of the Muller evidence that Barr has been
deperatly trying to hide. If it shows that Barr was hiding it to protect the Trump clan the
gig is up on this whole tin foil hat cult Briebart and Fox have been manufacturing.
@karlof1 (26) If Pelosi had tried to impeach GW Bush, presumably for starting a war against
Iraq on false pretenses, the process would have severely damaged members of the Democratic
caucus, all but one of whom were complicit in approving that war. They did not formally
authorize or declare war, but they most definitely supported it. It's the same with
Russiagate and involves some of the same characters. The last thing they want is to have
their own complicity in a deep state/Clinton plot exposed.
Johnson had mentioned this being in the works some time ago. Looks like a section of the
swamp will be drained in a ig way - perhaps leaving Trumping a very powerful position for his
next term... which may not be a good thing.
Looks like Trump's opponents will be trying to use the media against him and the
investigation.
Although they have the media onside, if the investigation is above board then the Trump
faction will have the military. It was a fairly major conspiracy to prent Trump gaining
office and then trying to remove him from office that also involved foreign powers. If it
comes under subversion or something like that,then I take it the military may be able to act
to enforce the investigation findings.
Will be interesting.
Ukrainegate involves much more egregious crimes than Russiagate.
How exactly have we come to this? It is now an "abuse of power"
to investigate corruption. There is nothing suspicious whatsoever
about the timing of Trump's request to Zelensky. He had to wait till
a more favorable administration came to power in Ukraine to make the
request and Biden had already announced his candidacy by then. Poroshenko
has been accused of accepting a 100 million dollar bribe to terminate the
investigation of Burisma and Hunter Biden. What is Burisma anyway? Has
it ever produced a single cu. ft. of gas or a single barrel of oil? Or
was it a front for money laundering and all the rest of the stories about it
are a crock of shit? Where does it get all the cash to throw at sleazy
politicians and their creepy relatives? The federal government is a vast
criminal conspiracy desperately trying to cover ut its crimes. Ukraine
is a monumental crime scene. The entire country should be cordoned off with
police tape. Under the Obama administration, a Walpurgisnacht of demonically
possessed democrats and some republicans,descended upon Ukraine in a satanic
orgy of rape, looting, pillage and corruption.
"At some point the lawyers for the media companies will wake up and realize that spreading
lies on behalf of people facing criminal charges could expose them to obstruction charges as
well."
Quote is from linked article at
@Posted by: james | Oct 25 2019 20:52 utc | 46
Thank you, that sounds valid to me. Links would be helpful. I usually have limited
connections to those sources as I am not a fan. I do like the intrepid musings of amazing
polly when she is outing the maxwell/epstein team and their captured media.
Thanks for your reply! Wasn't that a George Carlin quip or perhaps from Cache-22
?
Rob @47--
Thanks for your reply! As you'll know if you've read enough of my writings here, I hold
both Ds & Rs in contempt and judge them unfit to govern as most are guilty of one or more
crimes, and at the very least of subverting the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.
On the current Syria thread, I wrote why that's so
here .
evilempire @50--
"The federal government is a vast criminal conspiracy desperately trying to cover ut[sic]
its crimes."
That's an excellent summation of its behavior since 1945. I'd go back further in time, but
I haven't found enough evidence to prove a bi-partisan criminal conspiracy prior to then,
although the collusion between FDR and Wendell Willkie in 1940 merits further
investigation.
Agree "it is pretty crazy". What's more crazy is if you read through the sometimes riddle
like nature of 'Q' - it is all predicted in detail: www.qmap.pub
Two sides of the Deep State at civil war - nationalist-industrial/military/DIA (with Fox
News and some alt-media) versus globalist-financial-industrial/CIA/FBI (with most MSM).
ia @ 17 said; "The only time anything resembling "justice" is served is when some low-level
persons with enough name recognition to make headlines, i.e. Martha Steward or these
celebrity parents who paid to get their kids into college, are sacrificed in order to
maintain the illusion of a functioning justice system. In reality the justice system we have
is nothing more than another line in the phalanx of defense the ruling elites (see:
globalists, capitalists, zionists) have built to protect their corrupt position of power."
While we here on B's set are following his He done it, no she did it, sure enough they did it
script. the drivers behind the the political actors are the corporate sponsors. How about
lets discussing them?
I want to know more about Burisma Holdings in the Ukraine,
who are the oil companies in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Gaze, and Lebanon Egypt etc. ?
It is interesting to study drug trafficking in Afghanistan.
The politicians are corporate driven yet no one is working that angle. Politicians are
immune, but private corporate persons are not. Lets look at wall street how do they play in
this..
And so Moon of Alabama finally you have uncovered the trolls. Finally you have exposed Jack
and Donkey. It took a long while. All that time the doubts were sown but we were never taken
in. I would speculate that they sent money... B. has to survive.
And so Moon of Alabama finally you have uncovered the trolls. Finally you have exposed Jack
and Donkey..." Lochearn@59
Any references? I do hope that you are right. Last week I described them as the Mutt 'n' Jeff
of trolling on this site.
@48/49 peter au... interesting speculation.. will wait and see what comes of all this..
@ 60 ben... would you say the same of mueller who was head of the fbi at the time of 9-11?
what does he know and when did he know it? lots of hidden bodies in both these peoples
pasts... maybe one's actions can even out the others here?
to Rob #47 - and you all. I believe that Pelosi's husband works high up in the MIC. Just as
Teresa May's hubby did. The May family picked up a little extra coin on the bombing of Syria
re the "poisoned spies." Just so, Feinstein's hubby is a RE dealer/developer in SanFran. When
the US Post Office got knee capped who do you suppose bought up the prime lovely
old Post office? It's all pretty sick - and has been going on for decades. Term limits and
public campaign financing is the
only solution. Never happen, but "never say never."
"I have determined that Ukraine has made progress in providing adequate and effective
protection of intellectual property rights. Accordingly, it is appropriate to terminate the
suspension of the duty-free treatment," Trump said in a proclamation on Friday."
I suspect that John Bolton is in fact the mastermind behind this fake "whistleblower"
stunt. it's the sort of action Bolton would do as the master bureaucrat, spread false rumors
of what the call between Trump and Zelensky contained among his subordinates and Neocon
fellow travellers to feed into the narrative of a corrupt deal with Zelensky to derail Trumps
plans in Ukraine and Russia and feed the Democrats impeachment push. Trump declassifying the
transcript of the conversation probably caught him by surprise and threw a wrench into his
plans since Trump has refused to declassify documents in the past and the State Department
probably would have argued that Trump not declassify the conversation.
"The US is now a country that has a growing cabal of current and past leadership that are
criminally complicit in deceiving the American public"
Obama legalized deceiving the American public in his 2012 NDAA, when "Constitutional Law
Professor" Obama repealed the Smith-Mundt Act, the propaganda ban that had been in effect
since around 1948. He literally legalized lying to us. Bet you never heard of it. Reporter
Michael Hastings blew the whistle on this and we all know what happened to him. https://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5
And this all will be heard and judged by Judge Emmet Sullivan, who has asked Flynn several
times to consider retracting his guilty plea because the judge smelled a rat:
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
unleashed his fury before a packed courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He
fumed. "In nearly 25 years on the bench," he said, "I've never seen anything approaching
the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case."
It was the culmination of a disastrous prosecution: the public corruption case against
former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK).
Stevens was convicted in October 2008 of violating federal ethics laws by failing to
report thousands of dollars in gifts he received from friends. But a team of prosecutors
from the U.S. Department of Justice is accused of failing to hand over key exculpatory
evidence and knowingly presenting false evidence to the jury.
The Stevens case is a cautionary tale. It reminds lawyers and nonlawyers alike of the
power and failures of our legal system and those who have sworn to uphold the rule of law.
At the center of the story are real people: an old and powerful politician, a crack defense
team, determined prosecutors, and their supervisors.
"This is a fascinating case study for all lawyers," says criminal defense lawyer Stanley
M. Brand, a partner at Brand Law Group, P.C. "In these high-stakes cases, both sides can
get pretty aggressive and push the envelope. It's great to be aggressive -- it's great to
push, but this case reminds people that they have to observe the limits and the rules."
For months Judge Sullivan had warned U.S. prosecutors about their repeated failure to
turn over evidence. Then, after the jury convicted Stevens, the Justice Department
discovered previously unrevealed evidence. Meanwhile, a prosecution witness and an agent
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came forward alleging prosecutorial
misconduct. Finally, newly appointed U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced
that he had had enough and recommended that the seven-count conviction against the former
Alaska senator be dismissed.
On April 7, Judge Sullivan did just that. But he was far from done.
In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors' handling of
the case. Judge Sullivan insisted that the misconduct allegations were "too serious and too
numerous" to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation. He appointed
Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate
whether members of the trial team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt.
Starting w/evilempires comment, which is Wow. Then Miss Lacy, maybe goldherder too but not
sure, to Kadath and then Willow and pogohere I'm not sure I'm at b's site. Great comments.
But certainly not the norm. Things that makes one go hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm...welcome, btw.
"This article seems to contradict many of the points in the link you posted."
No doubt, and it's from 2014. I've read half-a-dozen versions of Biden in Ukraine, all of
them different. That one is all one guy talking, so not much as evidence of anything. But
interesting. Another one had Kolomoisky as the master hand behind the Burisma deception, and
the nominal boss as cutout for him. The guy I posted doesn't mention that. They all seem to
agree it's about gas though. I notice that 2014 piece you posted says Kerry was involved too,
but he would be being SoS.
It stinks any way you slice it. The main thing I take from it at the moment is the big
explosion it caused when Trump went after it is indicative of it's political importance. A
weapon in the war in DC. Poor Zelenski, he is caught in the middle. A comedian.
Did you have a point of view about it, or just sussing out mine?
Fellow barflies, please stop disrespecting other well-behaved patrons whose opinions you find
unappealing.
If you don't like certain commenters' opinions, check the author before reading each
comment.
Some here previously complained about JR being "one note". Well, arguably, we can
characterize psycho and circe similarly. But, they each speak up to remind us of their fairly
unique (at least one this board) perceptions and how new events relate to their mental model
of how things work. I find each of their viewpoints interesting and plausible, as well as
yours -- except when you're making unjustified negative personal remarks.
My opinion right now is that the article you linked may be major
disinformation. Zlochevsky wasn't even the owner of Burisma in 2012.
The article at nakedcapitalism and even b have reported that the owners
were Kolomoiski and perhaps Pinchuk.
evilempire @77: Yes, Naked Capitalism is pretty scrupulous. I tend to think it's Kolomoiski
too, thanks for sharing you view and the link. I was wondering what people here would think
about it.
"... As for impeachment, ringmaster Rep. Adam Schiff is surely steaming straight into his own historic Joe McCarthy moment when somebody of incontestable standing denounces him as a fraud and a scoundrel and the mysterious workings of nonlinear behavior tips the political mob past a criticality threshold, shifting the weight of consensus out of darkness and madness. It has happened before in history. ..."
It was interesting to watch the Cable News divas go incandescent under the glare of their
own gaslight late yesterday
when they received the unpleasant news that the Barr & Durham
"review" of RussiaGate had been officially
upgraded to a "criminal investigation."
Rachel Maddow's trademark pouty-face got a workout as she strained to imagine " what
the
thing
is that Durham might be looking into."
Yes, that's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery,
inside an enigma, all right with a sputtering fuse sticking out of it. Welcome to the Wile E. Coyote
Lookalike Club, Rache. You'll have a lot of competition when the Sunday morning news-chat shows rev
up.
Minutes later, the answer dawned on her:
"It [
the thing
] follows the wildest conspiracy theories from Fox News!"
You'd think that someone who invested two-plus years of her life in the Mueller report, which blew
up in her pouty-face last spring, might have felt a twinge of journalistic curiosity as to the
sum-and-substance of the thing. But no, she just hauled on-screen RussiaGate intriguer David Laufman,
a former DOJ lawyer who ran the agency's CounterIntel and Export Control desk during the RussiaGate
years, and also helped oversee the botched Hillary Clinton private email server probe.
"They have this theory," Rachel said, "that maybe Russia didn't interfere in the election ."
"It's preposterous," said Laufman, all lawyered up and ready to draw a number and take a seat
for his own grand jury testimony.
Over in the locked ward of CNN, Andy Cooper and Jeff Toobin attempted to digest the criminal
investigation news as if someone had ordered in a platter of shit sandwiches for the green room just
before air-time.
Toobin pretended to not know exactly who the mysterious Joseph Misfud was,
and struggled to even pronounce his name: " Mifsood? Misfood ? You mean the Italian professor?"
No Jeff, the guy employed by several "friendly" foreign intelligence agencies, and the CIA,
to sandbag Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, and failed. I guess when you're at the beating
heart of TV news, you don't have to actually follow any of the stories reported outside your locked
ward, and maybe entertain a few angles outside your
purview
, i.e. your range of thought and
experience.
Next Andy hauled onscreen former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (now a
paid CNN "contributor") to finesse a distinction between the "overall investigation of the Russian
interference" or "the counterintelligence investigation that was launched by the FBI."
Consider that Mr. Clapper was right in the middle between the CIA and the FBI. Since he is known to be
a friend of Mr. Comey's and a not-friend of Mr. Brennan's one can easily see which way Mr. Clapper is
tilting. One can also see the circular firing squad that this is a setup for. And, of course, Mr.
Clapper himself will be a subject in Mr. Durham's criminal case proceedings. I predict October will be
the last month that Mr. Clapper draws a CNN paycheck -- as he hunkers down with his attorneys awaiting
the subpoena with his name on it.
The
New
York Times story
on this turn of events Friday morning is a lame attempt to rescue former FBI
Director Jim Comey by pinning the blame for RussiaGate on the CIA, shoving CIA John Brennan under the
bus.
The Times report says: "Mr. Durham has also asked whether C.I.A. officials might have
somehow tricked the F.B.I. into opening the Russia investigation." There's the next narrative for you.
Expect to hear this incessantly well into 2020.
I wonder if there is any way to hold the errand boys-and-girls in the news media accountable for
their roles as handmaidens in what will be eventually known as a seditious coup to overthrow a
president.
We do enjoy freedom of the press in this land, but I can see how these birds merit
charges as unindicted co-conspirators in the affair.
One wonders if the various boards of
directors of the newspaper and cable news outfits might seek to salvage their self-respect by firing
the executives who allowed it happen. If anything might be salutary in the outcome of this hot mess,
it would be a return to respectability of the news media.
As for impeachment, ringmaster Rep. Adam Schiff is surely steaming straight into his own
historic Joe McCarthy moment when somebody of incontestable standing denounces him as a fraud and a
scoundrel
and the mysterious workings of nonlinear behavior tips the political mob past a
criticality threshold, shifting the weight of consensus out of darkness and madness. It has happened
before in history. Two centuries before Joe McCarthy, the French national assembly suddenly turned on
the Jacobins Robespierre and St. Just after their orgy of beheading 17,000 enemies. The two were
quickly dispatched themselves to the awe of their beloved guillotine and the Jacobin faction was not
heard of again -- until recently in America, where it first infected the Universities and then sickened
the polity at large almost unto death
According to Tracey, Ukrainegate flows out of Russiagate
Notable quotes:
"... MT makes his best point, IS Trump's deal with Mexico corrupt too? It helps his reelection, so is everything he does to help his re-election corrupt? If you're in the camp orange-man bad than anything he does is corruption. This IS politics, it turns out Trump is really good at it and the IA's don't like it. ..."
"... Trump believes he's investigating corruption. Biden was an afterthought based on Biden's video showing he literally demanded action in return for a billion dollar loan. ..."
"... Trump is head of DOJ. Remember Obama used the FBI, CIA and State Dept against Trump after Trump was the nominee. The Dem double standard is frightening. (and yes, I'm a Dem - but I'm honest) ..."
"... How does giving Ukraine lethal weapons to murder eastern Ukrainians make America safer??? ..."
"... Ukraine is a pawn in a cynical geopolitical game. ..."
"... The US uses Ukraine to target and destabilize Russia. It's evil and insane. And the American people are completely ignorant of how their government's reckless policies endanger world stability. US and NATO warmongers have amassed more troops on Russia's border than Nazi Germany did before the WW2 invasion. ..."
"... Who's the aggressor? Who's trying to start WW3? One mistake, one mishap and BAM...WW3.... Wake the F* #K Up!!!!! ..."
Hunter Biden slept with his brothers widow, got caught with a crack pipe, multiple drivers
licenses and a badge in his car, was thrown out of the military for drugs. You can certainly
understand why a Ukranian Energy company jumped at the chance make him a director.
it is almost like the democrats have decided
to impeach trump from day 1 and are trying to see what sticks ti impeach him- 1) Russia - no
didnt work 2) stormy daniels- no didnt work 3) Michael Cohen- no dint work 4) Ukraine- ??
Thanks to dem establishment Trump is going to win 2020 again. Only Tulsi or Bernie can defeat
Trump and they deface them..Stupid party
38:00MT makes his best point,
IS Trump's deal with Mexico corrupt too? It helps his reelection, so is everything he does to
help his re-election corrupt? If you're in the camp orange-man bad than anything he does is
corruption. This IS politics, it turns out Trump is really good at it and the IA's don't like
it.
I just think the phone call was clear. Trump believes he's investigating corruption.
Biden was an afterthought based on Biden's video showing he literally demanded action in
return for a billion dollar loan.
Trump is head of DOJ. Remember Obama used the FBI, CIA and State Dept against Trump
after Trump was the nominee. The Dem double standard is frightening. (and yes, I'm a Dem -
but I'm honest)
How does giving Ukraine lethal weapons to
murder eastern Ukrainians make America safer??? How does the US/NATO war machine
provoking Russia on its border make America safer?
Hint...It doesn't! Ukraine is a pawn in a cynical geopolitical game.
The US uses
Ukraine to target and destabilize Russia. It's evil and insane. And the American people are
completely ignorant of how their government's reckless policies endanger world stability. US
and NATO warmongers have amassed more troops on Russia's border than Nazi Germany did before
the WW2 invasion.
Who's the aggressor? Who's trying to start WW3? One mistake, one mishap and
BAM...WW3.... Wake the F* #K Up!!!!!
I support you, Michael Tracey! I know Cenk fired you for opposing Russiagate and nearly
destroyed your career -- don't give up, you have real anti establishment cred now, there will
always be an audience!
The effort to find (or create) impeachable offense against President Donald Trump has
now moved from the subjects of the Mueller investigation -- collusion with Russia and obstruction
of justice -- to alleged recent political "sins": "quid pro quo" with Ukraine and obstruction of
Congress.
The goal of the impeach-at-any-cost cadre has always been the same: impeach and remove
Trump, regardless of whether or not he did anything warranting removal.
The means -- the
alleged impeachable offenses -- have changed, as earlier ones have proved meritless. The search for
the perfect impeachable offense against Trump is reminiscent of overzealous prosecutors who target
the defendant first and then search for the crime with which to charge him.
Or to
paraphrase the former head of the Soviet secret police to Stalin: show me the man and I will find
you the crime.
Although this is not Stalin's Soviet Union, all civil libertarians should be concerned about an
Alice in Wonderland process in which the search for an impeachable crime precedes the evidence that
such a crime has actually been committed.
Before we get to the current search, a word about what constitutes an impeachable crime under
the constitution, whose criteria are limited to treason, bribery or other high crimes and
misdemeanors. There is a debate among students of the constitution over the intended meaning of
"high crimes and misdemeanors." Some believe that these words encompass non-criminal behavior.
Others, I among them, interpret these words more literally, requiring at the least criminal-like
behavior, if not the actual violation of a criminal statute.
What is not debatable is that "maladministration" is an impermissible ground for
impeachment.
Why is that not debatable? Because it was already debated and explicitly
rejected by the framers at the constitutional convention. James Madison, the father of our
Constitution, opposed such open-ended criteria, lest they make the tenure of the president subject
to the political will of Congress. Such criteria would turn our republic into a parliamentary
democracy in which the leader -- the prime minister -- is subject to removal by a simple vote of no
confidence by a majority of legislators. Instead, the framers demanded the more specific
criminal-like criteria ultimately adopted by the convention and the states.
Congress does not have the constitutional authority to change these criteria without
amending the Constitution.
To paraphrase what many Democratic legislators are now saying:
members of Congress are not above the law; they take an oath to apply the Constitution, not to
ignore its specific criteria. Congresswoman Maxine Waters placed herself above the law when she
said:
"Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates
impeachment. What the Constitution says is 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' and we define that."
So, the question remains:
did President Trump commit impeachable offenses
when he spoke on the phone to the president of Ukraine and/or when he directed members of the
Executive Branch to refuse to cooperate, absent a court order, with congressional Democrats who are
seeking his impeachment?
The answers are plainly no and no.
There is a constitutionally
significant difference between a political "sin," on the one hand, and a crime or impeachable
offenses, on the other.
Even taking the worst-case scenario regarding Ukraine -- a quid pro quo exchange of
foreign aid for a political favor -- that might be a political sin, but not a crime or impeachable
offense.
Many presidents have used their foreign policy power for political or personal
advantage.
Most recently, President Barack Obama
misused his power in order to take
personal revenge against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the last days of his second
term, Obama engineered a one-sided UN Security Council resolution declaring that Israel's control
over the Western Wall -- Judaism's holiest site -- constitutes a "flagrant violation of
international law." Nearly every member of Congress and many in his own administration opposed this
unilateral change in our policy, but Obama was determined to take revenge against Netanyahu, whom
he despised. Obama committed a political sin by placing his personal pique over our national
interest, but he did not commit an impeachable offense.
Nor did
President George H. W. Bush
commit an impeachable offense when he
pardoned Caspar Weinberger and others on the eve of their trials in order to prevent them from
pointing the finger at him.
This brings us to President Trump's directive with regard to the impeachment investigation.
Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the
Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders.
Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not
by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an
impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their
demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by
calls for impeachment.
So, the search for the holy grail of a removable offense will continue, but it is
unlikely to succeed. Our constitution provides a better way to decide who shall serve as president:
it's called an election.
Several rich and powerful Dems have said the best chance to remove
Trump is by hoping for a big recession. When asked about the
damage to people's lives, they responded it would be worth it. It
shows they care nothing about the little people, just about their
own power and wealth. The godless leftists think they can take
over easily once Trump is out of their way. They doubt any
conservatives will put up a fight, just roll over on the couch and
change the channel. It will be very sad if this is true.
Coup d'Impeachment ers Pelosi and Schiff have lied to congress and
to the American public. Congress is not censuring, sanctioning,
expelling or prosecuting them for their crimes.
How do citizens
do what congress should, but for RICO reasons and concealing their
crimes, do not? Sue like JW to build a case and take it to a
judge? The coup has already established that judges can overrule
decisions by the President. The openly criminal Speaker claims her
position is "coequal" to the President, therefore her decisions
and the gangster congress can be overturned the same way. If there
are enough straight, vertebrate judges.
Any members of congress who commit felonies or treason can be
hauled off at any time.
What to do about the openly hostile, openly comped, complicit,
accessory MSM?
"... "I've always felt that the media leaned left. That wasn't a surprise to anyone. "But what we've seen over the past three years is something entirely different. This is the media actively engaging on one side of a partisan warfare. It's overt." ..."
"... "We had a media cheerleading the FBI for meddling in American politics. Can you ever imagine a time in American history where the media would have played such a role? ..."
"... "I keep warning my friends on the other side of the aisle: Think about the precedent you are setting here," Strassel said. ..."
The anti- Trump "Resistance" has devastated core American
institutions and broken longstanding political norms in seeking to defeat and now oust from office President Donald Trump, said Kimberley
Strassel, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and member of the Journal's editorial board.
"And this, to me, is the irony, right? We've been told for three years that Donald Trump is wrecking institutions," Strassel
said in an interview with The Epoch Times for the "American Thought Leaders" program.
" But in terms of real wreckage to institutions, it's not on Donald Trump that public faith in the
FBI and the
Department of Justice has precipitously fallen.
That's because of Jim Comey and Andy McCabe. It's not on Donald Trump that the Senate confirmation process for the Supreme Court
is in ashes after what happened to Brett Kavanaugh. It's not on Donald Trump that we are turning
impeachment into a partisan political tool."
The damage inflicted by the anti-Trump Resistance is the subject of Strassel's new book, "Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump
Haters Are Breaking America."
Strassel uses the term "haters" deliberately, to differentiate this demographic from Trump's "critics."
In Strassel's view, all thoughtful critics of Trump - and she counts herself among them - would look at Trump the same way that
they have examined past presidents - namely, to call him out when he does something wrong, but also laud him when he does something
right.
" The 'haters' can't abide nuance. To the Resistance, any praise - no matter how qualified - of Trump is tantamount to American
betrayal, " Strassel writes in "Resistance (At All Costs)."
She told The Epoch Times: "Up until the point at which Donald Trump was elected, what happened when political parties lost is
that they would retreat, regroup, lick their wounds, talk about what they did wrong.
"That's not what happened this time around. Instead, you had people who essentially said we should have won."
From the moment Trump was elected, this group believed Trump to be an illegitimate president and therefore felt they could use
whatever means necessary to remove him from office , Strassel said.
'Unprecedented Acts'
"One thing I try really hard to do in this book is enunciate what rules and regulations and standards were broken, what political
boundaries were crossed, because I think that that's where we're seeing the damage," Strassel said.
The "unprecedented acts" of the Resistance have caused the public to lose trust in longstanding institutions such as the FBI,
the CIA, and the Department of Justice, and cheapened important political processes like impeachment, she said.
The Resistance fabricated and pushed the theory that it was Trump's collusion with Russia that won him the presidency, not the
support of the American people, and lied about the origins of the so-called evidence -- the Steele dossier -- that was used by the
FBI to justify a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, Strassel said.
"We have never, in the history of this country, had a counterintelligence investigation into a political campaign," she said.
In an anecdote that Strassel recounts in her book, she asked former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.)
if there was anything in America's laws that could have prohibited this situation.
Nunes, who had helped write or update many laws concerning the powers of the intelligence community, replied, "I would never have
conceived of the FBI using our counterintelligence capabilities to target a political campaign.
"If it had crossed any of our minds, I can guarantee we'd have specifically written: 'Don't do that.'"
In Strassel's view, the Resistance is partially fueled by deep-seated anger, or what others have termed "Trump derangement syndrome"
-- an inability to look rationally at a man so far outside of Washington norms.
But at the same time, in Strassel's view, much of the Resistance is motivated by a desire to amass political power using whatever
means necessary.
"That involves removing the president who won. That involves some of these other things that you hear them talking about now:
packing the Supreme Court, getting rid of the electoral college, letting 16-year-olds vote," she said.
"These are not reforms. Reforms are things that the country broadly agrees are going to help improve stuff. This is changing
the rules so that you get power, and you stay in power."
The impeachment inquiry into the president, based on his phone call with Ukraine's president, is just another example of how the
Resistance is violating political norms and relying on flimsy evidence to try to remove him from office, she said.
Testimony in the inquiry has taken place behind closed doors, led by three House committees, and Democrats have so far refused
to release transcripts from the depositions of former and current
State Department employees.
"[Impeachment] is one of the most serious and huge powers in the Constitution. It was meant always by the founders to be reserved
for truly unusual circumstances. They debated not even putting it in because they were concerned that this is what would happen,"
Strassel said.
In the impeachment inquiries against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, Strassel said, American leaders "understood the great importance
of convincing the American public that their decision to use this tool was just and legitimate.
"So if you look back at Watergate, they had hundreds of hours of testimony broadcast over TV that people tuned into and watched.
It's one of the reasons that Richard Nixon resigned before the House ever held a final impeachment vote on him, because the public
had been convinced. He knew he had to go," she said.
But now, instead of access to the testimonies, the public is receiving only leaked snippets and dueling narratives.
"You have Democrats saying, 'Oh, this is very bad.' And Republicans saying, 'Oh, it's not so bad at all.' What are Americans
supposed to think?" Strassel said.
Bureaucratic Resistance
Within the federal bureaucracy, there is a "vast swath of unelected officials" who have "a great deal of power to slow things
down, mess things up, file the whistleblower complaints, leak information, actively engage against the president's policies," Strassel
said.
"It's their job to implement his agenda. And yet a lot of them are part of the Resistance, too," she said.
Data shows that in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, government bureaucrats overwhelmingly contributed toward the
Clinton campaign over the Trump campaign.
Ninety-five percent, or about $1.9 million, of bureaucrats' donations went to Clinton, according to
The Hill's analysis of donations from federal workers up until September 2016. In particular, employees at the Department of
Justice gave 97 percent of their donations to Clinton. For the State Department, it was even higher -- 99 percent.
"Imagine being a CEO and showing up and knowing that 95 percent of your workforce despises you and doesn't want you to be there,"
Strassel said.
Strassel pointed to when former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, publicly questioned
the constitutionality of Trump's immigration ban and directed Justice Department employees to disobey the order.
"It was basically a call to arms," Strassel said. "What she should've done is honorably resigned if she felt that she could
not in any way enforce this duly issued executive order.
"It really kicked off what we have seen ever since then: The nearly daily leaks from the administration, the whistleblower
complaints," as well as "all kind of internal foot-dragging and outright obstruction to the president's agenda."
According to a
report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, in Trump's first 126 days in office, his administration
"faced 125 leaked stories -- one leak a day -- containing information that is potentially damaging to national security under the
standards laid out in a 2009 Executive Order signed by President Barack Obama."
Activist Media
Strassel says the media has played a critical role in bolstering the anti-Trump Resistance.
"I've been a reporter for 25 years," Strassel said.
"I've always felt that the media leaned left. That wasn't a surprise to anyone. "But what we've seen over the past three years
is something entirely different. This is the media actively engaging on one side of a partisan warfare. It's overt."
Along the way, the media have largely abandoned journalistic standards, "whether it be the use of anonymous sources, whether it
be putting uncorroborated accusations into the paper, whether it's using biased sources for information and cloaking them as neutral
observers," she said.
Among the many examples of media misinformation cited in Strassel's book is a December 2017 CNN piece that claimed to have evidence
that then-candidate Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. had been offered early access to hacked emails from the Democratic National
Committee. But it turned out
the date was wrong . Trump
Jr. had received an email about the WikiLeaks release one day after WikiLeaks had made the documents public.
"If it hurts Donald Trump, they're on board," Strassel said. And in many cases, the attacks on Trump have been contradictory.
"He's either the dunce you claim he is every day or he's the most sophisticated Manchurian candidate that the world has ever
seen. You can't have it both ways.
"He's either a dictator and an autocrat who is consolidating power around himself to rule with an iron fist, or he's the evil
conservative who's cutting regulations."
Contrary to claims of authoritarianism, Trump has significantly decreased the size of the federal government. Notably, he reduced
the Federal Register, a collection of all the national government's rules and regulations, to the lowest it's been since Bill Clinton's
first year in office.
"You can't be a libertarian dictator," Strassel said.
In addition to the barrage of attacks on Trump, the media has actively sought to "de-legitimize anybody who has a different viewpoint
than they do, or who is reporting the facts and the story in a way other than they would like them to be presented."
"They would love to make it sound as though none of us are worthy of writing about this story," she said.
"The media is supposed to be our guardrails, right? When a political party transgresses a political boundary, they're supposed
to say 'No, that's beyond the pale.'"
Instead, "they indulged this behavior," Strassel said.
"We had a media cheerleading the FBI for meddling in American politics. Can you ever imagine a time in American history where
the media would have played such a role?
"In a way, I blame that for so much else that has gone wrong."
Long-Term Consequences
Strassel says the actions taken by the Resistance will have long-term consequences for America.
"I keep warning my friends on the other side of the aisle: Think about the precedent you are setting here," Strassel said.
For example, if Joe Biden wins the presidency in 2020
but Republicans take back the House, would the Republican-dominated House immediately launch impeachment proceedings against Biden
for alleged corruption in Ukraine?
"I wouldn't necessarily use the word [corruption], but there's a lot of Republicans who happily would. And if they thought
they'd get another shot at the White House, why not?" Strassel said.
It's short-term thinking, she said, just like Sen. Harry Reid's decision in 2013 to drop the number of votes needed to overcome
a filibuster for lower-court judges.
"Did he really stop to think about the fact that it paved the way for Republicans to get rid of the filibuster for Supreme
Court judges?" Strassel said.
If there's any rule in Washington, "it's that when you set the bar low, it just keeps going lower," Strassel said.
"Donald Trump is going to be president for at most another five years. But the actions and the destruction that's coming with
some of this could be with us for a very long time," she said.
"Should anyone allow their deep disregard for one particular man to so change the structure and the fabric of the country?"
"... Who told him? Some State Dept. apparatchik? Unless it was from Trump from Trump's mouth, then it's hearsay and evidence of nothing whatsoever. ..."
Certainly the people appointed by a president are not merely proxies for the president. They
are expected to have their own minds and agendas to some extent. This should not run to the
extent of subverting the president, but it often has, if not always. At the same time, it is
reasonable for appointees and beaurocrats to attempt to subvert the president if the
president is clearly wrong. The big problem is that such subversion is not only commonplace,
but is not typically for good reasons.
Yes, it was disturbing yesterday to observe a strain in the comments that were diatribes
against Trump's character--a vehemence to dismiss or heavily discount Trump's every move. If
this is the continued attitude it's logical to expect an equal. Opposite reaction from Trump
supporters, that is expect a self-defeating lose of votes for opposing candidates. People
take their heroes to heart notwithstanding too many are often miserable characters.
Lets now see how jackrabbit will counter argue b's analysis point by point in an effort to convince us its all KABUKI. But
then again why not preach to his own choir at his new blog where folks can revel in Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt? One wonders.
I think the same is happening in Kiev and Ukraine.
The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine said Tuesday he was told release of military aid was
contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the
2016 election, contradicting President Trump's denial that he used the money as leverage
for political gain.
Who told him? Some State Dept. apparatchik? Unless it was from Trump from
Trump's mouth, then it's hearsay and evidence of nothing whatsoever.
Acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. testified behind closed doors in the House
impeachment probe of Trump that he stands by his characterization that it was "crazy" to
make the assistance contingent on investigations he found troubling.
Who says the assistance was contingent on investigations? And what was troubling
about the investigations? If it had been Trump who'd paid for opposition research by a
foreign govt. or ic the demands for impeachment would have been even shriller.
Upon arriving in Kyiv last spring he became alarmed by secondary diplomatic channels
involving U.S. officials that he called "weird," Taylor said, according to a copy of his
lengthy opening statement obtained by The Washington Post.
Well, there you have it. The State Dept going outside regular channel and
talking to who? Would intervention by Giuliani be described as "secondary diplomatic
channels". Nah, so it's State Dept. officials. Time to clear out Soggy Bottom!
Former national security officials fight back as Trump attacks impeachment as 'deep
state' conspiracy
"What is happening currently is not normal," said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, who served as
a U.S. intelligence officer on Russia and Eurasia before stepping down in 2018. "This
represents a deviation from the way that these institutions regularly function. And when the
institutions don't work, that is a national security threat."
She was among 90 national security veterans who signed an open letter published Sunday
in support of the anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint that Trump had acted
improperly in asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden in a July phone
call.
Trump has attempted to intimidate other government officials into not cooperating by
casting those who offered information to the whistleblower as "close to spies." The open
letter emphasized that the whistleblower "is protected from certain egregious forms of
retaliation."
Victor Pinchuk. Ukranian Parliament member.
Atlantic Council board member
$25 million in charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation
Atlantic Council is a partner with Burisma
How systemic was the corruption within the Obama administration, and who was really pulling
the strings?
and all of its connections in Ukraine with ByeDone's son etc. I was going to essay it, but
it's better if you all just read the whole thing. It's really really good.
Looks like a testimony of a member of Nuland neocons clique.
A reasonable Trump administration gesture of delaying military aid now is interpreted as a
pressure on Zelensky government. But not everybody in Zelensky government is interesting in the
USA military aid; most including probably Zelensky himself understand that this carrot s the way
US neocon push Ukraine in self-destructive game of to catching hot potatoes from the fire to
advance the USA strategic anti-Russian interests in the region.
Trump is right that Ukraine participated in Russiagate, but he is wrong that Poroshenko
administration acted as a supplementary force in Russiagate on its own initiative: in reality
Poroshenko was the USA marionette fully controlled from Washington and would do anything to
please Obama administration.
Notable quotes:
"... "He said that Ukraine was a corrupt country, full of 'terrible people.' He said they 'tried to take me down.' ..."
"Second, in May of this year, I became concerned that a negative narrative about Ukraine,
fueled by assertions made by Ukraine's departing Prosecutor General, was reaching the President
of the United States, and impeding our ability to support the new Ukrainian government as
robustly as I believed we should."
"Fifth and finally, I strongly supported the provision of U.S. security assistance,
including lethal defensive weapons, to Ukraine throughout my tenure."
...While Volker said Biden did not come up explicitly in his conversations, he made a point
of defending the former vice president in his remarks. "I have known former Vice President
Biden for 24 years, and the suggestion that he would be influenced in his duties as Vice
President by money for his son simply has no credibility to me," he wrote. "I know him as a man
of integrity and dedication to our country."
... ... ...
Volker also testified that while he was aware that the Trump administration
had put a hold on needed military aid to Ukraine at the same time that he was connecting
Giuliani with Zelensky's government, "I did not perceive these issues to be linked in any way."
Volker said that "no reason was given" for the holdup, but it concerned him; he "stressed"
to staff at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the National Security Council that the aid
was vital to Ukraine's security, "deterrence of Russian aggression," and Ukraine's relationship
with the US.
"That said, I was not overly concerned about the development because I believed the decision
would ultimately be reversed," Volker told Congress, citing the "unanimous position" of
Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon, and the NSC in favor of restoring the aid. "I
knew it would just be a matter of time."
...On his contacts with Rudy Giuliani, Volker said he became aware early this year about "an
emerging, negative narrative about Ukraine in the United States, fueled by accusations made by
the then–prosecutor general of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, that some Ukrainian citizens may
have sought to influence" the 2016 presidential election in the US, "including by passing
information that was detrimental to" Trump, which they hoped would reach Hillary Clinton's
campaign.
"I believed that these accusations by Mr. Lutsenko were themselves self-serving, intended to
make himself appear valuable to the United States, so that the United States might weigh in
against his being removed from office by the new government," Volker said.
...Volker told Congress that he learned in May this year that Giuliani planned to travel to
Ukraine to look into the unsubstantiated allegations that Biden had used his position as vice
president to benefit his son Hunter Biden. Volker said he contacted Giuliani to say that
Lutsenko was not credible -- Volker said they had a brief phone call, but didn't say how
Giuliani responded. Giuliani later canceled his trip. Volker noted that Giuliani claimed at the
time that Zelensky was surrounded "by enemies of the United States," a sentiment that Volker
said he "fundamentally disagreed" with.
...Giuliani came up repeatedly in Volker's conversations with Zelensky and the Ukrainian
president's administration. Volker said he had a private conversation with Zelensky in early
July, and told Zelensky that a "negative view" of Ukraine -- one that Giuliani held -- was
"likely making its way to" Trump. A week later, Volker met with Yermak, the Zelensky aide, who
asked to be connected to Giuliani.
...
Volker also testified to Congress that he met with Trump in May and suggested that
the president invite Zelensky to the White House, arguing Zelensky could help clean up
corruption in Ukraine. But Volker said that Trump was "very skeptical" of Zelensky at the
time.
"He said that Ukraine was a corrupt country, full of 'terrible people.' He said they
'tried to take me down.' In the course of that conversation, he referenced conversations
with Mayor Giuliani," Volker said. "It was clear to me that despite the positive news and
recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the new President, President
Trump had a deeply rooted negative view on Ukraine rooted in the past. He was clearly receiving
other information from other sources, including Mayor Giuliani, that was more negative, causing
him to retain this negative view."
Michael McFaul was the key person in failed "white color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012
designed to prevent reelection of Putin. h was recalled soon after Putin elections. So his praise
instantly suggests that the other person might be a color revolution specialist as well
In this sense his participation in Ukrainegate is just a top of his long carier as colore
revolution specialist. Ukrainegate does looks like the second Maydan.
Michael
McFaul, who served as the US ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014, called Taylor, who he's
known for three decades, "just a consummate public servant."
"I do remember when he was ambassador to Ukraine he saw the bigness of the moment -- this is
well before Russia annexed Crimea and went into Donbass -- that fighting for sovereignty for
Ukraine and democracy and anti-corruption, he was very committed to that," McFaul said.
Easy ;-) Weaken the Deep State (aka drain the swamp). Remove three factors driving
impeachment: Obama mafia, Clintons mafia and Brennan mafia. Neutralizing them probably mean
(imperfect but workable) vaccine against impeachment derangement.
The author does not understand that neoliberal coup d'état against Trump is driven by
the burning desire to kick the can down the road and ignore the crisi of neoliberalism that led
to Trump election (as well as Brexit and Orban in Europe)
Notable quotes:
"... The idea that Americans are steps away from squaring off across the field at Gettysburg is something that should only exist in satire. It would be hilarious, except that such fantasizing is influencing the actual future of our country. We have crossed a line where rationality is in the rearview mirror. Most of us have lost track of the constitutional crises that have never actually happened since the first one was declared, over the non-issue of Trump losing the popular vote in 2016. ..."
"... What was it last week? Sharpiegate? Or the hotel in Scotland? Or an impeding war with Iran/North Korea/China? Or treason? Or something about security clearances? The Kurds were a thing in 2017 and again now. Paul Krugman of the New York Times first declared that Trump was going to destroy the economy in 2016 , and has written the same article regularly ever since, most recently just last week . It doesn't seem to matter that none of these things have actually proven to be true. Learned people are saying them again and again. ..."
"... It wasn't supposed to be this way. The fantasy was to use Robert Mueller's summer testimony about Trump being a literal Russian asset to stir up the masses -- Mueller Time, Baby! Congress would go home for August recess to be bombarded by cries for impeachment, and then autumn would feature hearings and revelations amplified by the Blue Check harpies leading up to, well, something big. ..."
"... Desperation makes for poor strategy. Think back just two weeks and no one had heard of any of this. Yet Dems and the media took America from zero to 100 nearly overnight as if this was another 9/11. With the winter caucuses approaching, Dems in search of a crime groped at something half slipped under the door and half bundled up by clever lawyers to be slipped under the door. Mueller was a lousy patsy so a better one needed to be found in the shallow end of the Deep State pool. It wasn't much but it was going to have to be made good enough. ..."
"... The details will come out and they will stink. The first whistleblower had some sort of prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democrat. Given that he is a CIA analyst, that suggests a member of Vice President Biden's White House team, Cory Booker's Committee on Foreign Relations, or maybe Kamala Harris's Select Committee on Intelligence. ..."
"... The so-called second whistleblower appears to actually be one of the sources for the first whistleblower. That's a feedback loop , an old CIA trick where you create the appearance of a credible source by providing your own confirming source. It was tried with the Steele Dossier where the original text given to the FBI appeared to be backed up by leaks filtered through the media and John McCain's office. ..."
"... It is easy to lose one's sense of humor over all this. It is easy to end up like Ginsberg at the end of his poem, muttering to strangers at what a mess this had all become: "Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells! They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! To solitude!" But me, I don't think it's funny at all. ..."
"... And of course MSNBC hires Brennan whose CIA spied on Congress when it was investigating torture. No principles here at all. ..."
"... When they put State power brokers over the will of the people and love of country, it equals Ideology. What they really worship is the ideology itself. All of the various actors are just tools in service of that cause. ..."
"... a lot of the call was about Crowd Strike, not that anyone noticed ..."
"... The Democrats are doing the impossible by making Trump look good by comparison. ..."
"... As I think we all have come to understand, the Swamp is disconnected from mainstreet, [it is] a world all its own. Point being, neither side realizes most Americans have tuned this whole issue out. Two years of Russia gate led to exhaustion. My bigger concern going forward after Americans get a chance to vote in 2020, is, is this how we are destined to be governed ? ..."
"... Bush, Obama, and Trump have all committed vastly larger crimes and in our twisted political culture these don’t matter. Remember when centrist liberals claimed to care about torture and war under false pretenses? ..."
"... And all these former intelligence goons like Brennan are embraced on the liberal cable networks, even if the now beloved intelligence community tortured prisoners, lied about it, and spied on Congress. ..."
"... Had DT used withheld military aid to strong-arm Ukraine to do something in the national interest, then it would have been business as usual. Everyone expects a President to wheel, deal, lie and cheat for the nation. ..."
"... The public knew what Trump was about from the very beginning. That he was bumptious, impetuous, always shooting from the hip and often saying stupid things. And yet he was nominated by one of the two major parties, then turned around and beat the candidate of the other major party. What does that say about this country, other than its citizens elected a real estate businessman turned TV star with no political experience whatsover as president ..."
"... It's all a diversion (among many others) from what we should all be talking and doing something about anyway. It's all part of a sick game the global elites entertain and enrich themselves with. ..."
"... 'Once intelligent people are talking about actual civil war in America' - Peter van Buren, Oct 14, 2019 'We should have a revolution in this country!' - Donald Trump, Nov 6th, 2012 ..."
Can any of the Democratic candidates pull America back from this
madness?
Once intelligent people are talking about actual civil war in America. This
began after Trump
retweeted a pastor saying impeachment would cause a "civil war-like fracture in this
Nation." Never mind that it was a retweet, and never mind that the original statement used
"like" to make a comparison. The next headline was
set: Trump Threatens Civil War If He's Impeached. Newsweek
quoted a Harvard Law professor saying that the "threat" alone made Trump impeachable.
Another
headline asked: "If Trump's Rage Brings Civil War, Where Will the Military Stand?"
Blowing up some online nonsense into a declaration of war tracks with the meme that Trump
will
refuse to leave office if defeated in 2020, or will declare himself
the winner even if he loses, sending coded messages
to armed minions. "Trump Is Going to Burn Down Everything and Everyone," reads the headline
from a NASDAQ-listed media
outlet . "Before Trump will allow himself to be chased from the temple, he'll bring it
down,"
wroteTheNew York Times.
That's just what the MSM is saying; it gets worse the further off the
road you drive . "Trump
is going to try everything, Fox is going to try everything, and they're going to both further
the injuring of societal reality and inspire dangerous individuals to kill and maim," Jared
Yates Sexton, a well-known academic, tweeted on
September 28 . "There's a vast number of people in this, people who have been taught their
whole lives that they might need to kill in case of a coup or corrupt takeover," he continued.
"Trump and Republicans signal to them constantly. They're more than ready to see this as the
occasion."
The idea that Americans are steps away from squaring off across the field at Gettysburg
is something that should only exist in satire. It would be hilarious, except that such
fantasizing is influencing the actual future of our country. We have crossed a line where
rationality is in the rearview mirror. Most of us have lost track of the constitutional crises
that have never actually happened since the first one was declared, over the non-issue of Trump
losing the popular vote in 2016.
What was it last week? Sharpiegate? Or the hotel in Scotland? Or an impeding war with
Iran/North Korea/China? Or treason? Or something about security clearances? The Kurds were a
thing in
2017 and again now. Paul Krugman of the New York Times first declared that Trump was going
to destroy the economy in
2016 , and has written the same article regularly ever since, most recently just last
week . It doesn't seem to matter that none of these things have actually proven to be true.
Learned people are
saying them again and again.
Those who oppose Trump have convinced themselves they must impeach for something , and if
all of Russiagate (remember that? It's like Aunt Edna's brief failed marriage, only not
mentioned at the dinner table) wasn't enough, then Democrats will impeach over a phone call to
a minor world leader.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. The fantasy was to use Robert Mueller's summer
testimony about Trump being a literal Russian asset to stir up the masses -- Mueller Time,
Baby! Congress would go home for August recess to be bombarded by cries for impeachment, and
then autumn would feature hearings and revelations amplified by the Blue Check harpies leading
up to, well, something big.
Were rationality still in vogue, it would be hard to imagine that Democrats would consider
the Ukraine call impeachable. But they closed out Russiagate like the OJ Simpson murder trial,
certain Trump had gotten away with so much that they had to catch him at something else to make
it even.
Desperation makes for poor strategy. Think back just two weeks and no one had heard of
any of this. Yet Dems and the media took America from zero to 100 nearly overnight as if this
was another 9/11. With the winter caucuses approaching, Dems in search of a crime groped at
something half slipped under the door and half
bundled up by clever lawyers to be slipped under the door. Mueller was a lousy patsy so a
better one needed to be found in the shallow end of the Deep State pool. It wasn't much but it
was going to have to be made good enough.
The details will come out and they will stink. The
first whistleblower had some sort of prior working relationship with a current 2020
Democrat. Given that he is a CIA analyst, that suggests a member of Vice President Biden's
White House team, Cory Booker's Committee on Foreign Relations, or maybe Kamala Harris's Select
Committee on Intelligence.
The so-called
second whistleblower appears to actually be one of the sources for the first whistleblower.
That's a
feedback loop , an old CIA trick where you create the appearance of a credible source by
providing your own confirming source. It was tried with the
Steele Dossier where the original text given to the FBI appeared to be backed up by leaks
filtered through the media and John McCain's office.
So forget everything about this cooked-to-order crisis except the actual thing impeachment
would turn on: the transcript of Trump's call. It does not matter what one, two, or 200
whistleblowers, former Obama officials, or talking heads "
think " about the call. There it is, the actual words, all pink and naked on the Internet
for everyone to read. Ukraine did not investigate Biden. Trump did not withhold aid. The
attorney general was
not involved. DOJ ruled there was
no violation of the law. It has little to do with Pompeo or Pence (though Pompeo was
on the call ). You and the Congress pretty much have it all in the transcript. It's
bathroom reading,
five pages .
Only a few months ago, the Democrats' drive to the White House began with the loftiest of
ideals, albeit a hodgepodge from trans toilet "rights" to a 100 percent makeover of the health
care system. It is now all about vengeance, clumsy and grossly partisan at that, gussied up as
"saving democracy." Our media is dominated by angry Hillary refighting 2016 and "joking" about
running again, with Adam Schiff now the face of the party for 2020. The war of noble intentions
has devolved into Pelosi's March to the Sea. Any chance for a Democratic candidate to reach
into the dark waters and pull America to where she can draw breath again and heal has been
lost.
Okay, deep breath myself. A couple of times a week, I walk past the café where Allen Ginsberg, the Beat
poet, often wrote. His most famous poem, Howl , begins, "I saw the best minds of my generation
destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked." The walk is a good leveler, a reminder that
madness (Trump Derangement in modern terminology) is not new in politics.
But Ginsberg wrote in a time when one could joke about coded messages -- before the Internet
came into being to push tailored ticklers straight into people's brains. I'll take my relief in
knowing that almost everything Trump and others write, on Twitter and in the Times ,
is designed simply to get attention and getting our attention today requires ever louder and
crazier stuff. What will get us to look up anymore? Is that worth playing with fire over?
It is easy to lose one's sense of humor over all this. It is easy to end up like
Ginsberg at the end of his poem, muttering to strangers at what a mess this had all become:
"Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells! They bade
farewell! They jumped off the roof! To solitude!" But me, I don't think it's funny at
all.
You are the idiot if you think Peter doesn't know what the Mem-Con was. He was one of the
first to explain exactly how the process works. It's as close to an actual recording as it
gets and all parties sign off on the "Memo Of Communication" stating it's accurate before
it's saved.The idiots are the ones who think it's not accurate, grasping at straws doesn't
help you. But it does serve to make a point, YOU like bobbleheaded Shift realize that the
Transcript, as it stands, does not point to anything illegal so you like Shift make stuff up.
Each and every time you guys make the claim that it's not a real transcript it's a
admission that even YOU don't think what's in the call is illegal. Think about that one for a
second.
OH and you can claim that he did it to "punish his political opponents" all you like,
that's just spin, just as anyone can much more easily spin this as Trump's duty to find out.
Anything that requires mindreading isn't actual evidence and the "spin" in this case is
exactly that. Unless you crawl into his head you don't know if he did it to hurt Biden or
Help America, so either way we are left with his call as the only real evidence, the one you
yourself think was altered to the point where it no longer shows wrongdoing.
It’s clear that you are suffering from the Impeachment Derangement Virus as mentioned
in the article.
The President’s calls to world leaders were being leaked all throughout the
beginning of his presidency. That is a national security issue and so they added an extra
layer of security using a password protected system that had been used by previous
administrations. Your fantasy about the contents “alarming staffers” is absolute
nonsense because even in the “whistleblower” statement it states that other calls
to world leaders were also being put into this secured system. The fact that other calls are
being put into this system shows just how delusional your fantasy about this call being
special in some way, truly is.
As for the texts, as the author stated the opinion of what a diplomat THINKS is the
motivation is proof of absolutely nothing especially when that diplomat is told point blank
in the next text that his opinion is not factual.
Rational people understand all this. Those with Impeachment Derangement Virus do not.
DT is a populist, in an age where politics is all about withholding from the people what they
most want, because the people's instincts are deemed by the liberal consensus to be too
"deplorable" to follow.
Another great example is Brexit. The elite made the foolish mistake of asking the people of
the country what they wanted, and have spent 3 years tying things in ridiculous knots to
avoid the outcome the people voted to have.
Trump won the game according to the game's rules, but if you're gonna start opining about
what "The People" want, it kinda seems like you need to at least start by addressing the part
where millions more of The People voted for Trump's opponent.
Trump is not a populist, he is an opportunist and a nationalist who wants everyone to
recognize his greatness.
He is using the rubes to that end, he doesn’t care what happens to you.
DT ran as a populist and is unpopular. HC ran as a technocrat and her political machine
broke. Therefore both lost in 2016, in ways most personally humiliating to each.
This cloak and dagger nonsense is all about trying to give an air of authority to this
ridiculous plot to impeach Trump. This issue does however show just how disturbingly far left
the USA has become, when leftists worship spy chiefs as the ultimate authority figures.
To all the leftists here that think that people like Clapper or Brennan are in any way
respected or in any way seen as legitimate, think again.
Broadly speaking the Left doesn't trust the intelligence community or the police any further
it can throw them. It says something about the sad state of affairs we are in that the Left
is now supporting its traditional enemy in order to save the Republic from the traitorous
ra*ist the Right has put in the White House.
Sorry, but no. Trump is a terrible human being, but that broad left you speak of is composed
of mainstream centrist liberals and various people further left. Centrist liberals have
demonstrated no moral consistency on the crimes committed by the intelligence community or
the interventionist state in general.
They claimed to be outraged by such things during the
Bush era, then forgot about them or even switched sides when Obama came in. They
wouldn’t dream of impeaching Bush for war crimes ( and become furious when
Obama’s are pointed out) but they think Trump’s use of the office to obtain dirt
on Biden is a matter of principle. Think about that. War crimes are trivial. Look forward,
not back. The use of Trump’s powers to obtain dirt against Biden— not acceptable.
And of course MSNBC hires Brennan whose CIA spied on Congress when it was investigating
torture. No principles here at all.
How many times did you hear "seventeen intelligence agencies proven it! ZOMG!" while the
RussiaGate conspiracy theory was au courant?
For that matter, I was frequently treated to the spectacle of Team D partisans insisting
that any questioning of "our intelligence community" was ipso facto "treason".
As if it were our patriotic duty to unquestioningly accept anonymous statements from
perjurers (NSA), torturers (CIA) and entrapment artists (FBI) all with a long track record of
lying and talking about supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see.
When they put State power brokers over the will of the people and love of country, it equals
Ideology. What they really worship is the ideology itself. All of the various actors are just
tools in service of that cause.
Laughing Well,
you might want to actually read those messages . . . seeing them is one thing reading them
is another. If i were a democratic supporter --- you bet i would be alarmed.
The cat is getting of the bag and the cat is covered in unsavory behavior by the state
department and the supporters of the Ukrainian revolution against a democratic state and ally
of the US.
A cabal that nearly sent the Ukraine into a complete civil war ----- encourage and
participated in by the previous admin. under the direct leadership of the Sec of State, Madam
Hillary Clinton.
Its very damning but who is damned was not in office at the time.
Quiz for the day:
Does this “whistleblower” even exist? Or is it a composite creation of the
CIA, Schiff and Co?
Did Schiff and friends turn ghostly white when Trump called their bluff by releasing the
transcript?
Is Pelosi’s new found reticence a result of her self annoyance that she let herself
get talked into this new debacle and payback is to let Schiff shift in the wind dangling over
the thought that no one in the CIA wants to walk the plank for him?
Do the Democrats and their allies in the deep state increasingly look like the Keystone
Kops?
What is referred to commonly as the “transcript” is a U.S. government memorandum
of conversation. Over the course of my 24 years at the State Department I saw and wrote many
of them as the official record of conversations. At the White House level, voice recognition
software is used to help transcribe what is being said, even as one or more trained note
takers are at work. Afterwards the people who listened to the call have to sign off on the
accuracy and completeness of the document. It is the final word on what was said in that
call.
though in a less forward manner the policies of candidates, including foreign policies and
their implications are always at issue regarding selection.
It may be unseemly to have it brazenly broadcast, but illegal -- not. The real question
here is whether members of the democratic and republican party solicit, incite, encourage a
violent revolution in the Ukraine against a democratic ally of the US and in so doing,
encourage and engage in graft, theft or illegal influence, such as demanding the removal of a
prosecutor attempting to regain some stability and investigative power into how that
incitement corrupted and disrupted Ukrainian politics. In otherwords, have member of the US
colluded with certain forces in the Ukraine to over throw a democratically elected
government, that the international community and the Ukrainians indicated was fair. This
activity goes well beyond supplying weapons and post posters, but involved bribing, and
removing government officials. Unlike the consideration in Iran, which was an inside coupe,
the Ukrainnian affair seems to have been led and run by the US and Europeans, political,
economic and intelligence members. And it seems to include a company that used similar
tactics in the US to incite suspcion by using falsified computer data, accuasations of
hacking in an attempt to falsey accuse the US candidate of colluding with the Russians
because part of his agenda was to reduce tensions in between, the Ukraine, Russia and the
US.
And peaceful negotiations threatened to uncover those violations of international law by
members of the US and Eurpoean communities in which US citizens used the unstable environment
in the Ukraine which they fostered to engage in graft.
Could not have said it better myself. We are truly in bizzaro-World.
The Bidens are scooping
up as much IMF (read American) cash as they can in Ukraine with some more on the side in
China, and all the shrieking is about Trump who asked the leader of a country, to cooperate
in investigating an ongoing criminal investigation (a lot of the call was about Crowd Strike,
not that anyone noticed).
We have a treaty with Ukraine which obligates exactly that. The
Biden's activity is about as bald a case of corruption and bribe-taking as one could imagine.
Barr is investigating the nauseating deep-state origins of Russia-gate, but in today's World
I'm not that confident that the truth will ever come out. Trump is stupid, but his enemies
are far, far worse.
The rabid drivel dripping from the mouths of the lib-Dem-media regarding Trump's supposed
existential threat to the universe -- complete with idiotic hysteria about refusing to leave
office and so forth -- is yet another example of their habit of projection, namely accusing
others of tactics and threats that they themselves routinely employ.
They're the ones who refused to accept the results of the 2016 election, after their
criminal attempt to subvert the campaign of one of the candidates, and they've put us through
three years of what Peter Van Buren correctly calls "madness" ever since -- like 3-year olds
rolling on the floor kicking and screaming because they didn't get their way.
They've got the media, the Ruling Class, the Deep State, and most of the power brokers on
their side, and yet laughably portray themselves as victims and targets of oppression. They
are doing serious damage to this country and they are worthy of contempt, which is what I
feel for them.
The Democrats are doing the impossible by making Trump look good by comparison. When Trump
finally wakes up to the fact that his opponents will never relent until he is in jail, along
with his family, he will respond in ways that will abrogate what little remains of this
constitutional democracy. Many will support him because of the opposition's overreach. Will
it rise to the level of a civil war? Will millions take to the streets if Adam Schiff is
jailed for treason? I doubt it. That's the hole the Democrats are digging for themselves and
the country.
As I think we all have come to understand, the Swamp is disconnected from mainstreet, [it is] a
world all its own. Point being, neither side realizes most Americans have tuned this whole
issue out. Two years of Russia gate led to exhaustion. My bigger concern going forward after
Americans get a chance to vote in 2020, is, is this how we are destined to be governed ?
I think that in the desire to attack this column about Ukrainegate, people ignored the
earlier point, which is that some liberals are unhinged. Go back and read it. I think that
part is right.
I also think Trump tried to use his office to obtain dirt on a political foe, which is
impeachable imo. But here is my problem.
Bush, Obama, and Trump have all committed vastly
larger crimes and in our twisted political culture these don’t matter. Remember when
centrist liberals claimed to care about torture and war under false pretenses? That is long
gone. Bush is a lovable figure now. Centrist liberals never did care about Obama’s
crimes—drone strikes, Yemen, arming terrorists in Syria. They are more likely to
despise whistleblowers like Snowden than care about mass surveillance. Trump’s war in
Yemen was ignored by most liberals until Khashoggi’s murder and then many of them
seriously seem to think Trump started it. It still doesn’t interest them that much. You
can’t impeach Trump for complicity in genocide without looking at what other Presidents
have done, so best focus on Ukrainegate.
And all these former intelligence goons like Brennan are embraced on the liberal cable
networks, even if the now beloved intelligence community tortured prisoners, lied about it,
and spied on Congress.
Oh, I forgot one thing. As shoddy as Trump’s behavior is, notice how we just accept
that we should be arming yet another side in what is in part a civil war in the Ukraine.
That’s just what we do.
I am not defending conservatives. Most conservatives, with some honorable exceptions, are
worse. But the whole political system is run by competing morally repugnant factions.
Excuse me,
a little integrity is in order here ----- The current president inherited these wars, and while he must take responsibility for them
during his tenure, they aren't his.
And oddly enough as much as I opposed the previous executive, They weren't a part of his
agenda until he chose interventionists as part his admin. He owns them lock stock and barrel
-- he should have declined to add Sec Clinton and her interventionists.
The issue with outsiders is that in attempts to placate insiders derails their agenda.
Which, if it's even true, is germane to a blatant attempt to leverage and extort them into doing so... why?
"Trump did not withhold aid."
Trump absolutely did withhold aid, until conspicuously releasing that hold for unstated reasons a couple of days after
learning of the whistleblower communicating with Congress. I guess his concerns about "corruption" just suddenly evaporated,
said the ostrich to the hole.
"The attorney general was not involved."
That remains to be seen, though...
"DOJ ruled there was no violation of the law."
...he still has plenty of ways to try and shield his client. I like how you offer this, like Bill Barr's DOJ has a shred of
credibility for objective application of the law right now.
"It has little to do with Pompeo or Pence (though Pompeo was on the call)."
How on Earth do you know this? There's growing evidence that Pence absolutely WAS in-the-know to some extent, and Pompeo is
actively assisting with the WH attempts to stonewall the unambiguous, Constitutionally granted impeachment powers of the
House, by telling his employees not to respect lawful subpoenas for testimony and documents.
It must give TAC writers like Larison heartburn to see Peter's terrible arguments so prominently displayed on the website
every week.
What this article fails to appreciate is that the majority of Americans are suffering from
Trumpzaustion. We are tired of the daily barrage of tweets, corruption, graft,
patronage, incompetence, incivility, lies, emoluments, edicts by Tweet, destruction of
alliances, lies, racism, sexism, obstinacy, impulsive executive decisions that turn sour,
disregard for science and expertise generally, lies, nepotism, narcissism, vulgarity,
hypocrisy, and did I mention lies?
This administration is annoying, costing many of us time and treasure, and like a migraine
headache, we just want it to go away.
Yes, the media and Democrats want to degrade any Republican Politician's powers by any means
necessary. They have done that to all past Republican Presidents going back to Nixon.
On the other hand, Trump gives them all of the ammo that they need to promote their
narrative. He is a caricature of the narcissistic, corrupt, crony capitalist Republican that
the media loves to sell to the public.
For crying out loud, the very next day after the Mueller probe ended, Trump appeared to
try to pressure a foreign nation to help him get reelected. If you don't recognize that Trump
gives his enemies ammo by his own reckless behaviour, then you may be in denial.
Had DT used withheld military aid to strong-arm Ukraine to do something in the national
interest, then it would have been business as usual. Everyone expects a President to
wheel, deal, lie and cheat for the nation. But the favors he extorted from Ukraine were personal . That's not in the unwritten rules.
Trump is being impeached for doing the wrong quid pro quo. This is the world we
live in.
The public knew what Trump was about from the very beginning. That he was bumptious,
impetuous, always shooting from the hip and often saying stupid things. And yet he was
nominated by one of the two major parties, then turned around and beat the candidate of the
other major party. What does that say about this country, other than its citizens elected a
real estate businessman turned TV star with no political experience whatsover as president.
A
"cri de coeur?" Perhaps. This thing of ours doesn't work anymore . There are a lot of things
wrong with this country but one thing seems increasingly and disturbingly clear: our system
of government, which was put into place via a document written in the late 18th century is
not responsive to the needs of the 21st. So much needs to be changed, starting with:
1.) De-emphasizing the office of Presidency, which has increasingly become more a source
of entertainment rather than enlightenment (to the extent that ANY president has ever been
"enlightened"). There was a very good reason why the first article of the US Constitution
refers to the legislature and not to the executive (or, for that matter, to the
judiciary).
2.) Instituting a multi-party system rather than the current farce--which has long since
become archaic.
Perhaps the time has at last come for a second Constitutional Convention, because the
rules no longer fit the game. A constitution prepared in 1787 when the US was still an
agrarian society consisting of 13 states from Maine to Florida and from the Atlantic seaboard
to the Alleghenies with a total population of less than 4 million may simply not be
responsive to the US of 2019, an advanced, information based, society consisting of 330
million (and counting) situated on a land mass of nearly 3.8 million square miles. Either we
may have to re-think what it means to govern ourselves in the 21st century or--and I shudder
at the thought-- perhaps the concept of what we call "the United States of America" may no
longer be tenable.
It was, after all is said and done, only meant to be an experiment.
"So forget everything about this cooked-to-order crisis except the actual thing impeachment
would turn on: the transcript of Trump’s call. It does not matter what one, two, or 200
whistleblowers, former Obama officials, or talking heads “think” about the call.
There it is, the actual words, all pink and naked on the Internet for everyone to read.
Ukraine did not investigate Biden. Trump did not withhold aid. The attorney general was not
involved. DOJ ruled there was no violation of the law. It has little to do with Pompeo or
Pence (though Pompeo was on the call). You and the Congress pretty much have it all in the
transcript. It’s bathroom reading, five pages."
How dare you suggest reality be considered on this matter. And it may be more ironic than
what went on before --- but there are plenty of places and reasons to find humor --
even if the humor is the result of tragedy.
"“Before Trump will allow himself to be chased from the temple, he’ll bring it
down,” wrote The New York Times."
Laughing.
Now there's an interesting reference --- Samson in the Temple ---
I couldn't give a bucket of methane emitting cow dung whether Trump is impeached or not. It's all a diversion (among many
others) from what we should all be talking and doing something about anyway. It's all part of a sick game the global elites entertain and enrich themselves with.
Have a gander at this recent interview by Greg Hunter and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts -
https://usawatchdog.com/oli... - I may not agree with all of the conclusions the good Dr.
has drawn but a lot of what he says does have a ring of truth to it based on my own
independent research into a various aspects of our so-called civilization.
Unfortunately for the Dems, not one of them has one tenth of Trump's charisma and ability to
campaign. He doesn't need to be right all the time, his personality will carry him through,
and the more the Dems plot, the smaller they look. Is there anyone in world to put him in the
shade?
'Once intelligent people are talking about actual civil war in America' - Peter van Buren,
Oct 14, 2019
'We should have a revolution in this country!' - Donald Trump, Nov 6th, 2012
Without lifting a gun, Jacob H. Schiff crushed the Czarist army and plunged its finest
battleships down to a watery grave! Schiff, a direct descendant of the Maharam Schiff, was born
in Frankfurt in 5607/1847. Although he studied at Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch's religious school,
it can hardly be said that he kept to his alma mater's standards once he had left for the US at
the age of eighteen. Instead, he devoted his energies to high fi nance and became managing
director of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., one of the two most influential private international banking
houses of the Western Hemisphere.
At the turn of the last century, he wielded his powerful influence against Czar Nicholas II
after the eruption of the Russo-Japanese War in 5664/1904. It was largely thanks to Schiff's
efforts that the struggle ended in a crushing defeat over Russia, leading Russia's Minister of
Finance to declare in 5671/1911, "Our government will never forgive or forget what the Jew
Schiff did to us He was one of the most dangerous men we had against us abroad."
BLACKMAIL
Schiff had an iron scruple when it came to lending money. He could not tolerate Czarist
Russia's inhuman persecution of its Jewish subjects and believed that no Jew should lend the
Czar a cent. He harbored a withering contempt for the world of Jewish finance that lent Russia
money during the 5650s/1890s with no strings attached. Jewish finance should have demanded
better conditions for Russia's Jews, he criticized. "But, instead, [it] closed its eye to make
a despicable profit, and rendered service to the Russian government, selling her Jewish
subjects for a few pieces of silver."
Then came the opportunity of a lifetime. In February 5664/1904, Schiff invited a number of
Jewish communal leaders to a meeting in his home. "Within 72 hours, war will break out between
Japan and Russia," he informed the gathering. "The question has been presented to me of
undertaking a loan to Japan. I would like to get your views as to what effect my undertaking of
this would have upon the Jewish people in Russia." Whatever they told him, Schiff left the
meeting convinced that his best course was to threaten Russia with financial blackmail. He
would convince Russia that mistreating Jews came at disastrous cost. Through his widespread
influence, he made it difficult for Russia to raise loans in the US at even three to four times
the normal profit.
Desperate, Russia's anti-Semitic Minister of the Interior, Vyacheslav von Plehve, let it be
known via proxy that he was willing to confer with Schiff and formulate some kind of deal.
Schiff wrote back: "June 21, 1904 I must repeat that the unwillingness of American money
markets to take up Russian financing are due purely to the disgust that is felt here against a
system of government which permits such things as the recent Kishinev episode [a major pogrom]
and the legal discrimination which is the order of the day in Russia
"If his Excellency von Plehve really wants me to come he must not say that he is
prepared to see me; he must say that he wishes to see me – and the
invitation must be addressed to me directly. The only condition which I must lay down is this:
I cannot enter a country which admits me only by special consideration and which is closed to
all members of the Jewish faith except by special dispensation. If I am to come to Russia, the
existing restriction against the issuing of passports for foreign Jews must first be abolished
"
The meeting never took place. When Russian Jews objected to Schiff's strategy, well
cognizant of the fact that it might backfire onto their heads, Schiff brushed their objections
aside with a spurious argument: "It is simply one more case of the experience which Moses had
in Egypt when he intervened for the Children of Israel and tried to stir them up, 'but they
hearkened not unto him, for anguish of spirit and for bondage ( Shemos 6:9).'" Schiff
also helped organize the distribution of revolutionary literature to Russian POWs held in
Japan.
JAPANESE DESPERATION
Besides stymieing Russia's finances, Schiff actively supported the Japanese cause. Baron
Korekiyo Takahashi, the Japanese official in charge of selling war bonds, was desperate. New
York bankers showed no interest in investing in Japan's war and even in Britain, Japan's
official ally, the pickings were minimal.
In his diary, Takahashi complains how the fantastically wealthy Rothschild House refused to
contribute a penny:
"The House of Rothschild cannot come in openly during the war. If they did, it will be known
to St. Petersburg. They cannot do anything that might inflict oppression on the Jews by the
Russian Government."
Then Takahashi struck gold at a London dinner. Who was sitting next to him but Jacob H.
Schiff! Takahashi poured out his heart to the powerful financier, informing him that Japan
needed at least five million pounds sterling (thirty million dollars) to continue her
life-and-death struggle. And much more would be needed later on.
His appeal fell on willing ears. Only a few weeks earlier, Schiff had written to Rothschild
claiming that the only hope for Russian Jews was for Russia to suffer an upheaval resulting
from the Russo- Japanese War. Here, at last, was his golden opportunity to make this
happen.
"A system of government capable of such cruelties and outrages at home as well in foreign
relations must be overhauled from the foundations up in the interests of the oppressed race,
the Russian people, and the world at large and taught an object lesson," he told the Japanese
statesman.
Schiff agreed to set US financial machinery in motion and raise the required funds. "[It was
not] so much [because of] my father's interest in Japan," his daughter, Frieda, explained
later, "but, rather, his hatred of Imperial Russia and its anti-Semitic policies that prompted
him to take this great financial risk." He would show Russia that the dollar was mightier than
the sword.
JAPANESE WAR BONDS
As good as his word, Schiff proceeded to spur major US banks and insurance companies into
action. After subscriptions to the Japanese bonds opened at 10:00am, May 12, 5664/1904, the
bonds sold like wildfire, and even more so after Japan began overwhelming the Russian army on
land and at sea.
People were almost breaking down doors to get their hands on Japanese bonds. The New York
Times of March 1, 5665/1905, describes scenes of market madness.
"When the office force arrived for work, the lower corridor outside the doors of the banking
house was jammed with people so that it was hardly possible to reach the elevators. Outside the
portal, there was a double line of people extending across William Street and two or three
doors up Pine Street."
"An employee reported: 'They fairly tore us to pieces Until 11 or 12 o'clock, we had not
time to breath.'"
Altogether, of the total of 410 million dollars raised by Japan to win its war, 180 million
dollars was raised in the US. After Japan's victory in 5665/1905, Schiff was granted diplomatic
honors in Britain and Japan. The British king, Edward VII, invited him for a luncheon at
Buckingham Palace. Then he was invited by the Japanese emperor to personally receive one of
Japan's highest honors, the Second Order of the Sacred Treasure.
"It is the first time the Emperor has invited a foreign private citizen to have a repast at
the palace; heretofore, only foreign princes having been thus honored," he boasted.
Schiff and a large entourage of relatives, friends and servants set off in four private rail
coaches to San Francisco and sailed off to Japan by liner, pausing briefly en route to visit
Queen Liliuokalani of Honolulu. Later, during a festive lunch at the Japanese Imperial Palace,
Schiff surprised his royal hosts by lifting his glass in a toast, "To the Emperor, first in
war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen." In Japan, toasts were unknown.
He made a second mistake by casually remarking to Baron Takahashi's fifteenyear- old
daughter, Wakiko, "You must come and visit us in New York some time." The Japanese baron
understood that his daughter had been invited to stay with the Schiffs for three years!
Schiff's wife was less than delighted.
"Mother believes it somewhat of a responsibility we are undertaking in assuming charge of
the responsibility of the girl and her education," Schiff recorded at the time, "but we have
decided to assume the responsibility."
IN RETROSPECT
In retrospect, Schiff's personal duel with the Czar of Russia probably caused more harm than
good. The Jews were targeted as scapegoats for his defeat and suffered a series of violent
pogroms. In addition, Schiff's powerful influence reinforced the "Jewish International
Conspiracy" myth, portrayed in the infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" that the Czar's
secret police had disseminated in 5663/1903.
Although Schiff's efforts during the Japanese war and later during World War I helped
precipitate the Russian Revolution, this only led to a repression far worse than anything the
Jews ever suffered under the Czars.
Years later, it seemed that Schiff's private war might have a positive spinoff after all.
During the 5690s/1930s, when Germany began deporting tens of thousands of Jews, the Japanese
remembered the great power the Jew Schiff had wielded during their war and considered that it
might be a good idea to have people like him living in Japan. This gave rise to the Fugu Plan
that might have saved hundreds of thousands of Jews.
The Fugu (Puffer Fish) is regarded as a rare delicacy in Japan. The only problem is that its
flesh contains deadly poison that has to be carefully prepared by an expert, leaving only
enough poison to provide a pleasant tingling sensation; inexpertly prepared Fugu fish paralyzes
and kills. In the same vein, the Japanese believed that although the Jews were a valuable
asset, like the delicious Fugu fish, they needed to be watched carefully in order to keep them
from putting their "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" plots into action. Plans were made to
create autonomous Jewish settlements in the Far East. For various reasons, the Fugu Plan
collapsed. In summation, there is little doubt that Schiff's strong-arm tactics were an
irresponsible, risky gamble in contravention to the navi's advice in times of adversary:
"Go, My nation, come into your rooms and close your doors after you. Hide for a little moment
until anger passes" ( Yeshayahu 26:20).
(Sources: 1) Best, Gary Dean. "Financing a Foreign War: Jacob H. Schiff and Japan,
1904-05." American Jewish Historical Review no. 61 1971/72; 2) Birmingham, Stephen. Our Crowd:
The Great Jewish Families of New York. New York: Harper & Row, 1967; 3) Cohen, Naomi
Wiener. Jacob H. Schiff: a Study in American Jewish Leadership. Hanover, N.H.: Brandeis
University Press, 1999; 4)
"... Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018, was hired in February, while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint . ..."
"... The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and who has expertise in Ukraine, the Washington Examiner has reported . ..."
"... later emerged that a member of his staff had spoken to the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The Washington Post concluded that Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false. ..."
"... Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House, recruiting his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing the rules so they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the lunatic efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding their own business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a coincidence. ..."
"... Trump's been having a bad time with public opinion in the wake of the Schiff operation orchestrating the media coverage as well. But the facts on the ground suggest it was all an illegal spying operation on the president. ..."
"... It's an abuse of his office, for sure, given that Schiff is supposed to be focused on intelligence ..."
"... Image credit: Caricature by Donkey Hotey via Flickr , CC BY-SA 2.0 . ..."
"... Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House, recruiting his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing the rules so they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the lunatic efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding their own business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a coincidence. ..."
Seems every day brings a new revelation about Democratic efforts to rig an impeachment of
the president. The false claims and astonishing conflicts of interest being thrown out there
are piling up fast.
The latest, from the San Francisco Examiner, exposes House Intelligence Committee chairman
Adam Schiff's choice of staffers, who it turns out were
two disgruntled Deep-Staters from the White House
who had actually worked with the
so-called "whistleblower":
Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018,
was hired in February,
while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's
committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted
his
complaint
.
The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and
who has expertise in Ukraine,
the Washington Examiner has reported
.
A career CIA analyst with Ukraine expertise, the whistleblower aired his concerns about a
phone conversation
between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to
a House Intelligence Committee aide on Schiff's staff. He had previously informed the CIA's
legal counsel's office.
Schiff
initially denied
he knew anything about the complaint before it was filed, stating on
Sep. 17: "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to."
But it
later emerged that a member of his staff
had spoken to
the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The
Washington Post
concluded that
Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false.
"
Grace, 36,
was hired
to help Schiff's committee investigate the Trump White House. That month, Trump
accused Schiff
of
"stealing people who work at White House." Grace
worked at the NSC
from 2016 to 2018 in
U.S.-China relations and
then briefly
at the Center for a New American
Security think tank, which
was founded by
two former senior Obama administration officials.
So these people were all buddies beforehand, and this would explain why the so-called
whistleblower had been sneaking around with Schiff's staff before he made his whistleblower
complaint.
And that came only after someone with influence was able to get the inspector general of the
Intelligence Community (IGIC) to change the rules about whistleblowers needing no firsthand
knowledge about the wrongdoing they were supposedly reporting. Once that rules change was put
into place, the whistleblower got going.
More and more, this sounds like a pre-planned setup. One Trump operative has a very good
summary of what seems to have been really going on as these anything but exculpatory stories
mount:
Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House, recruiting
his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing the rules so
they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the lunatic
efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding their own
business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a coincidence.
Experienced intelligence operatives, and apparently this Trump operative has this sort of
background, like to say there are no coincidences.
As facts continue to roll out, it's getting more and more obvious that Schiff's operation
was to orchestrate this impeachment scenario all along, going into high gear with the flame-out
of the Mueller investigation.
Trump's been having a bad time with public opinion in the wake of the Schiff operation
orchestrating the media coverage as well. But the facts on the ground suggest it was all an
illegal spying operation on the president.
It's an abuse of his office, for sure, given that Schiff is supposed to be focused on
intelligence
, not on being one of those creepy secret police characters in The Lives of
Others . It's also an outrageous misuse of taxpayer dollars. In light of this Schiff spy
operation, and if Democrats don't want some backatcha next time there's a Dem in office with a
Republican House, it really ought to be every last one of them signed up to that Biggs
list.
Image credit:
Caricature by Donkey Hotey via
Flickr
,
CC BY-SA
2.0
.
Seems every day brings a new revelation about Democratic efforts to rig an
impeachment of the president. The false claims and astonishing conflicts of interest being
thrown out there are piling up fast.
The latest, from the San Francisco Examiner, exposes House Intelligence Committee chairman
Adam Schiff's choice of staffers, who it turns out were
two disgruntled Deep-Staters from the White House
who had actually worked with the
so-called "whistleblower":
Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018,
was hired in February,
while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's
committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted
his
complaint
.
The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and
who has expertise in Ukraine,
the Washington Examiner has reported
.
A career CIA analyst with Ukraine expertise, the whistleblower aired his concerns about a
phone conversation
between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to
a House Intelligence Committee aide on Schiff's staff. He had previously informed the CIA's
legal counsel's office.
Schiff
initially denied
he knew anything about the complaint before it was filed, stating on
Sep. 17: "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to."
But it later emerged that a member of his staff
had spoken to
the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The
Washington Post
concluded that
Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false."
Grace, 36,
was hired
to help Schiff's committee investigate the Trump White House. That month, Trump
accused Schiff
of
"stealing people who work at White House." Grace
worked at the NSC
from 2016 to 2018 in
U.S.-China relations and
then briefly
at the Center for a New American
Security think tank, which
was founded by
two former senior Obama administration officials.
So these people were all buddies beforehand, and this would explain why the so-called
whistleblower had been sneaking around with Schiff's staff before he made his whistleblower
complaint.
And that came only after someone with influence was able to get the inspector general of the
Intelligence Community (IGIC) to change the rules about whistleblowers needing no firsthand
knowledge about the wrongdoing they were supposedly reporting. Once that rules change was put
into place, the whistleblower got going.
More and more, this sounds like a pre-planned setup. One Trump operative has a very good
summary of what seems to have been really going on as these anything but exculpatory stories
mount:
Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House,
recruiting his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing
the rules so they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the
lunatic efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding
their own business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a
coincidence.
Experienced intelligence operatives, and apparently this Trump operative has this sort of
background, like to say there are no coincidences.
As facts continue to roll out, it's getting more and more obvious that Schiff's operation
was to orchestrate this impeachment scenario all along, going into high gear with the flame-out
of the Mueller investigation.
Trump's been having a bad time with public opinion in the wake of the Schiff operation
orchestrating the media coverage as well. But the facts on the ground suggest it was all an
illegal spying operation on the president.
And that's a far more concrete crime than anything Trump is accused of committing. Right
now, Schiff has 109 congressional representatives
signed on to GOP rep. Andy
Biggs of Arizona's
call to condemn and censure Schiff for this sick little illegal
freelance operation to spy on Trump.
It's an abuse of his office, for sure, given that Schiff is supposed to be focused on
intelligence, not on being one of those creepy secret police characters in
The Lives of
Others
. It's also an outrageous misuse of taxpayer dollars. In light of this Schiff spy
operation, and if Democrats don't want some backatcha next time there's a Dem in office with a
Republican House, it really ought to be every last one of them signed up to that Biggs
list.
"... inspector general of the Intelligence Community (IGIC) to change the rules about whistleblowers needing no firsthand
knowledge about the wrongdoing they were supposedly reporting. Once that rules change was put
into place, the whistleblower got going." Doesn't that beg the question IF Atkinson had any past
relationships with any of these people in his former position? I believe I read somewhere that
Atkinson somehow was involved in the Steele Dossier from his former job.
Our government has always operated this way. Nothing new here. It only seems "run worse" because the results are out in the
open for all to see. Whereas, the same thing could be done in secret and you'd never know
about it (the changes in the rules).
Which do you prefer? The sloppy American way, or the secretive Chinese way?
I'm sorry to say we have only these two choices. The sloppy American way is preferable to
me because it's the better part of our openly democratic republic and our Constitution.
The current problems and distractions we are dealing with are the result of Biden,
Schiff, and the Democrat's attempts to be secretive about what they're doing. So, we have to
wonder why these people don't want their actions to be known.
We should delight in seeing such illegitimate secrets exposed.
"...The sloppy American way, or the secretive Chinese way?"
What difference does it make if the criminals
are never indicted? The fact that I know of don't know makes no difference. We know
politicians are dirty scum, anyway..
But I think it's not good enough to just accept rampant corruption, surely things
could be better than this?
Also, it's not so much the Dems in question but the entire system.
And I see little evidence that the system is changing.
Though as you point out, one big shift is that more of us have become aware of how
bad it is.
And as you point out, it's always been that way, going back at least to 1913... but
more like forever and with all systems.
And if it is forever and all systems, then maybe it's better we DON'T get to see
all the dirty laundry all the time, including that nothing is done about it. Maybe
better not to know! Maybe that's the only way to make the country 'great' again!?
Executive order 12333, 1981, prohibits the CIA from spying on American citizens on domestic
soil, or internationally, except as incidental to terrorist investigations outside the US of
A.
The POTUS is the first citizen.
Why has no one in any part of the press, right, left, or center pointed out this simple
fact?
Also, there is no "transcript" of any conversation between Trump and any other head of
state. Because there is no recording or verbatim typed record (such as a court reporter would
make) due to diplomatic protocols agreed by all parties.
There are only informal notes taken by witnesses at the time of the call. (Unless Snowden
is correct about the private contractors working for the NSA).
As for anti Russian propaganda, look first to the UK, who have been at it for several
hundred years, and who are in the habit of knighting American Republican presidents who take
orders from the square mile and Downing street, or whitehall and Balmoral castle.
The new cold war is an international project aimed at demonising Putin, who god knows is
no saint, but who is also no dummy. Unlike the image Trump likes to cultivate. Has anyone
noticed how clumsy the CIA has gotten lately? Or, how hysterical the press has become on
their behalf?
Executive order 12333, 1981, prohibits the CIA from spying on American citizens on
domestic soil, or internationally, except as incidental to terrorist investigations outside
the US of A.
The POTUS is the first citizen.
Why has no one in any part of the press, right, left, or center pointed out this simple
fact?
Has anyone noticed how clumsy the CIA has gotten lately? Or, how hysterical the press
has become on their behalf?
You answered your own questions. The law is for sheeple, Deep State does not give a hoot
about the laws, constitution, and the rest of the niceties.
@AnonFromTN
Limpet bombs on Japanese tanker, in the arabian sea, failed coup in Vn, Skripal case, etc.
Are the clumsy examples i was thinking of. They behave as if there is no internet. Not sure
if they are even aware that everything they do is being watched and evaluated from 100
different points of view.
But yeah, i know, most questions do contain an intrinsic answer.
"... It was the Obama administration who engineered the 2014 right-wing, Neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine as part of its agenda to undermine Russia. A neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda. This is, or should be, common knowledge. Obama put it in his typically slick way in a 2015 interview with CNN's Fareed Zakiria, saying that the United States "had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine." ..."
"... This is Orwellian language at its finest, from a warmonger who received the Nobel Prize for Peace while declaring he was in support of war. That the forces that have initiated a new and highly dangerous Cold War, a nuclear confrontation with Russia, demonized Vladimir Putin, and have overthrown the elected leader of a country allied with Russia on its western border, dares from the day he was elected in 2016 to remove its own president in the most obvious ways imaginable seems like bad fiction. But it is fact, and the fact that so many Americans approve of it is even more fantastic. ..."
"... It is well known that the United States is infamous for engineering coups against democratically elected governments worldwide. Voters' preferences are considered beside the point. Iran and Mosaddegh in 1953, Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Indonesia and Sukarno in 1965-7, Allende in Chile in 1973, to name a few from the relatively distant past. ..."
"... Recently the Obama administration worked their handiwork in Honduras and Ukraine. It would not be hyperbolic to say that overthrowing democratic governments is as American as apple pie. It's our "democratic" tradition – like waging war. ..."
"... What is less well known is that elements within the U.S. ruling power elites have also overthrown democratically elected governments in the United States. One U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated because he had turned toward peace and opposed the forces of war within his own government. He is the lone example of a president who therefore was opposed by all the forces of imperial conquest within the ruling elites. ..."
"... Others, despite their backing for the elite deep state's imperial wars, were taken out for various reasons by competing factions within the shadow government. Nixon waged the war against Vietnam for so long on behalf of the military-industrial complex, but he was still taken down by the CIA, contrary to popular mythology about Watergate. ..."
"... Jimmy Carter was front man for the Tri-Lateral Commission's deep-state faction, but was removed by the group represented by George H. Bush, William Casey, and Reagan through their traitorous actions involving the Iran hostages. ..."
"... Obama, CIA groomed, was smoothly moved into power by the faction that felt Bush needed to be succeeded by a slick smiling assassin who symbolized "diversity," could speak well, and played hoops. ..."
"... Take your pick – heads or tails. Hillary Clinton was expected to complete the trinity. ..."
"... The day after his surprise election, the interlocking circles of power that run the show in sun and shadows – what C. Wright Mills long ago termed the Power Elite – met to overthrow him, or at least to render him more controllable. ..."
"... Trump, probably never having expected to win and as shocked as most people when he did, made some crucial mistakes before the election and before taking office. Some of those mistakes have continued since his inauguration ..."
"... Trump's fatal mistake was saying that he wanted to get along with Russia, that Putin was a good leader, and that he wanted to end the war against Syria and pull the U.S. back from foreign wars ..."
"... This was verboten. And when he said nuclear war was absurd and would only result in nuclear conflagration, he had crossed the Rubicon. That sealed his fate ..."
"... "Only the shallow know themselves," said Oscar Wilde. ..."
"... ...The first step in dealing with this is to combat ignorance and misinformation. There may not be one undeniable truth but we can certainly squash blatant mis-truths. ..."
"... If you read Professor Antony C Sutton's books about Wall Street, the Bolshevik Revolution and Hitlers rise to power, it is possible, as Sutton did, to examine the methodology, ideology and psychology of the string pullers in depth. For exposing them, Hutton was as he said " persecuted but not prosecuted ". ..."
This article was first published on February 21, 2017, one month after Donald Trump was sworn in as president, more than two-and-a
half years ago. What was true then is even truer now, and so I am reprinting it with this brief introduction since I think it describes
what is happening in plain sight today.
Now that years of Russia-gate accusations have finally fallen apart, those forces intent on driving Trump from office have had
to find another pretext. Now it is Ukraine-gate, an issue similar in many ways to Russia-gate in that both were set into motion by
the same forces aligned with the Democratic Party and the CIA-led Obama administration.
It was the Obama administration who engineered the 2014 right-wing, Neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine as part of its agenda to undermine
Russia. A neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda. This is, or should be, common knowledge. Obama put it in his typically slick way in
a 2015 interview with CNN's Fareed Zakiria, saying that the United States "had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine."
This is Orwellian language at its finest, from a warmonger who received the Nobel Prize for Peace while declaring he was in support
of war. That the forces that have initiated a new and highly dangerous Cold War, a nuclear confrontation with Russia, demonized Vladimir
Putin, and have overthrown the elected leader of a country allied with Russia on its western border, dares from the day he was elected
in 2016 to remove its own president in the most obvious ways imaginable seems like bad fiction. But it is fact, and the fact that
so many Americans approve of it is even more fantastic.
Over the past few years the public has heard even more about the so-called "deep state," only to see its methods of propaganda
become even more perversely cynical in their shallowness.
No one needs to support the vile Trump to understand that the United States is undergoing a fundamental shift wherein tens of
millions of Americans who say they believe in democracy support the activities of gangsters who operate out in the open with their
efforts to oust an elected president.
We have crossed the Rubicon and there will be no going back.
In irony a man annihilates what he posits within one and the same act; he leads us to believe in order not to be believed;
he affirms to deny and denies to affirm; he creates a positive object but it has no being other than its nothingness."
Jean-Paul Sartre
It is well known that the United States is infamous for engineering coups against democratically elected governments worldwide.
Voters' preferences are considered beside the point. Iran and Mosaddegh in 1953, Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Indonesia and Sukarno
in 1965-7, Allende in Chile in 1973, to name a few from the relatively distant past.
Recently the Obama administration worked their handiwork in Honduras and Ukraine. It would not be hyperbolic to say that overthrowing
democratic governments is as American as apple pie. It's our "democratic" tradition – like waging war.
What is less well known is that elements within the U.S. ruling power elites have also overthrown democratically elected governments
in the United States. One U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated because he had turned toward peace and opposed the forces
of war within his own government. He is the lone example of a president who therefore was opposed by all the forces of imperial conquest
within the ruling elites.
Others, despite their backing for the elite deep state's imperial wars, were taken out for various reasons by competing factions
within the shadow government. Nixon waged the war against Vietnam for so long on behalf of the military-industrial complex, but he
was still taken down by the CIA, contrary to popular mythology about Watergate.
Jimmy Carter was front man for the Tri-Lateral Commission's deep-state faction, but was removed by the group represented by George
H. Bush, William Casey, and Reagan through their traitorous actions involving the Iran hostages.
The emcee for the neo-liberal agenda,
Bill Clinton, was rendered politically impotent via the Lewinsky affair, a matter never fully investigated by any media.
Obama, CIA groomed, was smoothly moved into power by the faction that felt Bush needed to be succeeded by a slick smiling
assassin who symbolized "diversity," could speak well, and played hoops. Hit them with the right hand; hit them with the
left. Same coin: Take your pick – heads or tails. Hillary Clinton was expected to complete the trinity.
But surprises happen, and now we have Trump, who is suffering the same fate – albeit at an exponentially faster rate – as his
predecessors that failed to follow the complete script. The day after his surprise election, the interlocking circles of power that
run the show in sun and shadows – what C. Wright Mills long ago termed the Power Elite – met to overthrow him, or at least to render
him more controllable.
These efforts, run out of interconnected power centers, including the liberal corporate legal boardrooms that were the backers
of Obama and Hillary Clinton, had no compunction in planning the overthrow of a legally elected president.
Soon they were joined by their conservative conspirators in doing the necessary work of "democracy" – making certain that only
one of their hand-picked and anointed henchmen was at the helm of state. Of course, the intelligence agencies coordinated their efforts
and their media scribes wrote the cover stories. The pink Pussyhats took to the streets. The deep state was working overtime.
Trump, probably never having expected to win and as shocked as most people when he did, made some crucial mistakes before the
election and before taking office. Some of those mistakes have continued since his inauguration.
Not his derogatory remarks about minorities, immigrants, or women. Not his promise to cut corporate taxes, support energy companies,
oppose strict environmental standards. Not his slogan to "make America great again." Not his promise to build a "wall" along the
Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it. Not his vow to deport immigrants. Not his anti-Muslim pledges. Not his insistence that
NATO countries contribute more to NATO's "defense" of their own countries. Not even his crude rantings and Tweets and his hypersensitive
defensiveness. Not his reality-TV celebrity status, his eponymous golden tower and palatial hotels and sundry real estate holdings.
Not his orange hair and often comical and disturbing demeanor, accentuated by his off the cuff speaking style.
Surely not his massive wealth.
While much of this was viewed with dismay, it was generally acceptable to the power elites who transcend party lines and run the
country. Offensive to hysterical liberal Democrats and traditional Republicans, all this about Trump could be tolerated, if only
he would cooperate on the key issue.
Trump's fatal mistake was saying that he wanted to get along with Russia, that Putin was a good leader, and that he wanted to
end the war against Syria and pull the U.S. back from foreign wars.
This was verboten. And when he said nuclear war was absurd and would only result in nuclear conflagration, he had crossed the
Rubicon. That sealed his fate.
Misogyny, racism, support for Republican conservative positions on a host of issues – all fine. Opposing foreign wars, especially
with Russia – not fine.
Now we have a reality-TV president and a reality-TV coup d'etat in prime time. Hidden in plain sight, the deep-state has gone
shallow. What was once covert is now overt. Once it was necessary to blame a coup on a secretive "crazy lone assassin," Lee Harvey
Oswald. But in this "post-modern" society of the spectacle, the manifest is latent; the obvious, non-obvious; what you see you don't
see. Everyone knows those reality-TV shows aren't real, right?
It may seem like it is a coup against Trump in plain sight, but these shows are tricky, aren't they? He's the TV guy. He runs
the show. He's the sorcerer's apprentice. He wants you to believe in the illusion of the obvious. He's the master media manipulator.
You see it but don't believe it because you are so astute, while he is so blatant. He's brought it upon himself. He's bringing himself
down. Everyone who knows, knows that.
I am reminded of being in a movie theatre in 1998, watching The Truman Show, about a guy who slowly "discovers" that he has been
living in the bubble of a television show his whole life. At the end of the film he makes his "escape" through a door in the constructed
dome that is the studio set.
The liberal audience in a very liberal town stood up and applauded Truman's dash to freedom. I was startled since I had never
before heard an audience applaud in a movie theatre – and a standing ovation at that. I wondered what they were applauding. I quickly
realized they were applauding themselves, their knowingness, their insider astuteness that Truman had finally caught on to what they
already thought they knew. Now he would be free like they were. They couldn't be taken in; now he couldn't.
Except, of course, they were applauding an illusion, a film about being trapped in a reality-TV world, a world in which they stood
in that theatre – their world, their frame. Frames within frames. Truman escapes from one fake frame into another – the movie. The
joke was on them. The film had done its magic as its obvious content concealed its deeper truth: the spectator and the spectacle
were wed. McLuhan was here right: the medium was the message.
This is what George Trow in 1980 called "the context of no context."
Candor as concealment, truth as lies, knowingness as stupidity. Making reality unreal in the service of an agenda that is so obvious
it isn't, even as the cognoscenti applaud themselves for being so smart and in the know.
The more we hear about "the deep state" and begin to grasp its definition, the more we will have descended down the rabbit hole.
Soon this "deep state" will be offering courses on what it is, how it operates, and why it must stay hidden while it "exposes" itself.
Right-wing pundit Bill Kristol tweets:
Liberal CIA critic and JFK assassination researcher, Jefferson Morley, after defining the deep state, writes:
With a docile Republican majority in Congress and a demoralized Democratic Party in opposition, the leaders of the Deep State
are the most – perhaps the only – credible check in Washington on what Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls Trump's "wrecking ball
presidency."
These are men who ostensibly share different ideologies, yet agree, and state it publically, that the "deep state" should take
out Trump. Both believe, without evidence, that the Russians intervened to try to get Trump elected. Therefore, both no doubt feel
justified in openly espousing a coup d'etat. They match Trump's blatancy with their own. Nothing deep about this.
Liberals and conservatives are now publically allied in demonizing Putin and Russia, and supporting a very dangerous military
confrontation initiated by Obama and championed by the defeated Hillary Clinton. In the past these opposed political factions accepted
that they would rotate their titular leaders into and out of the White House, and whenever the need arose to depose one or the other,
that business would be left to deep state forces to effect in secret and everyone would play dumb.
Now the game has changed. It's all "obvious." The deep state has seemingly gone shallow. Its supporters say so. All the smart
people can see what's happening. Even when what's happening isn't really happening.
"Only the shallow know themselves," said Oscar Wilde.
Edward Curtin Edward Curtin writes, and his
writing on varied topics has appeared widely over many years. He writes as a public intellectual for the general public, not as a
specialist for a narrow readership. He believes a non-committal sociology is an impossibility and therefore sees all his work as
an effort to enhance human freedom through understanding. His website is edwardcurtin.com
Frank Speaker
I remember this excellent piece the first time around. It's indeed even more pertinent today,
Martin Usher
...The first step in dealing with this is to combat ignorance and misinformation. There may not be one undeniable truth but we
can certainly squash blatant mis-truths. This arena isn't just political -- our culture has a habit of reworking our past in a
contemporary image and so subtly warping the lessons of history. Hollywood is a prime offender but then its no surprise to discover
that the original master of propaganda, Goebbels, recognized that entertainment that pushed cultural values was a far more powerful
tool for propaganda than the media that was, and still is, traditionally associated with propaganda.
John Deehan
If you read Professor Antony C Sutton's books about Wall Street, the Bolshevik Revolution and Hitlers rise to power, it is possible,
as Sutton did, to examine the methodology, ideology and psychology of the string pullers in depth. For exposing them, Hutton was
as he said " persecuted but not prosecuted ".
nottheonly1
Sadly though, an old wisdom brings itself into this ludicrous scenery. It also makes the comparison with the Truman show so apt.
You can't fix stupid.
Quiz for the day: Does this “whistleblower” even exist? Or is it a composite
creation of the CIA, Schiff and Co?
Did Schiff and friends turn ghostly white when Trump called their bluff by releasing the
transcript?
Is Pelosi’s new found reticence a result of her self annoyance that she let herself
get talked into this new debacle and payback is to let Schiff shift in the wind dangling over
the thought that no one in the CIA wants to walk the plank for him?
Do the Democrats and their allies in the deep state increasingly look like the
Keystone Kops?
"... Russia hating is the lynchpin of oligarchic deepstate MIC MSM propaganda. Take that away and the fat cats are revealed as the naked face of evil that they are. Hating Russia (and China) supposedly justifies all their crimes. ..."
The transcript of President Trump's July 25 telephone conversation with Ukraine's recently
elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has ignited the usual anti-Trump bashing in American
political-media circles, even more calls for impeachment, with little, if any, regard for the
national security issues involved. Leave aside that Trump should not have been compelled to
make the transcript public and ask: Which, if any, foreign leaders will now feel free to
conduct personal telephone diplomacy with an American president directly or indirectly, of the
kind that helped end the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, knowing that his or her comments might
become known to domestic political opponents? Consider instead only the following undiscussed
issues:
§ Even if former vice president Joseph Biden, who figured prominently in the
Trump-Zelensky conversation, is not the Democratic nominee, Ukraine is now likely to be a
contested, and poisonous, issue in the 2020 US presidential election. How did the United States
become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is
NATO expansion, as some of us who opposed that folly back in the 1990s warned would be the
case, and not only in Ukraine. The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in
2013 -- 14 resulted in the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally
elected president Viktor Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass. All
those fateful events infused the Trump-Zelensky talk, if only between the lines.
§ Russia shares centuries of substantial civilizational values, language, culture,
geography, and intimate family relations with Ukraine. America does not. Why, then, is it
routinely asserted in the US political-media establishment that Ukraine is a "vital US national
interest" and not a vital zone of Russian national security, as by all geopolitical reckoning
it would seem to be? The standard American establishment answer is: because of "Russian
aggression against Ukraine." But the "aggression" cited is Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea
and support for anti-Kiev fighters in the Donbass civil war, both of which came after, not
before, the Maidan crisis, and indeed were a direct result of it. That is, in Moscow's eyes, it
was reacting, not unreasonably, to US-led "aggression." In any event, as opponents of eastward
expansion also warned in the 1990s, NATO has increased no one's security, only diminished
security throughout the region bordering Russia.
§ Which brings us back to the Trump-Zelensky telephone conversation. President Zelensky
ran and won overwhelmingly as a peace-with-Moscow candidate, which is why the roughly $400
million in US military aid to Ukraine, authorized by Congress, figured anomalously in the
conversation. Trump is being sharply criticized for withholding that aid or threatening to do
so, including by Obama partisans. Forgotten, it seems, is that President Obama, despite
considerable bipartisan pressure, steadfastly refused to authorize such military assistance to
Kiev, presumably because it might escalate the Russian-Ukrainian conflict (and Russia, with its
long border with Ukraine, had every escalatory advantage). Instead of baiting Trump on this
issue, we should hope he encourages the new peace talks that Zelensky has undertaken in recent
days with Moscow, which could end the killing in Donbass. (For this, Zelensky is being
threatened by well-armed extreme Ukrainian nationalists, even quasi-fascists. Strong American
support for his negotiations with Moscow may not deter them, but it might.)
§ Finally, but not surprisingly, the shadow of Russiagate is now morphing into
Ukrainegate. Trump is also being sharply criticized for asking Zelensky to cooperate with
Attorney General William Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate, even though
the role of
Ukrainian-Americans and Ukraine itself in Russiagate allegations against Trump on behalf of
Hillary Clinton in 2016 is now well-documented
.
We need to know fully the origins of Russiagate, arguably the worst presidential scandal in
American history, and if Ukrainian authorities can contribute to that understanding, they
should be encouraged to do so. As I've argued repeatedly, fervent anti-Trumpers must decide
whether they loathe him more than they care about American and international security. Imaging,
for example, a Cuban missile -- like crisis somewhere in the world today where Washington and
Moscow are militarily eyeball-to-eyeball, directly or through proxies, from the Baltic and the
Black Seas to Syria and Ukraine. Will Trump's presidential legitimacy be sufficient for him to
resolve such an existential crisis peacefully, as President John F. Kennedy did in 1962?
Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York
University and Princeton University. A Nation contributing editor, his most recent book War
With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate is available in paperback and
in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host of The John Batchelor Show, now in
their sixth year, are available at www.thenation.com.
Trump is an agent of the Deep State, playing good cop to the bad cop Deep State. I have been
saying this since mid April 2017. His multitude of actions belie his promises. Trump is a
quisling to his supporters.
Here is an excellent article that comports with my view of Trump.
I am puzzled why Cohen is permitted to publish in the Nation. Is it due to his marriage
to its publisher or to the magazine's remnant infatuation with the Soviet state? Just
asking.
The whole situation is a rather ironic
Prof. Cohen is certainly one of America's most eminent Russia scholars, and I think that
for decades he was regarded as one of the most left-leaning ones, regularly denounced for his
leftism by all the Neocons and other rightwingers. I remember I used to see him on the PBS
Newshour, sometimes paired with a conservative critic of the Soviets. I'd guess that past
history plus being married to the publisher of The Nation is what gives him his
residual foothold there.
I'd suspect that if someone had told him a couple of decades ago that by the late 2010s
he'd be blacklisted from the MSM and denounced as a "Russian agent," he probably would have
been greatly saddened at the disheartening turn in American society, but not totally shocked.
He probably would have regarded such a scenario as having a 10% possibility.
But if someone would have told him that the people denouncing and blacklisting him would
have been the *liberal Democrats* and some of their most "excitable" elements would be
accusing him of being a "Neo-Nazi White Supremacist Russian Agent" he would have thought the
entire country had gone on LSD.
It's sad that our entire country has gone on LSD
The whole situation is actually a perfect parallel to the various past American purges
I've often covered in my articles:
Russia is the excuse for US actions in the Ukraine as it was in the ME.
What is America without a big bad boogeyman like Russia?.
Certainly not a “Superpower’ defending the world.
Without enemies like Russia we would be nothing but big rich country.
And all the Neos and Zios and politicians would have to use Viagra instead of war to squirt
out their poison.
A lot of countries like the Ukraine have gotten a lot of US taxpayer money by
‘standing up to a Russian takeover’….and are laughing all the way to
their bank.
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine’s torturous and famously
corrupt politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in
the target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials.
Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs
of the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes
to mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump
said to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is
the exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption
can be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of
other plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
It is more than ironic that the Dems (and their like-minded cronies in Big Media) are up in
arms over Trump’s attempt in find ‘dirt’ about Joe Biden when the
‘dirt’ looks and smells like actual corruption. Have laws been broken? Was
Biden selling influence through his son? Stranger things have happened. At the very least,
it looks as though Joe Biden crossed an ethical line. This will likely cost him the
nomination.
Similarly, the news media should–if it was doing its job–pursue leads that
would help find the source behind the missing server and the Fake News that helped justify
the toxic and duplicitous ‘Russiagate’ investigation. But they’d rather
pursue Trump instead. I have never witnessed a more partisan and bloodthirsty Fourth
Estate.
Why is the media so utterly uninterested in finding out who/how the fake
Putin-Trump ‘conspiracy’ was cooked up in the first place? Doesn’t it
make sense the Trump would want to find out more? Justice demands it. False intelligence
can sow chaos and start wars.
Consider, for instance, the manufactured lies (Saddam’s phantom WMD, links to 911,
etc) that were used to justify Zio-America’s annihilation of Iraq. What intelligence
agency cooked up these falsehoods? Who spoon-fed these fairy tales to G.W. Bush and Colin
Powell?
Not only have these questions never been answered, they are seldom even asked! The Deep
State has gone rogue. And Big Media is covering it up.
This whole ridiculous drama may profit the Dem’s in the longer term — that is,
by removing that corrupt, dementia ridden nit-wit Biden from the presidential
competition.
As president, Biden would be a greater sock puppet than even GWB…of course,
“sock puppet” maybe just what the Dem’s want….
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with inevitable
impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
@Ron Unz Thanks to Tucker Carlson’s show, some folks on the left like Cohen, Mate
and Greenwald, are more likely to get air time on Fox News than MSNBC and CNN.
The current CIA talking point is that it is illegal for the President to seek foreign
assistance for his campaign. One might also slant it that the President of the United
States has an obligation to the people who elected him to require an allied, friendly
government to reopen the investigation of Biden because there is adequate reason to suspect
that the Democrats are running yet another corrupt criminal for President. Incidentally,
this puts Zelensky in a very awkward position, as one of the backers of his transition from
sitcom star to President of Ukraine was a principal in Burisma
It is not the threat of impeachment that will energize Trump’s base; it is the
grotesque, constant character assassination in the (largely CIA manipulated) media that
will return him to the White House. The American people have a sense of fairness. They have
always been of better character than the reprobates we are allowed to vote for. Whatever
happened to trusting the democratic process, instead of using intelligence assets to
engineer domestic regime change?
History is not made by nice guys. Trump has torn a big hole in the tissue of lies about
what this country is and what it stands for, and that is too much for those who make their
living deceiving us.
Russia hating is the lynchpin of oligarchic deepstate MIC MSM propaganda. Take that
away and the fat cats are revealed as the naked face of evil that they are. Hating Russia
(and China) supposedly justifies all their crimes.
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country’s constitutionally elected president
Viktor Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment — none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) — how fucking hypocritical is it
to presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? — none of
it would have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
So after the EuroMaydan coup d'état there is real feast of Atlantists using Ukrainian money and they want it to continue.
Notable quotes:
"... A staffer for Rep. Adam Schiff's House Intelligence Committee flew to Ukraine in late August on a trip organized and sponsored by the Atlantic Council, where he met with a key witness for the Democrats' ongoing impeachment efforts. ..."
"... The witness, acting US Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor , is scheduled to provide a deposition next week as part of Schiff's inquiry into President Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, according to Breitbart News . ..."
"... Trump, among other things, asked Zelensky to renew an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who were both paid handsomely by gas giant Burisma Holdings while Biden was Vice President, according to prior reports and a new allegation by Ukrainian MP Andriy Derkach, who says he has proof that $900,000 was funneled from Burisma to the elder Biden . ..."
"... Ambassador Taylor , meanwhile, has a "close relationship" with the Atlantic Council, "writing analysis pieces published on the Council's website and serving as a featured speaker for the organization's events," according to the report, which adds that "He also served for nine years as senior advisor to the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, which has co-hosted scores of events with the Atlantic Council. ..."
"... Interestingly, Eager's trip to Ukraine occurred 12 days after a CIA officer (who previously worked for Joe Biden) filed a whistleblower complaint on August 12, using second-hand information regarding Trump's call with Zelensky. ..."
"... Taylor, meanwhile, will be deposed by House Democrats over text messages which showed him suggesting that President Trump was using his office to pressure Ukraine into investigating Biden. ..."
"... Taylor's attorney, John Bellinger, "served at the National Security Council and as the State Department's lead lawyer under President George W. Bush's administration," according to Breitbart - which adds that Bellinger is a prominent "Never Trump" Republican who participated in drafting a 2016 letter warning that Trump could be the "most reckless President in American history." ..."
A staffer for Rep. Adam Schiff's House Intelligence Committee flew to Ukraine in late August on a trip organized and sponsored
by the Atlantic Council, where he met with a key witness for the Democrats' ongoing impeachment efforts.
The witness, acting US Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor , is scheduled to provide a deposition next week as part of Schiff's
inquiry into President Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, according to
Breitbart News .
Trump, among other things, asked Zelensky to renew an investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who were both paid handsomely
by gas giant Burisma Holdings while Biden was Vice President, according to prior reports and a new allegation by Ukrainian MP Andriy
Derkach, who says he has proof that
$900,000 was funneled from Burisma to the elder Biden .
Ambassador Taylor , meanwhile, has a "close relationship" with the Atlantic Council, "writing analysis pieces published on the
Council's website and serving as a featured speaker for the organization's events," according to the report, which adds that "He
also served for nine years as senior advisor to the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, which has co-hosted scores of events with the
Atlantic Council.
The Schiff staffer, Thomas Eager , meanwhile, partook in the Ukraine trip as a member of the Atlantic Council Eurasia Congressional
Fellowship -
directly sponsored by Burisma via a 2017 "cooperative agreement."
A closer look at the itinerary for the August 24 to August 31 trip shows that the delegation's first meeting upon arrival in
Ukraine was with Taylor.
Spokespeople for Schiff's office did not reply to multiple Breitbart News requests sent over the course of the last three days
for comment on Eager's meeting with Taylor.
When Breitbart News first
reported on Eager's visit to Ukraine two weeks ago, Schiff's office quickly replied to several comment requests, denying any
impropriety related to Eager's association with the Atlantic Council or the trip.
The unanswered Breitbart email requests to Schiff's office from the past three days posed the following question:
While in Ukraine, did Mr. Eager speak to Mr. Taylor about the issue of reports about any representatives of President Trump
looking into alleged Biden corruption in Ukraine?
Interestingly, Eager's trip to Ukraine occurred 12 days after a CIA officer (who previously worked for Joe Biden) filed a whistleblower
complaint on August 12, using second-hand information regarding Trump's call with Zelensky.
Schiff's office, meanwhile, directed the whistleblower to a Democratic operative attorney who has previously worked for Hillary
Clinton and Chuck Schumer. Schiff initially lied about the initial contact,
later claiming he "should have been much more clear" after he had been caught.
Taylor, meanwhile, will be deposed by House Democrats over text messages which showed him suggesting that President Trump was
using his office to pressure Ukraine into investigating Biden.
Taylor's attorney, John Bellinger, "served at the National Security
Council and as the State Department's lead lawyer under President George W. Bush's administration," according to Breitbart
- which adds that Bellinger is a prominent "Never Trump" Republican who participated in drafting a 2016 letter warning that
Trump could be the "most reckless President in American history."
The current CIA talking point is that it is illegal for the President to seek foreign
assistance for his campaign. One might also slant it that the President of the United States
has an obligation to the people who elected him to require an allied, friendly government to
reopen the investigation of Biden because there is adequate reason to suspect that the
Democrats are running yet another corrupt criminal for President. Incidentally, this puts
Zelensky in a very awkward position, as one of the backers of his transition from sitcom star
to President of Ukraine was a principal in Burisma
It is not the threat of impeachment that will energize Trump's base; it is the grotesque,
constant character assassination in the (largely CIA manipulated) media that will return him
to the White House. The American people have a sense of fairness. They have always been of
better character than the reprobates we are allowed to vote for. Whatever happened to
trusting the democratic process, instead of using intelligence assets to engineer domestic
regime change?
History is not made by nice guys. Trump has torn a big hole in the tissue of lies about
what this country is and what it stands for, and that is too much for those who make their
living deceiving us.
Only in the USA such a level of hypocrisy is possible: Corrupt Biden made fighting corruption in Ukraine a lucrative method to
milk the country via nepotism. Plus sharks form various NATO think tanks started to milk this poor country where the most of
population lives at African level of poverty.
Notable quotes:
"... According to the Washington Post , " George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state, testified Tuesday that he worried that Hunter Biden's position at the firm Burisma Holdings would complicate efforts by U.S. diplomats to convey to Ukrainian officials the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest , said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality rules surrounding the deposition. ..."
"... Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement that " on Joe Biden's watch, the U.S. made eradicating corruption a centerpiece of our policies toward Ukraine ." ..."
A State Department official in charge of Ukraine policy told House investigators this week that
in
early 2015
he raised concerns with then-VP Joe Biden's office over Hunter Biden's
dealings in the country
, but was rebuffed and told that the Vice President didn't have the
"bandwidth" to deal with the issue as his other son, Beau, was battling cancer.
According to the
Washington
Post
, "
George Kent, a deputy assistant secretary of state, testified Tuesday that
he worried that
Hunter Biden's position at the firm Burisma Holdings would complicate efforts by
U.S. diplomats to convey to Ukrainian officials the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest
,
said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of confidentiality rules
surrounding the deposition."
Kent told congressional investigators he was concerned that Ukrainian officials would see Hunter
Biden
as a means to curry influence with his father.
Kent, who also testified about how Trump's associates raised unfounded allegations about the
former ambassador to Ukraine, is
the first known example of a career diplomat who raised
concerns internally in the Obama administration about Hunter Biden's board position
.
The Washington Post has previously reported that there had been discussions among Biden's
advisers about whether his son's Ukraine work would be perceived as a conflict of interest, and
that
one former adviser had been concerned enough to mention it to Biden, though the
conversation was brief
. -
WaPo
Joe Biden has faced tough questions over why he didn't anticipate his son's Ukraine work would
raise rad flags over conflicts of interest at the same time
he was in a leading role in
carrying out US policy toward Ukraine
.
Hunter Biden made roughly $50,000 per month on the board of Ukrainian gas giant Burisma
Holdings, while Joe Biden
has been accused by a Ukrainian politician of getting paid
$900,000
from
Burisma.
A former senior national security aide to Biden provided the
Post
with a massive amount
of cover, telling the paper he has no recollection of Kent's concerns, and what's the big deal
anyway?
"
I don't understand what the optics thing means other than someone thinking it looked
bad in a political way
," said the aide. "Did it have any effect on US policies, either on
what we were doing or what the Ukrainians were doing? It didn't . In the aggregate it didn't have
any discernible effect."
The aide also said that the death of Joe Biden's son, Beau, had little to no impact on his
work.
"
Day to day the vice president was at work and he was pretty focused
," said the
aide. "Does that mean it's inconceivable that someone said, 'Hey look it's not the time to raise a
family issue?' I guess it's conceivable. But I never saw evidence he wasn't capable of doing the VP
role and dealing with his family at the same time."
Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement that "
on Joe Biden's watch,
the U.S. made eradicating corruption a centerpiece of our policies toward Ukraine
."
The Bidens adventures in Ukraine are at the heart of an impeachment inquiry against President
Trump, whose crime was to ask Ukraine's president to "look into" what went on with the Bidens -
after
Joe Biden infamously bragged about getting the lead Ukrainian prosecutor fired,
who
happened to be investigating Burisma for corruption.
Biden says that he has never spoken with Hunter about his Ukraine dealings, and only learned
about the Burisma position when he read about it in news reports - a claim Hunter contradicted in
a
Vanity Fair
interview. Hunter told
ABC
this week that he did "nothing wrong at
all" but showed "poor judgement" making hundreds of thousands of dollars at Burisma while his
father was in charge of Ukraine policy for the Obama administration.
And now we know that at least one Obama-era ambassador raised concerns over it.
As an aside, you know a story is bad for the left when the
Washington Post
has to
defend their own reporting.
It is more accurate to call it Russia's reannexation of Crimea, supported by over 90% of the
people there via an election. Russia didn't invade, it had 20,000 troops based there as
Russian troops have been there for over a century.
Jeffery Epstein should have declared that he was running for President, because according
to the logic of many Democrats and their media allies, Trump would be forced to release him
so as not to interfere in the elections.
Remember Joe Biden claimed that he knew nothing about his son's shady business in Ukraine.
Tucker Carlson broke the big story of the week that was ignored by our corporate media to
include Fox News itself:
'Tucker Carlson Tonight' obtains photo of Joe Biden golfing with his son and Ukrainian
business partner
If sleazy Schiff represents the average level of credibility of the US lawmakers, the country is in real trouble.
Notable quotes:
"... Based on a politically biased CIA officer's second-hand complaint over a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky in which Trump asked for an investigation of former VP Joe Biden, House Democrats have forged ahead with their impeachment inquiry despite several damaging revelations to their narrative; namely that the whistleblower worked with former Biden and two Schiff staffers. ..."
"... The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.- John F. Kennedy ..."
"... Adam Schiff is a descendant of a long line of traitors (banking). Get rid of him. ..."
"... This is not an impeachment proceeding, it is a coup attempt. Because of the ineptness of the participants it is falling apart. A real whistleblower cannot remain anonymous. This person is not a whistleblower but a leaker and a spy and a member of an intelligence agency. ..."
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) says that the public shouldn't be allowed to observe hearings in the
ongoing impeachment inquiry, as doing so may allow Republicans to then "fabricate testimony" (and totally not because their case
is falling apart).
On Sunday, Schiff told host Margaret Brennan that the ongoing impeachment inquiry is "analogous to a grand jury proceeding," which
is "done out of the public view initially."
Based on a politically biased CIA officer's second-hand complaint over a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodomyr Zelensky in which Trump asked for an investigation of former VP Joe Biden, House Democrats have forged ahead
with their impeachment inquiry despite several damaging revelations to their narrative; namely that the whistleblower worked with
former Biden and two Schiff staffers.
More importantly, a transcript of the call in question reveals no such pressure or quid pro quo by Trump.
Meanwhile, Schiff booted GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz out of Monday morning testimony with former White House Russia adviser Fiona Hill,
who resigned shortly before President Trump's call with Zelensky.
Interesting, Schiff went from calling for Trump to release a transcript of the Zelensky call and the whistleblower complaint -
which Trump did, to wanting everything done through non-public, 'secretive' proceedings.
Of course this type of proceeding is done in private. Anyone who expects anything else obviously hasn't been around long. Do
the police let your lawyers consult with them before charging you with a crime. No way Jose! You are an idiot if you think there
is any problem with this "secrecy".
This Impeachment Inquiry does't pass muster in publics eye. Democrats are going to loose the election !
The Deplorable Goblin Front Hole , 41 minutes ago
link
The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed
to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.- John F. Kennedy
This is not an impeachment proceeding, it is a coup attempt. Because of the ineptness of the participants it is falling
apart. A real whistleblower cannot remain anonymous. This person is not a whistleblower but a leaker and a spy and a member of
an intelligence agency. The latest is that the the leaker will not appear anywhere to give testimony. How does that work?
Also, it seems that in order for the House of Representatives to send real subpoenas they need to have judicial authority, which
they get when the members vote for or against impeachment. Then there can be an impeachment proceeding. Don't forget that as the
media is complicit (remember, 6 companies own 90% of all media) we are being beat over the head every day with this fake news,
instead of news of actual events. As for the rest of us, when 2020 rolls around everyone needs to remember that voting is 100%
more effective than complaining on the internet.
It is highly likely Trump will lose the next election because this time the dems actually think they are going to lose so they
will pull out all the stops. They will also get away with it.. you want to know why? Well first remove your emotional attachment
to what you want to believe and just read what I have to say with an open mind.
Hillary got away with everything. Schiff is getting away with everything he is doing. Pelosi is getting away with everything
she is doing. They are spying on the president and actually moving forward on impeachment because they didn't like the fact that
he is investigating something real when they think it's ok for them to have used the FISA courts for a witch hunt and they got
away with it and are still getting away with it. Epstein was murdered and nothing was done about it. People are allowed to post
death threats and make jokes about killing the POTUS without any repercussions but a violent video meme themed on Trump fighting
back against the networks and his enemies was condemned. Antifa is always given a pass and they are supported in the media, anyone
defending themselves against antifa that actually comes out on top gets arrested and charged to the fullest extent. A child was
demonized on national television for standing with a smile while a native American attempted to antagonize him while a large group
of black activists also antagonized the kids telling them they looked like future school shooters. Jessie Smollet got away with
staging a hate crime. The murder of Seth Rich has been swept under the rug.
The list goes on and on... Those of you who are still on the Q train really need to wake the **** up... There will be no mass
arrests... There will be no justice... The only way to get justice is to get off your *** and become active. Write your congress
person, go to protests, investigate and expose corruption in your own town. This is the only way to change things... If all you
do is sit and wait for a LARP to tell you it is all going to be ok because of some master plan well then you are just falling
for their efforts to placate you and keep you at bay... Trust me when I say that Trump is in trouble in 2020 because the DEMs
are going to cheat in every way that they can and they will get away with it even if they are caught and I have proven this with
everything I wrote above.
"... Of course, the effort to "protect" the "whistleblower" has been a juke all along. For one thing, he-she-it is not a "whistleblower" at all; was only labeled that via legalistic legerdemain to avoid revealing the origin of this affair as a CIA cover-your-ass operation. ..."
"... One also clearly senses that all the smoke-and-mirrors are a desperate attempt to divert attention from a soon-to-drop DOJ Inspector General's report which, by the way, will only be an overture to much more damaging action likely to come from Attorney General William Barr's proceeding. After all, Michael Horowitz, inspector general of theDepartment of Justice, was not allowed under the rules to compel the testimony of persons outside the Department of Justice, which would now include Andrew McCabe, James Comey and many others at the center of the RussiaGate prank. ..."
"... That also includes the probable chief pranksters, former CIA head John Brennan and James Clapper, former director of National Intelligence, the midwives of RussiaGate. The pair have been running around on cable news with both their hair and their pants on fire in recent weeks. Back in March, before the Mueller report flopped, and when Barr was commissioned to look into all the RussiaGate shenanigans, Brennan comically claimed that he "received bad information and suspected there was more than there actually was. ..."
A n eerie silence cloaked the political landscape this lovely fall weekend as the soldiers
in this (so far) administrative civil war scrambled for position in the next round of
skirmishes. Rep. Adam Schiff fell back on the preposterous idea that he might not produce his
"whistleblower" witness at all in the (so far) hypothetical impeachment proceeding. He put that
one out after running a similarly absurd idea up the flagpole: that his "whistleblower" might
just testify by answering written questions. I was waiting for him to offer up testimony by
Morse code, carrier pigeon or smoke signals.
Of course, the effort to "protect" the "whistleblower" has been a juke all along. For one
thing, he-she-it is not a "whistleblower" at all; was only labeled that via legalistic
legerdemain to avoid revealing the origin of this affair as a CIA cover-your-ass operation. Did
Schiff actually think he could conceal this figure's identity in a Senate impeachment trial,
when it came to that -- for what else is impeachment aimed at? Anonymous sources are not
admissible under American due process of law. Schiff must have missed that class in law
school.
All of this hocus-pocus suggests to me that there is no "whistleblower," that it is a
phantom confabulation of gossip threads that unraveled the moment Trump released the transcript
of his phone call to Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky, aborting Schiff's game plan. The
ensuing weeks of congressional Keystone Kops buffoonery since then appears to conceal a futile
effort by Schiff and his confederates to find some fall guy willing to pretend that he-she-it
is the "whistleblower." He might as well ask for a volunteer to gargle with Gillette Blue
Blades on NBC's Meet the Press .
The Keystone Cops in a typical pose in 1914 in "In the Clutches of the Gang." (Mack Sennett
Studios, Wikimedia Commons)
One marvels at Schiff's tactical idiocy. But just imagine the panicked consternation it must
be triggering among his Democratic colleagues. Notice that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been
hiding out during this latest phase of the action. She may sense that there is nothing left to
do but allow Schiff to twist slowly, slowly in the wind, as he has hung himself out to dry. She
should have known better since every previous declaration of conclusive evidence by
Schiff over the past three years has proved to be false, knowingly and mendaciously so.
One also clearly senses that all the smoke-and-mirrors are a desperate attempt to divert
attention from a soon-to-drop DOJ Inspector General's report which, by the way, will only be an
overture to much more damaging action likely to come from Attorney General William Barr's
proceeding. After all, Michael Horowitz, inspector general of theDepartment of Justice, was not
allowed under the rules to compel the testimony of persons outside the Department of Justice,
which would now include Andrew McCabe, James Comey and many others at the center of the
RussiaGate prank.
That also includes the probable chief pranksters, former CIA head John Brennan and James
Clapper, former director of National Intelligence, the midwives of RussiaGate. The pair have
been running around on cable news with both their hair and their pants on fire in recent weeks.
Back in March, before the Mueller report flopped, and when Barr was commissioned to look into
all the RussiaGate shenanigans, Brennan comically claimed that he "received bad information and
suspected there was more than there actually was."
That lame admission will not avail to protect him or the CIA, an agency that is behind the
administrative civil war. It has been a rogue agency for a long long time, but may have finally
overplayed its hand, along with the newer adjunct agencies that have been stitched onto it
since 9/11/01 -- the dark network that goes by the name Intelligence Community . So many
shoes are ready to drop on them that the din might drown out all the John Philip Sousa marches
ever played in the lobby at Langley, let alone the thin trilling of a fake whistleblower.
Apart from these fateful developments the prize for the week's most transparently
disingenuous bit of media agitprop goes to Saturday's New York Times puff piece on
former FBI Director Jim Comey, which actually sets him up for federal indictment on something
like sedition or treason. Get a load of this:
The Times' caption on this photo states: "James Comey plans to spend the next 13
months working to drive President Trump from power." Oh, really? By what means, exactly?
Single-handedly or with whom? And how did the strategy he kicked off in 2016 work out? In case
Barr is looking for some way to attribute motive to the actions that he's investigating, he may
need to seek no further. Also, consider that The New York Times and its Editor-in-Chief
Dean Baquet, and publisher A.G. Sulzberger may be named as unindicted co-conspirators in the
three-year campaign of sedition (freedom of the press, of course). Alert the shareholders.
BIO: James Howard Kunstler is author of "The Geography of Nowhere," which he says he wrote
"Because I believe a lot of people share my feelings about the tragic landscape of highway
strips, parking lots, housing tracts, mega-malls, junked cities, and ravaged countryside that
makes up the everyday environment where most Americans live and work." He has written several
other works of nonfiction and fiction. Read more about him here .
Bolton Opposed Ukraine Investigations; Called Giuliani "A Hand Grenade" by
Tyler Durden Tue, 10/15/2019 - 12:25 0 SHARES
Former national security adviser John Bolton was 'so alarmed' by efforts to encourage Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and 2016
election meddling that he told an aide, Fiona Hill, to alert White House lawyers, according to the
New York Times
.
When Hill confronted Sondland, he told her that he was 'in charge' of Ukraine, "a moment she compared to Secretary of State Alexander
M. Haig Jr.'s declaration that he was in charge after the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt, according to those who heard the testimony,"
according to the Times.
Hill says she asked Sondland on whose authority he was in charge of Ukraine, to which he replied 'the president.' She would later
leave her post shortly before a July 25 phone call with Ukraine's president which is currently at the heart of an impeachment inquiry.
Meanwhile, the Times also notes that "House Democrats widened their net in the fast-paced inquiry by summoning Michael McKinley,
a senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who abruptly resigned last week, to testify Wednesday."
Career diplomats have expressed outrage at the unceremonious
removal of Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch from Ukraine after she came under attack by Mr. Giuliani, Donald Trump Jr. and
two associates who have since been arrested on charges of campaign violations.
Three other Trump admin officials are scheduled to speak with House investigators this week, including Sondland - who is now set
to appear on Thursday. On Tuesday, deputy assistant secretary of state George Kent will testify, while on Friday, Laura K. Cooper
- a a deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia policy, will speak with lawmakers as well.
Looks like we have our whistleblower. My only question is, how does one whistle with such a bristly moustache draping their
hairlip?
So now we have Mr. Neocon and Mr. Liddle Kidz conjugating as the strangest of bedfellows? How will this play to their respective
bases? Are we to assume these people think this nations top law enforcement agent (POTUS) is to abdicate his duties therewith
just because the criminal is (at least according to our two tiered justice system) supposed to be beyond reproach?
Mr. Bolton, bright and determined as he is, has hitched his wagon to mad mare galloping full tilt over a precipice.
Looking for a return of uranium one to the headlines soon. In due time we will stich this Russia/Ukraine narrative back together
from a patchwork of facts. You traitors are fucked...royally fucked...and you know it.
So, Mr bolton, explain to us in simple terms how you appraise America's security and her related interests. Your camp is in
eclipse.
John Bolton:
"I was appauled...just flabbergasted...that the president was concerned that our intelligence apparatus was politicized to
the extent that its highest echelons were arrayed in an attempt to subvert a lawful and legitimate election. Never mind that six
other nations were tasked with abetting this treasonous plot...this is an outrage!!! The whole point of intelligence agencies
is to skirt the law with impunity, and once we (the unelected permanent breacracy) tell one of our minions like Biden or Hillary
that they're permanently immune from prosecution, we can't have some earnest pact of Patriots running around demanding law and
order."
What a sorry bunch of cretians.
We were so close...so close...to losing it all. But since the enemy is making clear we're playing zero sum, we're going to
end up with everything.
Brace yourself, California. If I were you, I'd study the legal framework of Reconstruction. Your plight will be of a kind.
Your state has been engaged in a systematic attempt to overthrow the government. Your leaders will be appointed for a generation
after this all comes out. Don't look to Beijing to save you...they kinda have their hands full.
So, I guess Bolton is no longer collecting free money like Hunter Biden was. I get it now how all these politicians have kids
overseas and open foreign corporations which our tax money goes in to by way of cutting deals overseas public officials to line
their pockets with our money. This how they get into government poor and become very rich! Giuliani is pointing this fact out
to the public with Trump and the swamp HATES IT!
The public now knows how these corrupt PUBLIC OFFICIALS in America have been fleecing the tax payers. This is a major hit on
the swamp.
Trump & Giuliani we're behind you thank you for showing us how the swamp has been ******* us for all these years.
Understand that the reason Schitt head won't allow public hearings is because the former Ambassador to Ukraine--Volker, shot
this whole **** fest down when he testified. There is no "there" there.
Bolton and the others are crying because of Trump's pull out. The left jumped on the war bandwagon under Billary a long time
ago. Necons work both parties.
If Bolton dislikes Guiliani that's the best endorsement of Rudy I can imagine. Bolton is a complete warmongering traitor who,
like McShitstain, desires a nice case of brain cancer.
Go Rudy, expose the corrupt Demonrats! We deplorables love human hand grenades. That's why we elected the Donald, and you apparently
are the perfect lawyer for our great God emperor.
"Schiff simply does not have the gravitas that a weighty procedure such as impeachment requires," Biggs wrote in an opinion
piece for Fox News. "He has repeatedly shown incredibly poor judgment. He has persistently and consistently demonstrated that
he has such a tremendous bias and animus against Trump that he will say anything and accept any proffer of even bogus evidence
to try to remove the president from office."
When does the monkey cage's screeching become a "seditious conspiracy"?
Treason, insurrection, sedition etc come under 18 USC Ch 115. As I learned this AM the
statute the Rosenbergs were tried and executed under.
I suggest the media, Comey, Schiff, Pelosi cabal (their rumorblower tools) are running
a Seditious Conspiracy (not protected in 5 USC 2302 on whistleblower protection.
I suspect Durham and Barr look in to 18 USC Ch. 115 for the indictments they will deliver
soon.
The running sedition to oust Trump demands prosecution.
In regard to the kerfuffle to unseat Trump these past three years, I quote Murrow from a TV
documentary on Joseph McCarthy:
"the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the junior Senator
from Wisconsin (in this case the media DNC house of representatives monkey cage) has stepped
over it repeatedly."
"... We also know that Ukraine played heavily in this conspiracy and still does and ANY legitimate investigation into the origins of this criminal adventure MUST involve the Ukraine. ..."
"... We also know that those implicated in this unholy adventure are and have been dragging their feet on any investigation and have actually worked to deter it. ..."
I have no problem with criticism, but what we see mostly here is name calling and
disparagement as a substitute for reasoned debate. Let us simply COMPARE Trump's actions with
any other president on a level field. Now few want to do that. They say Obama, Bush or
Clinton are irrelevant, but they are NOT if we are talking of impeachment, of FAILURE to
uphold the responsibilities of office. Progressives want Trump IMPEACHED and removed from
office for supposedly investigating a political rival and are going so far as to say it is
illegitimate because it wasn't an official state action, WHEREAS Obama used ALL of the powers
of government to investigate and KNOWINGLY, FALSELY and PUBLICLY ACCUSE Trump of heinous
crimes.
Further, Trump is accused of withholding money from Ukraine to pressure them to come up
with FALSE evidence against Biden, when there is NO proof that he either pressured them or
that ANY FALSE evidence was generated. AS with the leaked democrat emails, somehow the
content was deemed irrelevant due to the supposed means of acquisition.
What we know is, that Russia-gate was a scam perpetrated from the highest levels of
government and enabled by the media.
We also know that Ukraine played heavily in this conspiracy and still does and ANY
legitimate investigation into the origins of this criminal adventure MUST involve the
Ukraine.
We also know that those implicated in this unholy adventure are and have been dragging
their feet on any investigation and have actually worked to deter it.
What is transparent is that Trump is trying to uncover what really happened in the last
election and there are considerable forces trying to stop him. Clear for anyone to see. and
many see it clearly, and with great fear in their hearts.
If the coup has less than 70% they have no more than the CNN crowd.
Equating Ukraine to US security is false and not selling the coup. Bashing Trump for going
after his corrupt opponent Biden is not selling!
Crooked media coverage fools 50% of the people all the time, especially when 35% of the
are duped by Pelosi, Schumer and Biden usually they are suffering from Trump Derangement
Syndrome.
Democrats; shady neocons equate not arming the corrupt regime in Ukraine to "security".
Siding with corruption is a huge threat to US security!
Many of us who turn down polls will never again vote for a democrat.
"Equating Ukraine to US security is false and not selling the coup. "
I would say more: calling foreign interference of Ukraine in the US election in case of
Biden is an insult to the intelligence of US voters.
This is the level of chutzpah almost equal to claiming orphan privileges after killing
both parents.
After 2014 Ukraine with its marionette government 'midwifed' by Ms. Nuland (Google
Nulandgate) is a colony for all practical purposes; the country governed directly from the US
embassy ( Washington Obcom as locals sarcastically call it as it performs functions similar
to the CPSU offices in the past).
For all key matters it's Washington who decided that policy Ukraine will pursue. That
decides the issue of interference once and forever. Under Obama Ukraine participated in
anti-Trump coup d'état. How this marionette government can pursue independent policy
as for the USA is beyond my understanding of the situation.
What is funny is that Biden was Obama's viceroy in Ukraine all that time up to election of
Trump. He also was the best friend on Yanukovich and his political mentor (that's probably
why Yanukovich ended his career is such a way; which such friends, who needs the enemies
;-)
The main feature of the democrat coup the foundation of the party is corruption.
This aspect of the party demanded that Clinton run against Trump, rather than on any
policy. Shew hid the neocon militarism, attacking Trump deplorables as isolationists.
The Ukraine connection is money for family members of democrat elites. A most corrupt
regime the image of not supporting the corruption is a democrat defined national security
issue!
The US ust sell Javelin tank busters to Ukraine so they can keep their Russian sectors and
plunder them to pay Biden's (Romney kid, Pelosi kid) son.
This coup is about plunder and it is not Trump whose plunder is at stake!
Both EuroMaydan cope d'état and the civil war in Ukraine was unleashed with the help and encouragement from Washington, DC
because it suits geopolitical goals of the USA in the region.
Notable quotes:
"... As the furor over "Ukrainegate" continues, Biden and his allies are soldiering ahead, insisting that scrutiny of his activities in Ukraine constitute nothing more than a vast right-wing conspiracy. ..."
"... So the Russiagate claims against Russia were generated by cold warriors to justify a warmer war against Russia. Poor Hunter was caught in the graft that surrounds the US's relationship with Ukraine. ..."
"... Burisma has been described at Moon Of Alabama as a money-laundering entity. ..."
"... I suspect that these NGO non-profits such as the Atlantic Council are simply fronts for the U.S. intelligence community. ..."
"... The "King of Orange" is still publicly boring holes in the hull of the Ship of State and nothing happens except Dims and Repugs claim some honor in joining to condemn a foreign EU allied country for doing what "The King of Orange" approved that he do. ..."
"... The whole Ukraine story is an enormous blunder for the West . not only did it give Russia the opportunity to reclaim Crimea but the West now also has to finance a corrupt, unstable and bankrupt country. Not funny ! ..."
"... Excellent research. The deep state is indeed international and takes care of its own. Christopher Hunter, who, after Trump's election, resigned from the DOJ, then ran unsuccessfully as a Democratic candidate for Congress, was then parachuted into the Atlantic Council as senior fellow. He then proceeded to provide expert advice to Al Jazeera about why Trump should be impeached. So you now have the US State Department paying $1 million tax dollars to the Atlantic Council, at least one member of which is using his "expertise" to impeach President Trump. ..."
"... Dmitri Alperovitch, Hillary's own Russian Head of Crowdstrike and a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, went to great lengths to prove that RUSSIANS!!! had hacked into Ukrainian artillery, and claimed the same methodology was used to prove that RUSSIANS!!! had hacked into the DNC ..."
"... These were Crowdstrike's bonafides (and thus no reason to look closely at the DNC servers). Of course, it later turned out that the Russians had NOT hacked Ukrainian artillery, Crowdstrike had lied, and hacking of the DNC was more likely initially done by Crowdstrike/ New Knowledge and the Atlantic Council, not the Russians. ..."
"... Think tanks should be responsible, with jail times and fines, for the discord they sow. ..."
"... The UK seizure of the 23mil was not accidental, i expect the US had all the banks of Europe watching this guys asset for this leverage. So they freeze his money, open a criminal investigation and put him on a wanted list. ..."
"... Just a couple weeks later Biden joins the board. This was a State Dept/CIA play. ..."
"... They went to Zlochevsky or the oligarch behind him and presented them with the only way out of ruin. Several months later, UK unfreezes 23mil and closes the case. USAID comes calling on Burisma, Atlantic Council attaches themselves. This was a well planned takeover and Biden was a beneficiary, but doing the bidding of the hidden hands. ..."
W ith its relentless focus on corruption in Russia and Ukraine, the Atlantic Council has
distinguished itself from other top-flight think tanks in Washington. Over the past several
years, it has held innumerable conferences and panel discussions, issued a string of reports,
and published literally hundreds of essays on Russia's "kleptocracy" and the scourge of Kremlin
disinformation.
At the same time, this institution has posed as a faithful partner to Ukraine's imperiled
democracy, organizing countless programs on the urgency of economic reforms to tamp down on
corruption in the country.
But behind the curtain, the Atlantic Council has initiated a lucrative relationship with a
corruption-tainted Ukrainian gas company, the Burisma Group, that is worth as much as $250,000
a year. The partnership has paid for lavish conferences in Monaco and helped bring Burisma's
oligarchic founder out of the cold.
This alliance has remained stable even as official Washington goes to war over allegations
by President Donald Trump and his allies that former Vice President Joseph Biden fired a
Ukrainian prosecutor to defend his son's handsomely compensated position on Burisma's
board.
As Biden parries Trump's accusations, some of the former vice president's most ardent
defenders are emerging from the halls of the Atlantic Council, which featured Biden as a star
speaker at its awards ceremonies over the years. These advocates include
Michael Carpenter , Biden's longtime foreign policy advisor and specialist on Ukraine, who
has taken to the national media to support his embattled boss.
Even as Burisma's trail of influence-buying finds its way into front page headlines, the
Atlantic Council's partnership with the company is scarcely mentioned. Homing in on the
partisan theater of "Ukrainegate" and tuning out the wider landscape of corruption, the Beltway
press routinely runs quotes from Atlantic Council experts on the scandal without acknowledging
their employer's relationship with Hunter Biden's former employer.
This case of obvious cronyism has not been overlooked because the Atlantic Council is a bit
player, but because of its success in leveraging millions from foreign governments, the arms
and energy industries, and Western-friendly oligarchs to bring its influence to bear in the
nation's capital.
Biden has been among the think tank's most enthusiastic and well-placed allies.
In 2011, then-Vice President Biden delivered the keynote address at the Atlantic Council's
distinguished leadership awards. He returned to the think tank again in 2014 for another
keynote at its "Toward A Europe Whole
and Free" conference, which was dedicated to expanding NATO's influence and countering
"Russian aggression." Throughout the event, speakers like Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S.
national security adviser, sniped at President Barack Obama for his insufficiently bellicose
posture toward Russia, while former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright fretted over polls
showing low public support for U.S. interventionism overseas.
>>Please
Donate to Consortium News' Fall Fund Drive<<
In his
own comments , Biden emphasized the need to power Europe with non-Russian sources of
natural gas. This provided a prime opportunity to Ukrainian suppliers like Burisma and U.S.
energy titans. Many of these energy companies, from Chevron to Noble Energy, also happen to be
top
donors to the Atlantic Council.
"This would be a game-changer for Europe, in my view, and we're ready to do everything in
our power to help it happen," Biden promised his audience.
Joe Biden, second from right, while U.S. vice president, at 2011 Atlantic Council
distinguished leadership awards ceremony.
At the time, the Atlantic Council was pushing to ramp up the proxy war against pro-Russian
forces in Ukraine. In 2015, for instance, the think tank helped prepare a
proposal for arming the Ukrainian military with offensive weaponry like Javelin anti-tank
missiles.
Given that the Atlantic Council has been funded by the two manufacturers of the Javelin
system, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, this created at least the appearance of a conflict of
interest. In fact, the think tank
presented its Distinguished Business Leadership Award to Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson that
same year.
Dubious arrangements like these are not limited to arms manufacturers. Anders Aslund, a
neoliberal economist who helps oversee the Atlantic Council's programming on Russia and Eastern
Europe, was
quietly paid by a consortium of Latvian banks to write an October 2017 paper highlighting
the supposed progress they had made in battling corruption.
Aslund was asked to write the piece by Sally Painter, a longtime lobbyist for Latvian
financial institutions who was appointed to the Atlantic Council board in 2017. At the time,
one of those banks was seeking access to the U.S. market and facing allegations that it had
engaged in money laundering.
Pay-for-play collaborations have helped grow the Atlantic Council's annual revenue from $2
million to over $20 million in the past decade. In almost every case, the think tank has
churned out policy prescriptions that seem suited to its donors' interests.
Government contributors
to the Atlantic Council include Gulf monarchies, the U.S. State Department and various Turkish
interests.
... ... ...
Among the think tank's top individual contributors is Victor Pinchuk, one of the wealthiest
people in Ukraine and a prolific donor to the Clinton Foundation. Pinchuk donated
$8.6 million to the Clintons' non-profit throughout Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of
state.
Asked if Pinchuk was lobbying the State Department on Ukraine, his personal foundation told
The Wall Street Journal , "this cannot be seen as anything but a good thing."
Obama's 'Point Person' on Ukraine
In mainstream media reports about the Bidens, scarcely any attention is given to the
critical role that Joe Biden and other Obama administration officials played in the 2013-2014
Maidan revolt that replaced a fairly elected ,
Russian-oriented government with a Western vassal. In a relatively sympathetic New Yorker profile of Hunter Biden, for example, the regime change operation was
described by reporter Adam Entous as merely "public protests."
During the height of the "Revolution of Dignity" that played out in Kiev's Maidan Square,
then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland boasted that the U.S. had "invested $5 billion" since 1991 into
Ukrainian civil society. On a December 2013 tour of the Maidan, Nuland personally handed
out cookies to protesters alongside Geoffrey Pyatt, U.S. ambassador to Ukraine at the
time.
In a phone
conversation that leaked two months later, the two U.S. diplomats could be heard plotting
out the future government of the country, discussing Ukrainian politicians as though they were
chess pieces. "I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience," Nuland said,
essentially declaring Arseniy Yatsenyuk the next prime minister. Frustrated with the European
Union's reluctance to inflame tensions with Moscow, Nuland exclaimed, "Fuck the EU."
By February 2014, the Maidan revolt had succeeded in overthrowing President Viktor
Yanukovich with the help of far-right ultra-nationalist street muscle. With a new,
U.S.-approved government in power, Biden assumed a personal role in dictating Ukraine's
day-to-day affairs.
"No one in the U.S. government has wielded more influence over Ukraine than Vice President
Joe Biden," Foreign Policy
noted . The Atlantic Council also
described Biden as "the point person on Ukraine in the Obama administration."
"Ukraine was the top, or one of the top three, foreign policy issues we were concentrating
on," said
Carpenter, Biden's foreign policy adviser. "[Biden] was front and center."
Biden made his first visit to the post-Maidan government of Ukraine in April 2014, just
as Kiev was launching its "anti-terrorist operation" against separatists who broke off from the
new, NATO-oriented Ukraine and its nationalist government and formed so-called people's
republics in the Russophone Donbass region. The fragmentation of the country and its grinding
proxy war flowed directly from the regime-change operation that Biden helped oversee.
Addressing the parliament in Kiev, Biden
declared that "corruption can have no place in the new Ukraine," stating that the "United
States has also been a driving force behind the IMF, working to provide a multi-billion package
to help Ukraine."
That same month, Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of Burisma. Hunter Biden starred at
one of Burisma's energy conferences in Monaco, which are today sponsored by the Atlantic
Council.
Burisma Recruits Hunter Biden
The ouster of Yanukovych put the founder and president of Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky, in a
delicate spot. Zlochevsky had served as the environment minister under Yanukovych, handing out
gas licenses to cronies. Having watched the president flee Ukraine for his life, currying favor
with the Obama administration was paramount for Zlochevsky.
He was also desperate to get out of legal trouble. At the time, a corruption investigation
in the U.K. had resulted in the freezing of $23 million of Zlochevsky's assets. Then, in August
2014, the oligarch was forced
to follow Yanukovych into exile after being accused of illegally enriching himself.
The need to refurbish Burisma's tattered image, as well as his own, prompted Zlochevsky to
resort to a tried and true tactic for shadowy foreign entities: forking over large sums of
money to win friends in Washington. Hunter Biden and the Atlantic Council were soon to become
two of his best friends.
Hunter Biden was no stranger to trading on his father's name for influence. He had served on
the board of Amtrak, the train line his father famously rode
more than 8,000 times, earning himself the nickname "Amtrak Joe." Somehow, he also rose to
senior vice president at MBNA, the bank that was the top contributor to Joe Biden's
Senate campaigns.
Moreover, the vice president's son reaped a board position at the
National Democratic Institute, a U.S.-funded "democracy promotion" organization that was
heavily involved in pushing regime change in Ukraine. And then there was Burisma, which handed
him a position on its board despite his total lack of experience in the energy industry and in
Ukrainian affairs.
Hunter Biden tried to repay the $50,000-a-month gig Zlochevsky had handed him by enlisting a
top D.C. law firm, Boies, Schiller, and Flexner, where he served as co-counsel, to
help "improve [Burisma's] corporate governance." By the following January, Zlochevsky's
assets were
unfrozen by the U.K.
Back in Washington, the arrangement between the son of the vice president and a less than
scrupulous Ukrainian oligarch was raising eyebrows. During a May 13, 2014, press conference,
Matt Lee of the Associated Press
grilled State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki about Hunter Biden's role on Burisma's
board.
"Does this building diplomatically have any concerns about potential perceptions of conflict
or cronyism – which is what you've often accused the Russians of doing?" Lee asked
Psaki.
"No, he's a private citizen," Psaki responded, referring to Hunter Biden.
In a December 2015 op-ed, the editorial board of The New York Timestook
both Bidens to task for the unseemly business arrangement: "It should be plain to Hunter
Biden that any connection with a Ukrainian oligarch damages his father's efforts to help
Ukraine. This is not a board he should be sitting on."
For a paper that had firmly supported the installation of a U.S.-aligned government in Kiev,
this was a striking statement.
Hunter Biden maintained that he had only a brief conversation with his father about his work
at Burisma. "Dad said, 'I hope you know what you are doing,' and I said, 'I do,'" Hunter
recalled to The New Yorker .
Despite his constant focus on Ukraine, the elder Biden claimed this September that he never
spoke to his son about his business dealings in the country.
Disaster for Ukrainians, Boon for the Bidens
On Jan. 12, 2017, the criminal probes of Zlochevsky and Burisma were officially closed under
the watch of a new Ukrainian prosecutor.
Less than a week later, Biden returned to Ukraine to make his
final speech as vice president. By this point, three years after the Maidan uprising
overthrew Yanukovych, it was clear that the national project the vice president personally had
presided over was a calamitous failure.
As even the Atlantic Council's Aslund was willing to admit
, Ukraine had become the poorest country in Europe. The country had also become the
top recipient of remittances in Europe, with a staggering percentage of its population
migrating abroad in search of work.
Meanwhile, Amnesty International stated : "Ukraine is
descending into chaos of uncontrolled use of force by radical [far-right] groups. Under these
conditions, no person in Ukraine may feel safe." As the country's proxy conflict with
pro-Russian separatists dragged on, it
transformed into a supermarket for the international arms trade.
Meanwhile, Biden's son Hunter was making a small fortune by simply warming a seat on
Burisma's board of directors.
During his 2017
press conference in Kiev, Biden seemed oblivious to the trends that were driving Ukraine
into ruin. He encouraged Ukraine's leadership to continue on an IMF-led path of privatization
and austerity.
He then urged Kiev to "press forward with energy reforms that are eliminating Ukraine's
dependence on Russian gas," once again advancing policy that would serve as a boon to the
energy firms plowing their cash into the Atlantic Council.
Mykola Zlochevsky, former employer of Hunter Biden and current partner of the Atlantic
Council.
Burisma Recruits the Atlantic Council
Even with Hunter Biden on his company's board, Zlochevsky was still seeking influential
allies in Washington. He found them at the Atlantic Council in 2017, literally hours after he
was cleared of corruption charges in Ukraine.
On Jan. 19, 2017 -- just two days after the investigation of Zlochevsky ended -- Burisma
announced a major "cooperative agreement" with the Atlantic Council. "It became possible to
sign a cooperative agreement between Burisma and the Atlantic Council after all charges against
Burisma Group companies and its owner [Mykola] Zlochevskyi were withdrawn," the
Kyiv Post reported at the time.
The deal was inked by the director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia program, a former U.S.
ambassador to Ukraine named John Herbst.
Since then, Burisma helped bankroll Atlantic Council programming, including an
energy security conference held this May in Monaco, where Zlochevsky currently lives.
"[Zlochevsky] invited them purely for whitewashing purposes, to put them on the
façade and make this company look nice," Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of Ukraine's
Anti-Corruption Action Center, said of the Monaco event to The Financial Times .
At one such conference in Monaco, then-Burisma board member Hunter Biden declared, "One of
the reasons that I am proud to be a member of the board at Burisma is that I believe we are
trying to figure out the way to create a radical change in the way we look at energy." (Hunter
Biden left Burisma with $850,000 in earnings when his father launched his presidential campaign
this year).
While the Atlantic Council was bringing Burisma in from the cold, the company was still too
toxic for much of the business world to touch.
As The Financial Timesnoted ,
the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine had rejected Burisma's application for membership.
"We've never worked with them for integrity reasons. Never passed our due diligence," a Western
financial institution told the newspaper.
"The company just does not pass the smell test," a businessman in Ukraine told The
Financial Times . "Their reputation is far from squeaky clean because of their baggage, the
background and attempts to whitewash by bringing in recognizable Western names on to the
board."
In fact, a year before the Atlantic Council initiated its partnership with Burisma, the
think tank published a
paper describing Zlochevsky as "openly on the take" and deriding board members Hunter Biden
and former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski as his "trophy foreigners." (Kwasniewski is
today a member of the
Atlantic Council's international advisory board).
For Herbst, however, Burisma's generosity seemed too hard to resist.
"If there are companies that want to support my work, if those companies are not doing
anything that I know to be illegal or unethical, I'll consider their support," Herbst stated in
reply to questions about the Burisma partnership from the Ukrainian news site,
Hromadske .
"They've been good partners," he added.
Men of Integrity
The Atlantic Council has provided more than just a web of influence for figures like Biden
and Zlochevsky. It extended into the Trump administration, through a former employee who served
as the president's lead envoy to Ukraine.
On the sidelines of a September 2018 Atlantic Council event in New York City, Burisma
adviser Vadym Pozharskyi held a
meeting with Kurt Volker, then the State Department's special liaison to Ukraine. A
former senior adviser to the Atlantic Council and national security hardliner, Volker had
earned praise from Biden as a "solid guy."
At the time, Volker also served as the executive director of the McCain Institute, named for
the senator, John McCain, who authored the congressional provision requiring the U.S. to budget
20 percent of all aid to Ukraine for offensive weapons. As I
reported in 2017, the McCain Institute's financial backers included the BGR group, whose
designated lobbyist, Ed Rogers, was a lobbyist for Raytheon – the company that produced
the Javelin missiles that both Volker and the Atlantic Council wanted sold to Ukraine.
Following his abrupt resignation this September, Volker was called to testify before the
House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs on the so-called Ukrainegate affair.
There, he
defended Biden as "a man of integrity and dedication to our country" who would never be
"influenced in his duties as Vice President by money for his son "
Key Biden Adviser Joins Atlantic Council
Throughout Biden's tenure as the "point person" on Ukraine, one figure was constantly by his
side: Michael Carpenter, a former Pentagon specialist on Eastern Europe who became a key
adviser to Biden on the National Security Council. When Carpenter
traveled with Biden to Ukraine in 2015, he helped
provide the vice president with talking points throughout his trip.
Once Trump was inaugurated, Carpenter followed fellow members of the Democratic foreign
policy apparatus into the think tank world. He accepted a fellowship at the Atlantic
Council, and assumed a position as senior director of newly founded Penn Biden Center for
Diplomacy and Global Engagement, which
provided office space to Biden when he was in Washington.
At the Jan. 23, 2018 Council on Foreign Relations event where Biden made his now-notorious
comments about threatening the Ukrainian government with the withdrawal of a one billion dollar
loan if it did not fire Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin – "well son of a
bitch, he got fired!" Biden
exclaimed – Carpenter was by his side, rattling off tough talking points about
Russian interference. [Shokin testified under oath that Biden had him fired
because he was investigating Burisma.]
Since then, Carpenter has remained engaged in Ukrainian politics, throwing his weight behind
some of the country's most hardline elements. In July 2018, for instance, he helped welcome
Andriy Parubiy , the speaker of the Rada (the Ukrainian parliament), to a series of
meetings on Capitol Hill.
Parubiy is the founder of the Social-National Party, which The Washington Post's
Eugene Robinson
described as "openly neo-fascist." In fact, Parubiy appeared in a Nazi-style uniform,
packing a pistol beneath a Wolfsangel symbol on the cover of his Mein Kampf-style memoir, "A
View From The Right."
After the Senate meeting with Parubiy, I challenged Carpenter over bringing the far-right
politician to Capitol Hill. "Andriy Parubiy is a conservative nationalist who is also a patriot
who cares about his country," Carpenter told me. "I don't think he has any neo-Nazi
inclinations, nor background." He went on to dismiss the basis of my question as "mostly
Russian propaganda."
Months later, Carpenter staged a meltdown on Twitter over the incident, fabricating quotes by
me, branding me as a "sleeze"
[sic] and "pro-Asad and pro-Putin scumbag," while falsely and baselessly claiming I "enlist[ed]
RT," the Russian-backed news network, "to do an exposé on him."
Asked by The Grayzone about Carpenter's work for a think tank funded by Burisma while
simultaneously involving himself in Biden's political machine, Atlantic Council media relations
deputy director Alex Kisling stated, "Council staff and fellows are free to participate in
election activity as individuals and on their own time, provided they do so in a way that could
not be seen as acting as a representative of the Council or implying Council endorsement of
their activity or views. Michael's affiliations and previous service are on our website. (He is
not part of our full time staff)."
The Penn Biden Center did not respond to a question on whether it supported Carpenter's work
at the Burisma-backed Atlantic Council.
As the scrutiny of Biden's dealings in Ukraine intensifies, Carpenter has thrust himself
into the media limelight to defend his longtime boss.
In an Oct. 7 Washington Post
op-ed denouncing Trump's "smear campaign" against Biden, Carpenter insisted that Biden had
gone to great lengths to remove the Ukrainian prosecutor, Shokin, for his failure to take
action against Burisma. That evening, Carpenter
took to Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC to reinforce the message that Biden moved against
"corrupt players" in Ukraine, presumably referring to Burisma.
At no point did he mention that Burisma was funding the think tank that hosted him as a
senior fellow.
In publishing an
"explainer" purporting to debunk the charges against Biden, the Atlantic Council also
failed to mention its ongoing relationship with Burisma. Atlantic Council media relations
deputy director Kisling dismissed the non-disclosure, telling The Grayzone , "The
Council discloses its funding from Burisma on its website and whenever asked." (Ironically, the
Atlantic Council has
pushed for greater transparency in political advertising on Facebook, one of the top donors
to the think tank).
Perhaps the most absurd omission took place in a
GQ article about Ukrainegate by reporter and Russia-watcher Julia Ioffe. In painting
Ukraine -- the largest nation entirely located in Europe -- as a "small country" drowning in
corruption, Ioffe noted, "the best way to launder one's shady reputation and shine for
international investors is to hire big-name Western consultants – as Burisma did."
In the very next paragraph, Ioffe quoted Daniel Fried, a former State Department official
now serving as a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. "It's a country where there's a lot of
freelance money and a lot of competing interests," Fried remarked.
Revealingly, Ioffe failed to acknowledge that Fried was one of those "big-named Western
consultants" helping to launder Zlochevsky and Burisma's "shady reputation" through the
Atlantic Council.
In fact, Fried was
photographed in a one-on-one meeting with Burisma advisor Vadim Pozharskyi at a September
2018 Atlantic Council conference in New York City.
As the furor over "Ukrainegate" continues, Biden and his allies are soldiering ahead,
insisting that scrutiny of his activities in Ukraine constitute nothing more than a vast
right-wing conspiracy.
Meanwhile, the Beltway press shrugs at Burisma's buying of influence at a powerful think
tank intertwined with Biden's political operation.
Russia might be a "kleptocracy" and Ukraine might endemically corrupt, but in Washington,
this is all business as usual.
Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of books including best-selling
" Republican
Gomorrah ," " Goliath ," "
The
Fifty One Day War " and " The Management of
Savagery ." He has also produced numerous print articles for an array of publications, many
video reports and several documentaries including " Killing Gaza " and " Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie ." Blumenthal founded the Grayzone
Project in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America's state of perpetual war and its
dangerous domestic repercussions.
Robert , October 15, 2019 at 13:50
Thank you for the excellent research. I'll add that the Department of State's contribution
to Atlantic Council is $1 million annually of US taxpayer dollars. Christopher Hunter, a
lawyer with the DOJ when Trump was elected, resigned and ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a
Democrat, then parachuted into Atlantic Council as a Senior Fellow. Several weeks ago, in an
interview with Al Jazeera, he affirmed that Trump should definitely be impeached. Although
introduced as a Fellow of the Atlantic Council, he did nothing to indicate that he was in a
conflict of interest position because of Burisma donations to the Council or that his
opinions were not those of the Atlantic Council. Essentially, US tax $$ are being used to
promote the impeachment of the President of the United States.
Karl Brantz , October 15, 2019 at 12:27
Excellent investigative journalism from Max Blumenthal and Grayzone! The death and
destruction wrought in Ukraine by both U.S. political party operatives is appalling, as is
their horrendous murders of civilians and combatants alike throughout the world today. That
journalists go forth every day to document this atrocious conduct, risking their freedom and
their lives to uncover the truth is an amazing and courageous service to the citizens of our
world. I have nothing but praise for them. I only wish that some one would turn their
piercing perception and integrity upon the apparently untouchable yet still festering account
of the truth of the 9/11 events. All the facts are available and many of the perps are still
walking around. I'm dying to know just what was going on as Dick Cheney commandeered the PEOC
on that fateful morning. Or what took place at Offutt AFB as the towers were blown to dust in
NYC. We've got a fairly good idea thanks to the last 19 years of research and reporting, but
this story never seems to rise above the traditional scandal/bribery/corruption/war news that
daily rains down upon the hapless plebes.
Bob in Portland , October 15, 2019 at 12:15
More inconvenience for the Atlantic Council: When the DNC claimed that Russia hacked its
computers, it never allowed the FBI or any other intelligence agency to examine the
computers. Instead, they used a private company, Crowdstrike. CrowdStrike, owned by Dmitri
Alperovitch, still is the only known entity to have examined those computers. Dmitri
Alperovitch has a chair at the Atlantic Council. Readers here at ConsortiumNews know all the
flaws, okay, lies that William Binney uncovered.
So the Russiagate claims against Russia were generated by cold warriors to justify a
warmer war against Russia. Poor Hunter was caught in the graft that surrounds the US's
relationship with Ukraine.
In World War Two the Nazis ran the fascists in Ukraine who in turn ran Operation
Nightingale, the genocidal program to kill the Jews and other ethnic enemies of Berlin's
thinkers. After WWII the US, very soon represented by the CIA, supported a rebel force in
Ukraine against the USSR. The US also embraced the Ukrainian fascists, being a part of the
Republican Heritage Council. Members were imported into the US under the CIA's Crusade For
Freedom. Ronald Reagan, the spokesman for CFF, first used his "freedom fighter" describing
these Ukrainian fascists with the term later resurrected for the death squads and
anti-democratic forces in Latin America.
Burisma has been described at Moon Of Alabama as a money-laundering entity.
Poor Hunter. Welcome to the working week.
Skip Scott , October 15, 2019 at 12:09
This is a great article that gets into the nitty-gritty of UkraineGate. There is no doubt
in this day and age that "the Mighty Wurlitzer" will drown out the facts presented here. If
Biden becomes too difficult of a sell for the Oligarchy, they have plenty of other servants
to choose from.
robert e williamson jr , October 15, 2019 at 11:57
I'm no religious zealot. After 70 years on the planet I'm firmly agnostic and view too
many organized religions with great dread., that said I suspect that these NGO non-profits
such as the Atlantic Council are simply fronts for the U.S. intelligence community.
If churches tried to get away with what these think tanks do going through millions of
dollars to lobby for special interest groups they would surely lose the their tax exempt
status. Something I feel very strongly the IRS should investigate also.
Or would they. I suspect the IRS could care less about either type of entity considering
that the Service is so under funded it cannot enforce the tax laws on the books, but that
story is for a different time.
I keep reading these headlines which seem to cry "surprise, we found corruption here"!
Give me a break by now everyone should see it coming.
The "King of Orange" is still publicly boring holes in the hull of the Ship of State and
nothing happens except Dims and Repugs claim some honor in joining to condemn a foreign EU
allied country for doing what "The King of Orange" approved that he do.
The problem here is not Turkey, my friends, the problem is the U.S. intelligence community
and the corrupt think tanks fronts that facilitate their evil machinations.
Thank you Max for the expose' obviously far too many American are fooled by this B.S.
stuff that goes on in D.C.
Drew Hunkins , October 15, 2019 at 11:15
The AC is arguably the most potentially dangerous organization in the world today. It's
essentially a Bill Kristol neo-conservative outfit that's set on destroying any semblance of
an independent Russia. It's closely connected to the Atlanticist Integrationists in
Moscow.
The AC's a de facto NATO think [sic] tank that could possibly lead the world to nuclear
war. It also totally belies the notion that Putin is somehow under the thumb of
Netanyahu.
Eugenie Basile , October 15, 2019 at 11:13
The whole Ukraine story is an enormous blunder for the West . not only did it give Russia
the opportunity to reclaim Crimea but the West now also has to finance a corrupt, unstable
and bankrupt country. Not funny !
Robert , October 15, 2019 at 11:06
Excellent research. The deep state is indeed international and takes care of its own.
Christopher Hunter, who, after Trump's election, resigned from the DOJ, then ran
unsuccessfully as a Democratic candidate for Congress, was then parachuted into the Atlantic
Council as senior fellow. He then proceeded to provide expert advice to Al Jazeera about why
Trump should be impeached. So you now have the US State Department paying $1 million tax
dollars to the Atlantic Council, at least one member of which is using his "expertise" to
impeach President Trump.
The article notes that Hunter Biden left Ukraine with $850K. Does that include any fees he
might have collected as co-counsel noted below?
"Hunter Biden tried to repay the $50,000-a-month gig Zlochevsky had handed him by
enlisting a top D.C. law firm, Boies, Schiller, and Flexner, where he served as co-counsel,
to help "improve [Burisma's] corporate governance." By the following January, Zlochevsky's
assets were unfrozen by the U.K."
Curious.
michael , October 15, 2019 at 07:48
Dmitri Alperovitch, Hillary's own Russian Head of Crowdstrike and a Senior Fellow at the
Atlantic Council, went to great lengths to prove that RUSSIANS!!! had hacked into Ukrainian
artillery, and claimed the same methodology was used to prove that RUSSIANS!!! had hacked
into the DNC.
These were Crowdstrike's bonafides (and thus no reason to look closely at the
DNC servers). Of course, it later turned out that the Russians had NOT hacked Ukrainian
artillery, Crowdstrike had lied, and hacking of the DNC was more likely initially done by
Crowdstrike/ New Knowledge and the Atlantic Council, not the Russians.
Think tanks should be responsible, with jail times and fines, for the discord they sow.
Sally Snyder , October 15, 2019 at 07:15
There is a binding treaty between the United States and Ukraine that would serve as a
precedent for Donald Trump's request.
Interestingly, the mainstream media in the United States has almost completely ignored
this reality their haste to impeach the current president.
Daryl , October 15, 2019 at 04:51
My take is that this Zlochevsky and his energy co. was identified and targeted while he
was part of the govt the US helped to overthrow. Rather than the story of a Ukrainian seeking
western favor, i suspect he was made an offer he could not refuse.
The UK seizure of the
23mil was not accidental, i expect the US had all the banks of Europe watching this guys
asset for this leverage. So they freeze his money, open a criminal investigation and put him
on a wanted list.
Just a couple weeks later Biden joins the board. This was a State Dept/CIA
play.
They went to Zlochevsky or the oligarch behind him and presented them with the only way
out of ruin. Several months later, UK unfreezes 23mil and closes the case. USAID comes calling
on Burisma, Atlantic Council attaches themselves. This was a well planned takeover and Biden
was a beneficiary, but doing the bidding of the hidden hands.
Jeff Harrison , October 15, 2019 at 00:02
The sarcasm at the end is great. I have only one comment. This piece, like so many others
about Ukraine uses the phrase "pro-Russian forces in Ukraine". That's crap. Yeah, they are
pro Russian, but more importantly, they are ethnically Russian and when you have a regime in
Kiev that is trying to suck up to the US and passing anti Russian and Russian language
legislation and breaking all ties to Russia to please their masters in Washington, is it a
surprise that those ethnic Russian Ukrainians might look for a champion?
Abby , October 14, 2019 at 23:11
Wow. This article is a must read for people to get up to date on the Ukraine coup. On
Hunter and Joe ByeDone's actions after it and the many players involved. Well done, Max!
But Russia right?
CNN journalists are "soldier of the Party" in best Bolshevik's style...All this noise about
Biden is just trivializing the fact that he is a war criminal. And in this sense replacing him
with his son on the ballot would be an improvement ;-)
Of note, CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez says that former VP Joe Biden has a
problem.
" Now I'll tell you this. Joe Biden has a problem. Because his son was trading in his name.
It looks bad. It smells bad. It's not illegal. Nothing is illegal about it How do you go and
say that Donald Trump is the person? Get him out of here, and convict him, when your son is
doing the same shit."
The big question that I want to know is does this even embarrass the so called CNN
"journalists"? Are they ashamed at what they have become or are they just actors playing a
part and completely disconnected from journalism altogether?
Here it is folks, the final arbiters of truth in our society discussing how to ********
America and blow smoke up the *** of their cult followers and tell them it is in information.
At this point I look at anyone who parrots the CNN narrative as a zombie, some people won't
be able to be saved.
Hunter Biden's jobs as pay for play for his daddy's efforts in congress go back a long
ways. Burisma and China were just two of many:
Although Trump repeatedly has hammered Hunter Biden's ties to China and Ukraine, the
latest cloud of suspicion came as Republicans pointed to resurfaced 2008 reports in The
New York Times and The American
Spectator . The articles, written as Barack Obama and John McCain vied for the White
House, found that Hunter Biden received consulting fees from the financial services company
MBNA from 2001 to 2005 -- while his father, then a senator, was pushing successfully for
legislation that would make it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy protection.
The precise amount of the payments was unclear, but a company official once said Hunter
Biden was receiving at least a $100,000 per year retainer, The Times reported. Hunter Biden
previously had been an executive at MBNA beginning in 1996, but the consulting fees came
years after his departure from the company as a full-time employee.
Aides to then-presidential candidate Barack Obama at the time denied that any lobbying
had occurred, and insisted the payments were proper.
Yet another female neocon hawk of the mold of Samantha Power. Hillary have found not only
Nuland, but several of them ;-) She denied that Nulandgate create a civil war in Ukraine to
advance the US geopolitical goals. She also denied influencing Ukrainian leadership, while in
reality Ukraine now is governed from the US embassy (which is sometimes called by locals called
Washington Obcom) . Such a hypocrite.
As for "do not prosecute" list -- do not believe anything government officials say
until it is officially denied.
And that EuroMaydan actually promote corruption to the level unheard during Yanukovich tenure
but with different players.
Notable quotes:
"... creates an environment in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest and profit. ..."
"... the Embassy's April 2016 letter to the Prosecutor General's Office about the investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center or AntAC ..."
"... the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin ..."
"... As Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or disseminated a "do not prosecute" list is completely false ..."
"... Equally fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard the allegation in the media that I supposedly told the Embassy team to ignore the President's orders "since he was going to be impeached." That allegation is false. I have never said such a thing, to my Embassy colleagues or to anyone else. ..."
"... I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever, directly or indirectly, raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me. ..."
"... With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him -- a total of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue. I do not know Mr. Giuliani's motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr. Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine. ..."
The Revolution of Dignity, and the Ukrainian people's demand to end corruption, forced the
new Ukrainian government to take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated
that country's political and economic systems. We have long understood that strong
anti-corruption efforts must form an essential part of our policy in Ukraine; now there was a
window of opportunity to do just that.
Why is this important? Put simply: anti-corruption efforts serve Ukraine's interests. They
serve ours as well. Corrupt leaders are inherently less trustworthy, while an honest and
accountable Ukrainian leadership makes a U.S.-Ukraine partnership more reliable and more
valuable to the U.S. A level playing field in this strategically located country -- one with a
European landmass exceeded only by Russia and with one of the largest populations in Europe --
creates an environment in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest and
profit. Corruption is a security issue as well, because corrupt officials are vulnerable
to Moscow. In short, it is in our national security interest to help Ukraine transform into a
country where the rule of law governs and corruption is held in check.
Two Wars
But change takes time, and the aspiration to instill rule-of-law values has still not been
fulfilled. Since 2014, Ukraine has been at war, not just with Russia, but within itself, as
political and economic forces compete to determine what kind of country Ukraine will become:
the same old, oligarch-dominated Ukraine where corruption is not just prevalent, but is the
system? Or the country that Ukrainians demanded in the Revolution of Dignity -- a country where
rule of law is the system, corruption is tamed, and people are treated equally and according to
the law? During the 2019 presidential elections, the Ukrainian people answered that question
once again. Angered by insufficient progress in the fight against corruption, Ukrainian voters
overwhelmingly elected a man who said that ending corruption would be his number one priority.
The transition, however, created fear among the political elite, setting the stage for some of
the issues I expect we will be discussing today.
... ... ...
I arrived in Ukraine on August 22, 2016 and left Ukraine permanently on May 20, 2019.
Several of the events with which you may be concerned occurred before I was even in
country.
Here are just a few:
the release of the so-called "Black Ledger" and Mr. Manafort's subsequent resignation
from the Trump campaign;
the Embassy's April 2016 letter to the Prosecutor General's Office about the
investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center or AntAC ; and
the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin .
Several other events occurred after I was recalled from Ukraine. These include:
President Trump's July 25 call with President Zelenskiy;
All of the discussions surrounding that phone call; and
Any discussions surrounding the reported delay of security assistance to Ukraine in
Summer 2019.
During my Tenure in Ukraine
As for events during my tenure in Ukraine, I want to categorically state that I have
never myself or through others, directly or indirectly, ever directed, suggested, or in any
other way asked for any government or government official in Ukraine (or elsewhere) to
refrain from investigating or prosecuting actual corruption. As Mr. Lutsenko, the former
Ukrainian Prosecutor General has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or
disseminated a "do not prosecute" list is completely false -- a story that Mr. Lutsenko,
himself, has since retracted.
Equally fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard
the allegation in the media that I supposedly told the Embassy team to ignore the President's
orders "since he was going to be impeached." That allegation is false. I have never said such
a thing, to my Embassy colleagues or to anyone else.
Next, the Obama administration did not ask me to help the Clinton campaign or harm the
Trump campaign, nor would I have taken any such steps if they had.
I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations
with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course
of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever, directly or
indirectly, raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.
With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him -- a total
of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue. I do not know Mr. Giuliani's
motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr.
Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our
anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.
"... I have no sympathy for Trump anymore. He hasn't had Sessions or Barr induct one single ******* person guilty of treason or sedition in a 3 years. Prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich if they want to. ..."
"... It was Fraud Trump, who helped re-fill the swamp, by putting Torturer Gina Haspel in as CIA head wasn't he? ..."
"... CIA vs Trump is a false dichotomy dilemma. They both work hand-in-glove in a production made to deceive the masses. What the masses are really unaware of is the propaganda lies echoed out at them without a single shred of doubt against these claims. Why are we so gullible as to not ask "why" for the many presentations en posed upon us?! ..."
It's both pathetic and laughable that Democrats, the mainstream press, and Trump critics are
referring to the CIA agent who turned in Trump for his telephone call with Ukraine President
Volodymyr Zelensky as a "whistleblower."
It's pathetic because it denigrates real whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, John Kiriakou,
Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, and William Binney. Those people are the courageous ones. They
risked their careers, their liberty, and even their lives to expose criminal wrongdoing within
the national-security state agencies they were working for.
That's not what that supposed CIA agent did when he filed his complaint against Trump. He
didn't blow the whistle on his agency, the CIA, by exposing some secret dark-side practices,
such as MK-Ultra drug experimentation on unsuspecting Americans, secret assassinations of
Americans, secret assets within the mainstream press, or secret destruction of torture
videotapes of incarcerated inmates at a top-secret CIA prison center in some former Soviet-bloc
country.
If he had done that, the CIA would have come after him with all guns blaring, just as the
national-security establishment has gone after Snowden and those other genuine whistleblowers.
In fact, that's how one can usually identify a genuine whistleblower. That's obviously not
happening here. Instead, the national-security establishment is hailing this "whistleblower" as
being a brave and courageous hero for disclosing supposed wrongdoing by Trump, not by the
CIA.
That anti-Trump CIA agent isn't a whistleblower at all. Instead, he's nothing more than a
spy and a snitch. He is obviously a spy. After all, he works for the CIA, the premier spy
agency in the world. And by turning in Trump in an obvious attempt to get him into trouble,
he's also obviously a snitch.
A "gotcha" moment
In fact, the entire episode has a "gotcha" feeling to it. For almost three years, Americans
have been made to suffer under a constant stream of speeches, commentaries, op-eds, and
editorials about what Trump rightly called the "collusion delusion" theory. Democrats, the
mainstream press, and Trump critics were 100 percent certain that their real-life hero Robert
Mueller, the special counsel, was going to find evidence that Trump conspired with Russian
officials to deny Hillary Clinton her rightful place as president of the United States. They
had impeachment plans set in place, ready to go.
And then Mueller dashed their hopes. His report disclosed that the collusion delusion was
the biggest conspiracy theory in U.S. history, one openly promoted by Democrats, the mainstream
press, and Trump critics on a daily basis for almost three years.
All they needed and wanted was an opportunity -- any opportunity -- to apply their
impeachment process to another set of a facts. Fortunately for them, Trump himself gave them
that opportunity. That supposed CIA agent was ready with a "gotcha!" and proceeded to snitch on
Trump with his "whistleblower" complaint.
Trump is obviously a smart man, both businesswise and politically. But to make that
telephone call to Zelensky and request him to investigate Joe Biden, while holding up a foreign
aid package to Ukraine, immediately after being exonerated by Mueller of the collusion delusion
allegation, was about the dumbest thing he could do. How could he not realize that his enemies
would be looking for any opportunity to set their impeachment process into motion against
him?
The likely explanation lies with arrogance and hubris. After Trump got his exoneration on
the collusion delusion accusation, he figured that he was now all-powerful and could do
whatever he wanted. The fact that he was, at the same time, exercising such dictatorial powers
as raising tariffs, starting trade wars, building his Berlin Wall along the border, and
imposing sanctions and embargoes, all without the consent of Congress, was also making him feel
omnipotent and untouchable. His admiration for foreign dictators no doubt filled his mind with
the same sense of totalitarian, untouchable power.
That's what likely caused Trump to give his enemies the "gotcha" episode for which they were
clearly thirsting. Trump turned out to be his own very worst enemy.
National security
enmity toward Trump
Despite his campaign rhetoric against "endless wars," Trump has kept U.S. troops in
Afghanistan and the Middle East, where they have continued to kill, die, and wreak massive
destruction. He has also authorized the continuation of the Pentagon's and CIA's assassination
program. He has also continued the Pentagon's and CIA's indefinite detention and torture center
at Guantanamo Bay. He has done nothing to rein in the NSA and its secret surveillance schemes.
The fact is that Trump's term in office, despite his "America First" rhetoric, has proven to be
nothing more than a continuation of the Bush-Obama administrations.
That's what he should be impeached for, but unfortunately his critics feel that those high
crimes don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
But it's also true that Trump has failed to demonstrate the complete deference to authority
of the national-security establishment that Hillary Clinton and other Washington, D.C.,
political elites have. Trump's failure to bend the knee to the national-security establishment
made him suspect from the very beginning, especially since the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and
the FBI were certain that their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, was going to be the new
president.
Thus, there has been a war between Trump and the national-security establishment from even
before he was elected and especially after he was elected. In a remarkable moment of candor and
honesty, Congressman Charles Schumer, commenting on the war between Trump and the
national-security establishment, stated, "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence
community -- they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."
One way of getting back at Trump is, of course, through assassination, a power that the
Supreme Court has confirmed that the national-security state wields against American citizens,
so long it is necessary to protect "national security."
Another way of getting back at Trump is smear tactics through the use of assets within the
mainstream press. The CIA's Operation Mockingbird comes to mind.
Coup through
impeachment
And other option to get back at Trump is through impeachment and conviction, especially
through assets within Congress. But before any collusion-delusion proponent cries "conspiracy
theory," recall that President Eisenhower warned Americans in his 1961 Farewell Address about
the threat that the "military-industrial complex" poses to the liberties and democratic
processes of the American people. Actually, Ike planned to use the term
"military-industrial-congressional complex" but changed his mind at the last minute. He was
referring to the intimate, integrated relationship between members of Congress and the
Pentagon, CIA, and NSA. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, Eisenhower is not perceived to
be a "conspiracy theorist," the term that the CIA popularized to keep people from examining the
Kennedy assassination too closely.
Speaking of the Kennedy assassination, early in his administration Trump announced that he
intended to comply with the deadline for releasing the CIA's long-secret records relating to
the assassination. At the very last minute, Trump folded and granted the CIA's request for
continued secrecy.
Why did Trump do that?
One possibility is that he became convinced that "national security" would be jeopardized if
the American people were to see the CIA's long-secret JFK assassination records.
Another possibility is that he struck some sort of secret negotiated deal with the CIA.
A third possibility is that he figured that if he would ingratiate himself with the CIA in
the hope that they would leave him alone. If that was the case, Trump might well go down as one
of the most naïve presidents in history.
I have no sympathy for Trump anymore. He hasn't had Sessions or Barr induct one single
******* person guilty of treason or sedition in a 3 years. Prosecutors can indict a ham
sandwich if they want to.
If we have no rule of law anymore, then **** it. It's time to abolish our entire
government and start from scratch under the Declaration of Independence.
Maybe Trump was naive not to realize how much the entrenched elites were against him
and what he represented.
And maybe the entrenched elites don't realize how deeply so many of us deplorables hate
them . Let's see how D.C. -- the Senate and the Supreme Court -- defuse the coming Civil
War. Because the House and the Executive have already staked out their positions ... AND SO
HAVE WE.
Fraud Trump ( President "Gun Control" ) and the CIA are best buddy's!!!
It was Fraud Trump, who helped re-fill the swamp, by putting Torturer Gina Haspel in as
CIA head wasn't he?
They ( Along with their democrat/republican Comrades ), are working together for their
Rothschild Israeli/NWO masters, to Try and undermine the American people and Enslave the
world!
Please don't fall for this phony Good Cop/Bad Cop "Theatre"...Fraud Trump and the CIA are
one and the same!
CIA vs Trump is a false dichotomy dilemma. They both work hand-in-glove in a production
made to deceive the masses. What the masses are really unaware of is the propaganda lies
echoed out at them without a single shred of doubt against these claims. Why are we so
gullible as to not ask "why" for the many presentations en posed upon us?!
Here is as awkward question: why are we not allowed to simply ask what is truly ailing us
and why in many countries the mere doubt or questioning will lend one in prison. What kinds
of "truths" demand prison time for simply asking questions?!
We've lost WWII. Western societies are no longer exceptional, if they were so to begin
with (the traitors made sure of that). We must reform and address the one true problem at our
midst: Jewish tyranny!
A man, unlike ANY politician since dared to put the interests of his people ahead of
anything else. Whether you agree or disagree, have an open mind to revisit this case; perhaps
you will now see what you missed previously.
Left and Right is nothing but Reality TV for the masses. They are two sides of a coin, in
the end its still one coin!
They are funded on both sides from the same people, one side is funded openly the other is
through NGOs to hide the "investment" donation.
To believe they are truly after Trump is BS, the "left" wants in, by getting him "out" but
the people funding it all are just using the "left" as muscle to keep Trump "inline" doing
their bidding! If it was a Democrat they couldn't keep inline they would do the same thing,
in the end its all just another way to keep society divided so they can further control us
and strip away more freedom,power and money/assets and we agree to give it away when asked
under the BS lie of protecting us from some made up enemy/threat, and we fall for it every
time like a mouse to glue paper!
If Snowden and Assange showing us how bad we have been betrayed didn't wake us up to
rebel, nothing will!
It would be a whole different story if the info they released was being debated for truth,
but they have been openly confirmed on everything they released and we still go along with
this DeepState monster that has basically imprisoned us all, some with bars/cells some
without but all imprisoned and lacking Free will/freedom we as a nation are suppose to
have!
The fact that we still surrender more and more of this freedom daily without any outcry
from the population is mindboggling. How bad does it have to get to get some fight out of the
populas? It is even more worrying that there is no MSM that will independently report what we
know as fact so we can unite.
This is coup d'état, no question about it. What is the level of connection of Adam
Schiff and the CIA?
Notable quotes:
"... Why did the "whistleblower" write an 800+ word memo describing President Trump and President Zelensky's call based on second-hand information gleaned from a conversation that lasted just a few minutes? ..."
"... Why didn't the "whistleblower" just give his memo to the Inspector General, instead of a seven page complaint dressed up with extraneous citations and media references? ..."
"... What work did the “whistleblower” do with a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate? ..."
1. Why did the "whistleblower" write an 800+ word memo describing President Trump and
President Zelensky's call based on second-hand information gleaned from a conversation that
lasted just a few minutes?
2. Why did the "whistleblower" wait 18 days to file the complaint after describing the call
as "frightening" in their memo?
3. Why and when did the "whistleblower" communicate with Rep Adam Schiff's staff before
filing the complaint?
4. Why did the "whistleblower" hide from the ICIG that they met with Rep Adam Schiff's staff
by not checking the box on the whistleblower form indicating they had spoken to Congress?
5. Why didn't Rep Adam Schiff tell us his staff had met with the "whistleblower?"
6. Why didn't the "whistleblower" just give his memo to the Inspector General, instead
of a seven page complaint dressed up with extraneous citations and media references?
7. Why is Rep Adam Schiff holding hearings, depositions, and interviews behind closed
doors?
8. Why won't Rep Adam Schiff release the transcripts of these interviews, instead of leaking
cherry-picked information that fits his narrative?
9. Why won't Rep Adam Schiff take questions from the press after these interviews, like
Republicans have done?
10. Why does Speaker Pelosi think we need to “strike while the iron is hot,”
instead of taking time for serious and thorough investigative fact-finding?
11. Why is Speaker Pelosi scared to have a vote to open an official impeachment inquiry like
it’s been done every other time?
12. Why do Democrats keep making up the rules as they go along, instead of following a fair
process?
13. What work did the “whistleblower” do with a 2020 Democratic presidential
candidate?
14. Why do Democrats and the media keep falsely claiming President Trump pressured Ukraine?
President Zelensky has repeatedly said that he wasn't pushed.
15. Why don't Democrats trust the American people to choose the President? The election is
less than 13 months away.
16. Why won't Democrats focus on helping the country, instead of attacking the President
with this unfair and partisan process?
17. Why won't the media ask these questions to Rep Adam Schiff or Speaker Pelosi?
Dems not troubled by truth. Their mind control media believes in itself as the new God
that the morons bow down to and will abandon their children for. Their brainwashed radical
left will trample their own mothers to get into a fight to the death for their demonic cause
of grabbing power for the furtherance of their selfish sponsors.
This is the train of darkness that unwittingly delivered the first people POTUS reaction.
The train drivers are very powerful and are long established as the puppet masters. They are
scheming 24/7 on multiple fronts to distract their enemy called democracy and further embed
themselves within every internal organ and nerve fiber. But they are not immutable.
The capture of democracy is a goal that they must achieve. The attack is obviously
coordinated and multi-faceted. The tool of brainwashing will target the children, like the
Nazi program called "Hitler Youth" but with a neolibic dogma.
One man stands alone against the deep state and its swamp and media and mind control and
infiltration. Can he trust anyone to watch his back?
This is really a travesty. Every day we hear about this. The President is being tried by
the press - with only one side being heard. How the hell is this fair?
to most on this thread democrats want to take all they can via taxes, then borrow what
they can't raise in taxes, democrats will cause widespread poverty, sickness and will sponsor
**** educational standards, encourage perversion and pay minorities taxpayer dollars to buy
their votes - even though minorities are no more special than any social grouping (other than
the perverts in the lbGTQ++ community who are special in a mentally retarded way) democrats
sponsor criminal behavior by refusing to punish it and so on and so forth,
trump at least promotes reward for effort, by giving back some taxes to individuals and
makes American corporate tax rates consistent with global corporate tax rates, has shitcanned
the stealth taxes on healthy people via Obamacare, and inspires people left behind by the
constant march to socialism that the US has endured for the last fifty years (via welfare
benefits, scholastic indoctrination, social housing programs, medicare/medicaid programs that
taxpayers could have got for half the price they paid - and half the debt liabilities run up
in trust funds.
so..has trump got the federal government completely out of peoples lives? no, but he at
least wants taxes on the country to 18% of GDP and not the 40% targeted by the howler monkeys
on the left.
it is not a choice of two equal evils. it is the choice between YOU paying 18% of your
income or 40%.
The term "centrist" is replaced by a more appropriate term "neoliberal oligarchy"
Notable quotes:
"... Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly, suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps. ..."
"... So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House in the first place. ..."
"... For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed path. ..."
"... In a recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point: Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as foreordained. ..."
"... Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much) change. ..."
"... These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy. ..."
"... "For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely. ..."
"... how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal oligarchy" who preceded him? ..."
"... Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the question not only goes unanswered, but unasked. ..."
"... To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie. Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed, apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse "to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war to economic inequality." Just so. ..."
"... Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's what Hillary thought too. ..."
"... Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars. ..."
"... Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no better than last time. ..."
"... I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the price that's going to have to be paid. ..."
"... At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight of hand there corporate Dems. ..."
There is blood in the water and frenzied sharks are closing in for the kill. Or so they
think.
From the time of Donald Trump's election, American elites have hungered for this moment. At
long last, they have the 45th president of the United States cornered. In typically ham-handed
fashion, Trump has given his adversaries the very means to destroy him politically. They will
not waste the opportunity. Impeachment now -- finally, some will say -- qualifies as a virtual
certainty.
No doubt many surprises lie ahead. Yet the Democrats controlling the House of
Representatives have passed the point of no return. The time for prudential judgments -- the
Republican-controlled Senate will never convict, so why bother? -- is gone for good. To back
down now would expose the president's pursuers as spineless cowards. TheNew York
Times, The Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC would not soon forgive such craven behavior.
So, as President Woodrow Wilson, speaking in 1919 put it, "The stage is set, the
destiny disclosed. It has come about by no plan of our conceiving, but by the hand of God." Of
course, the issue back then was a notably weighty one: whether to ratify the Versailles Treaty.
That it now concerns a "
Mafia-like shakedown " orchestrated by one of Wilson's successors tells us something about
the trajectory of American politics over the course of the last century and it has not been a
story of ascent.
The effort to boot the president from office is certain to yield a memorable spectacle. The
rancor and contempt that have clogged American politics like a backed-up sewer since the day of
Trump's election will now find release. Watergate will pale by comparison. The uproar triggered
by Bill Clinton's "
sexual relations " will be nothing by comparison. A de facto collaboration between
Trump, those who despise him, and those who despise his critics all but guarantees that this
story will dominate the news, undoubtedly for months to come.
As this process unspools, what politicians like to call "the people's business" will go
essentially unattended. So while Congress considers whether or not to remove Trump from office,
gun-control legislation will languish, the deterioration of the nation's infrastructure will
proceed apace, needed healthcare reforms will be tabled, the military-industrial complex will
waste yet more billions, and the national debt, already at $22 trillion --
larger, that is, than the entire economy -- will continue to surge. The looming threat posed by
climate change, much talked about of late, will proceed all but unchecked. For those of us
preoccupied with America's role in the world, the obsolete assumptions and habits undergirding
what's still called " national
security " will continue to evade examination. Our endless wars will remain endless and
pointless.
By way of compensation, we might wonder what benefits impeachment is likely to yield.
Answering that question requires examining four scenarios that describe the range of
possibilities awaiting the nation.
The first and most to be desired (but least likely) is that Trump will tire of being a
public piñata and just quit. With the thrill of flying in Air Force One having
worn off, being president can't be as much fun these days. Why put up with further grief? How
much more entertaining for Trump to retire to the political sidelines where he can tweet up a
storm and indulge his penchant for name-calling. And think of the "deals" an ex-president could
make in countries like Israel, North Korea, Poland, and Saudi Arabia on which he's bestowed
favors. Cha-ching! As of yet, however, the president shows no signs of taking the easy (and
lucrative) way out.
The second possible outcome sounds almost as good but is no less implausible: a sufficient
number of Republican senators rediscover their moral compass and "do the right thing," joining
with Democrats to create the two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump and send him packing.
In the Washington of that classic 20th-century film director Frank Capra, with Jimmy Stewart
holding
forth on the Senate floor and a moist-eyed Jean Arthur cheering him on from the gallery,
this might have happened. In the real Washington of "Moscow Mitch"
McConnell , think again.
The third somewhat seamier outcome might seem a tad more likely. It postulates that
McConnell and various GOP senators facing reelection in 2020 or 2022 will calculate that
turning on Trump just might offer the best way of saving their own skins. The president's
loyalty to just about anyone, wives included, has always been highly contingent, the people
streaming out of his administration routinely making the point. So why should senatorial
loyalty to the president be any different? At the moment, however, indications that Trump
loyalists out in the hinterlands will reward such turncoats are just about nonexistent. Unless
that base were to flip, don't expect Republican senators to do anything but flop.
That leaves outcome No. 4, easily the most probable: while the House will impeach, the
Senate will decline to convict. Trump will therefore stay right where he is, with the matter of
his fitness for office effectively deferred to the November 2020 elections. Except as a source
of sadomasochistic diversion, the entire agonizing experience will, therefore, prove to be a
colossal waste of time and blather.
Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection
chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For
that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly,
suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as
punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay
in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so
that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps.
Besides, as Trump campaigns for a second term, he would almost surely wear censure like a
badge of honor. Keep in mind that Congress's
approval ratings are considerably worse than his. To more than a few members of the public,
a black mark awarded by Congress might look like a gold star.
Restoration Not Removal
So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more
favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being
pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of
impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with
Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is
to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House
in the first place.
Just recently, for instance, Hillary Clinton
declared Trump to be an "illegitimate president." Implicit in her charge is the conviction
-- no doubt sincere -- that people like Donald Trump are not supposed to be president.
People like Hillary Clinton -- people possessing credentials
like hers and sharing her values -- should be the chosen ones. Here we glimpse the true
meaning of legitimacy in this context. Whatever the vote in the Electoral College, Trump
doesn't deserve to be president and never did.
For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of
impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed
path.
In a
recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point:
Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close
to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more
important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking
repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as
foreordained.
Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political
mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal
Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much)
change.
These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as
defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating
on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a
global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they
define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees
from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to
believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and
privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American
political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore
that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy.
"For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying
a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary
precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo
interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his
mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The U.S. military's "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War, as
broadcast on CNN.
For such a scheme to succeed, however, laundering reputations alone will not suffice.
Equally important will be to bury any recollection of the catastrophes that paved the way for
an über -qualified centrist to lose to an indisputably unqualified and
unprincipled political novice in 2016.
Holding promised security assistance hostage unless a foreign leader agrees to do you
political favors is obviously and indisputably wrong. Trump's antics regarding Ukraine may even
meet some definition of criminal. Still, how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal
oligarchy" who preceded him? Consider, in particular, the George W. Bush
administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 (along with the spin-off wars that followed).
Consider, too, the reckless economic policies that produced the Great Recession of 2007-2008.
As measured by the harm inflicted on the American people (and others), the offenses for which
Trump is being impeached qualify as mere misdemeanors.
Honest people may differ on whether to attribute the Iraq War to outright lies or monumental
hubris. When it comes to tallying up the consequences, however, the intentions of those who
sold the war don't particularly matter. The results include
thousands of Americans killed; tens of thousands wounded, many grievously, or left to
struggle with the effects of PTSD; hundreds of thousands of non-Americans killed or injured ;
millions displaced ;
trillions of dollars expended; radical groups like ISIS empowered (and in its case
even formed
inside a U.S. prison in Iraq); and the Persian Gulf region plunged into turmoil from which it
has yet to recover. How do Trump's crimes stack up against these?
The Great Recession stemmed directly from economic policies implemented during the
administration of President Bill Clinton and continued by his successor. Deregulating the
banking sector was projected to produce a bonanza in which all would share. Yet, as a
direct result of
the ensuing chicanery, nearly 9 million Americans lost their jobs, while overall unemployment
shot up to 10 percent. Roughly 4 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. The stock
market cratered and millions saw their life savings evaporate. Again, the question must be
asked: How do these results compare to Trump's dubious dealings with Ukraine?
Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has
been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq
War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the
question not only goes unanswered, but unasked.
Sen. Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Rep. Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3), the co-sponsors of
the 1932 Glass–Steagall Act separating investment and commercial banking, which was
repealed in 1999. (Wikimedia Commons)
To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship
on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie.
Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed,
apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden
worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That
the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another
cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency
somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse
"to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war
to economic inequality." Just so.
What are the real crimes? Who are the real criminals? No matter what happens in the coming
months, don't expect the Trump impeachment proceedings to come within a country mile of
addressing such questions.
Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed
match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's
what Hillary thought too.
Now the Republicans who lost their party to Trump think they can take it back with
somebody even more lame than Jeb, if only they could find someone, anyone, to run on that
non-plan.
Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any
alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they
want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four
times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars.
Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no
better than last time.
LJ , October 9, 2019 at 17:01
Well, yeah but I recall that what won Trump the Republican Nomination was first and
foremost his stance on Immigration. This issue is what separated him from the herd of
candidates . None of them had the courage or the desire to go against Governmental Groupthink
on Immigration. All he then had to do was get on top of low energy Jeb Bush and the road was
clear. He got the base on his side on this issue and on his repeated statement that he wished
to normalize relations with Russia . He won the nomination easily. The base is still on his
side on these issues but Governmental Groupthink has prevailed in the House, the Senate, the
Intelligence Services and the Federal Courts. Funny how nobody in the Beltway, especially not
in media, is brave enough to admit that the entire Neoconservative scheme has been a disaster
and that of course we should get out of Syria . Nor can anyone recall the corruption and
warmongering that now seem that seems endemic to the Democratic Party. Of course Trump has to
wear goat's horns. "Off with his head".
Drew Hunkins , October 9, 2019 at 16:00
I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute
worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the
price that's going to have to be paid.
At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental
bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now
established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to
concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable
Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight
of hand there corporate Dems.
Of course, the corporate Dems would rather lose to Trump than win with a
progressive-populist like Bernie. After all, a Bernie win would mean an end to a lot of
careerism and cushy positions within the establishment political scene in Washington and
throughout the country.
Now we even have the destroyer of Libya mulling another run for the presidency.
Forget about having a job the next day and forget about the 25% interest on your credit
card or that half your income is going toward your rent or mortgage, or that you barely see
your kids b/c of the 60 hour work week, just worry about women lawyers being able to make
partner at the firm, and trans people being able to use whatever bathroom they wish and male
athletes being able to compete against women based on genitalia (no, wait, I'm confused
now).
Either class politics and class warfare comes front and center or we witness a burgeoning
neo-fascist movement in our midst. It's that simple, something has got to give!
"... Solomon said Tuesday on " Hannity " that the U.S. government knew Ukraine was planning to look again into activities at Burisma Holdings, an energy company that employed then-Vice President Joe Biden's son as a member of its board of directors, early this year . The report is noteworthy because President Trump has been accused by Democrats of threatening in July to withhold foreign aid to Ukraine unless its new president pursued an investigation into the company and the younger Biden's role there. ..."
"... Solomon said the timeline of the alleged "illicit funds" coincided in part with the time Hunter Biden held a place on the firm's board . The younger Biden was reportedly paid as much as $1 million per year for his time on the board, but Solomon said investigators in Ukraine filed a 15-page "notice of suspicion" indicating they were "looking at the possibility that the $3.4 million paid to Hunter Biden's firm may have been part of the illicit funds that were moving through the company. " ..."
A new report from recent Fox News
hire John Solomon tosses gasoline on the dumpster-fire narrative at the heart of an
impeachment inquiry launched after a CIA officer filed a whistleblower complaint, alleging
President Trump abused his office by 'pressuring' the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe
Biden and his son Hunter for corruption.
According to Solomon, a new document "shows that Ukrainian officials had opened a new probe
into the firm linked to Hunter Biden months before President Trump's phone call with that
country's leader."
Solomon said Tuesday on " Hannity " that the U.S. government knew Ukraine was
planning to look again into activities at Burisma Holdings, an energy company that employed
then-Vice President Joe Biden's son as a member of its board of directors, early this year .
The report is noteworthy because President Trump has been accused by Democrats of threatening
in July to withhold foreign aid to Ukraine unless its new president pursued an investigation
into the company and the younger Biden's role there.
" The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of
2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation ," he
claimed. "This is long before the president ever imagined having a call with President
Zelensky," he added, noting Petro Poroshenko was still Ukraine's president at that time . -
Fox News
According to Solomon, Ukraine's NABU anti-corruption agency requested reopening a probe into
Burisma and its owner Mykola Zlochevsky.
According to the report, "The investigation then went forward, Solomon said. The new probe
later resulted in a "Notice of Suspicion" being filed, alleging the existence of "illicit
funds" running through the fir m, Solomon also claimed."
Solomon said his reporting revealed the requested reopening of the probe into Burisma
involved, in part, "unusual transactions" in the natural gas giant's accounts.
Solomon said the timeline of the alleged "illicit funds" coincided in part with the time
Hunter Biden held a place on the firm's board . The younger Biden was reportedly paid as much
as $1 million per year for his time on the board, but Solomon said investigators in Ukraine
filed a 15-page "notice of suspicion" indicating they were "looking at the possibility that
the $3.4 million paid to Hunter Biden's firm may have been part of the illicit funds that
were moving through the company. "
"A month later, in April, the prosecutor's office -- open-source intelligence, again --
the U.S. government officials confirming they were aware of this -- made a request of another
investigative agency in Ukraine for assistance in going through these bank records," Solomon
claimed. -
Fox News
"That is a significant change in the timeline," said Solomon, adding "it was omitted from
the whistleblower's complaint, and the question is did he not know it or did he exclude it
because it didn't fit the narrative he was trying to write."
"... Ukrainian MP Andriy Derkach revealed on Wednesday that former Vice President Joe Biden received $900,000 from Burisma Group for lobbying activities , citing materials related to an investigation. ..."
"... "According to the documents, Burisma paid no less than $16.5 million to [former Polish President, who became an independent director at Burisma Holdings in 2014] Aleksander Kwasniewski, [chairman of the Burisma board of independent directors] Alan Apter, [Burisma independent director] Devon Archer and Hunter Biden [who joined the Burisma board of directors in 2014]," Derkach added. ..."
"... Derkach says he will publish the leaked documents on his Facebook account, and will initiate the creation of an ad hoc parliamentary investigative commission, " and has already requested launching a criminal case against Ukrainian officials into interference into U.S. elections ," according to the report. ..."
Ukrainian MP Andriy Derkach revealed on Wednesday that
former Vice President Joe Biden
received $900,000 from Burisma Group for lobbying activities
, citing materials related to an
investigation.
Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden received
$900,000 for lobbying activities from
Burisma Group
, Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada member Andriy Derkach said citing
investigation materials.
Derkach publicized documents which, as he said, "
describe the mechanism of getting money
by Biden Sr.
" at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine's press center in Kyiv on
Wednesday. -
Interfax
"
This was the transfer of Burisma Group's funds for lobbying activities
, as
investigators believe,
personally to Joe Biden
through a lobbying company.
Funds in the amount of $900,000 were transferred to the U.S.-based company Rosemont Seneca Partners
,
which according to open sources, in particular, the New York Times, is affiliated with Biden. The
payment reference was payment for consultative services," said Derkach.
Derkach also puiblicized sums of money transferred to Burisma Group representatives -
including Joe Biden's son Hunter.
"According to the documents, Burisma paid no less than $16.5 million to [former Polish President,
who became an independent director at Burisma Holdings in 2014] Aleksander Kwasniewski, [chairman of
the Burisma board of independent directors] Alan Apter, [Burisma independent director] Devon Archer
and Hunter Biden [who joined the Burisma board of directors in 2014]," Derkach added.
"Using political and economic levelers of influencing Ukrainian authorities and manipulating the
issue of providing financial aid to Ukraine,
Joe Biden actively assisted closing criminal
cases into the activity of former Ukrainian Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, who is the founder and
owner of Burisma Group.
"
"Biden's fifth visit to Kyiv on December 7-8, 2015 was devoted to making a decision on the
resignation of [then Ukrainian Prosecutor General] Viktor Shokin over the case of Zlochevsky and
Burisma. Loan guarantees worth $1 billion that the United States was to give to Ukraine was the point
of pressure. Biden himself admitted exerting pressure in his speech at the Council of Foreign
Relations in January 2018, calling Shokin 'son of a bitch who was fired'," Derkach added.
The timeline of events proves that the U.S. linked the Zlochevsky case to loan
guarantees, he said.
After the decree dismissing Shokin was published on April 3, 2016, the governments of the United
States and Ukraine signed a loan guarantee agreement worth $1 billion, several months later, on
June 3, he said.
"In this case, there are facts should be subject to investigation. There is an agency that has
powers to investigate them; the U.S. Department of Justice. If the Ukrainian Prosecutor General
signs documents and send them to U.S. Department of Justice without any requests, he will
accomplish his mission," he said, adding that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General has such powers.
"Considering international corruption in public is a way-out for President Zelensky. I am
certain that he is not involved in international corruption," Derkach said.
It was reported earlier that Derkach publicized correspondence between the National
Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and officers of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. According to
publicized correspondence, starting from July 14, 2017, the lists of criminal proceedings
undertaken by NABU officers were sent from the electronic mailbox of Polina Chyzh, an assistant to
NABU first deputy head Gizo Uglava, to the electronic mailbox of Hanna Yemelianova, a legal
specialist of the anti-corruption program of the U.S. Justice Department at U.S. Embassy in
Ukraine.
Derkach says he will publish the leaked documents on his Facebook account, and will
initiate
the creation of an ad hoc parliamentary investigative commission,
"
and has already
requested launching a criminal case against Ukrainian officials into interference into U.S. elections
,"
according to the report.
In one of the exchanges with US ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, dated September 9, Taylor
spells out what would become the Democrats' argument for impeachment:
As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help
with a political campaign.
It's time Dems try to bring in Ambassador Bill Taylor.
Taylor *twice* texts about a direct quid pro quo between military aid and Ukraine helping Trump
rig our election.
There's a *reason* Taylor thought there was a quid pro quo.
Sondland's admonishment of Taylor –
"I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's
intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind."
– is somehow being
held up as an admission of wrongdoing, along with his request for a phone call instead of continued
texts.
Just like that, all of a sudden, the controversy about the so-called
"whistleblower"
who
may have colluded with House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-California) before filing his
complaint – based on hearsay – is declared
"irrelevant"
and the texts are held up as the Holy
Grail of impeachment proceedings.
At this point, whistleblower complaint is irrelevant. Transcript of
Trump-Zelensky call and texts from Volker, Sondland et al released yesterday is all one needs to
show clearly Trump misconduct .
It's curious how the same treatment was not given a few months ago to the anti-Trump text messages
of FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, when the entire media establishment twisted itself into
pretzels to explain that when Strzok said
"we'll stop"
Trump from becoming president what he
really meant, you see, was something totally innocuous and not sinister at all
.
House Republicans have blasted the diplomatic texts as "cherry-picked" by the other party, and
argued that the closed-doors testimony of Kurt Volker, former US special envoy to Ukraine who
participated in the exchanges, painted a completely different picture.
We noticed the original tweet was deleted after we posted our fact check.
Reading the
transcript
of Volker's opening statement, obtained and published Friday by investigative reporter
John Solomon and the Federalist, seems to back that claim. Volker testified he did not bring up the issue
of a hold on military aid with the Ukrainians until late August, when it was first reported in the media
– and long after the Trump-Zelensky phone call. Nor was he made aware of any reference to former VP Joe
Biden or his son until the transcript of the call was released on September 25.
Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani
"stressed that all he wanted to see was for Ukraine to investigate
what happened in the past and apply its own laws,"
Volker also explained.
On the issue of holding up military aid, Volker admits he was conducting his own policy, in line with
the consensus in Washington, rather than obeying the president who appointed him:
"I became aware of a hold on Congressional Notifications about proceeding with that assistance on
July 18, 2019, and immediately tried to weigh in to reverse that position I was confident that this
position would indeed be reversed in the end, because the provision of such assistance was uniformly
supported at State, Defense, NSC, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the expert community in
Washington."
Yet the most overlooked text in the batch is from Volker to Giuliani, dated August 9, asking for a
phone call "to make sure I advise Z [Zelensky] correctly as to what he should be saying."
To the impeachment-bent Democrats, what's objectionable here is the substance of Volker's instruction
– namely, the alleged
"election meddling"
in investigating the Bidens (and Ukraine's role in
2016, which they are eager never to mention). What should be objectionable is the fact that a US diplomat
is stage-whispering to the freshly elected president of an ostensibly sovereign country. Not that it
would be the first time.
Way back in
April 2016
, President Barack Obama argued that the US stood for the
"principle that nations like
Ukraine have the right to choose their own destiny."
Left unsaid was that such choices would only be
honored if they aligned with US beliefs and objectives – and subject to
"color revolution"
and
regime change if not, which is just what happened in February 2014 in Kiev.
The fact that neither Democrats and Republicans are raising that issue with Volker's testimony and the
texts just goes to show that neither have a problem with the US acting like an empire, and Ukraine being
its vassal. That is what is truly damning about all of this, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
President Donald Trump has continued to hammer Democratic efforts to impeach him, this time
accusing the party of "continuing to interfere in the 2016 election" as well. "Not only are
the Do Nothing Democrats interfering in the 2020 Election, but they are continuing to interfere
in the 2016 Election," Trump tweeted on Saturday. "They must be stopped!"
Not only are the Do Nothing Democrats interfering in the 2020 Election, but they are
continuing to interfere in the 2016 Election. They must be stopped!
The president has called the impeachment investigation against him – which centers
around allegations he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into reopening a
corruption investigation into Joe Biden's son Hunter's business dealings in the country –
"fake" and a "phony witch hunt," designed to oust him before the 2020 race.
Rather than suggesting that Democrats were traveling through time to meddle in the 2016
election all over again, the second half of the president's tweet refers to his belief that the
impeachment drive was concocted to distract from Attorney General William Barr's efforts to
investigate the origins of the counterintelligence probe against his campaign.
Trump has accused the US' intelligence agencies of "spying" on his 2016 campaign and
obtaining a FISA wiretapping warrant under false pretenses. Barr's office received a draft
report of this alleged FISA abuse from the Justice Department's Inspector General two weeks
ago.
Several top Democrats have released text messages between US officials which they claim
expose the Trump administration's drive to 'coerce' the Ukrainian government to target Joe
Biden, for purely political reasons obviously. The Democratic chairs of the House Intelligence,
Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees released the messages in a letter to fellow
representatives late Thursday.
The
letter features over a dozen text messages between US diplomats – including former
Trump administration envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, Ukrainian embassy official Bill Taylor, EU
Ambassador Gordon Sondland, as well as the president's personal attorney Rudy
Giuliani.
"The president and his aides are engaging in a campaign of misinformation and
misdirection in an attempt to normalize the act of soliciting foreign power to interfere in our
elections," the chairmen wrote.
Even more astonishing, he is now openly and publicly asking another foreign power
– China – to launch its own sham investigation against the Bidens to further his
own political aims.
Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would launch an impeachment inquiry over
the allegations the president sought to "shake down" his Ukrainian counterpart, unifying
six separate committee probes under one umbrella.
This isn't about a Campaign, this is about Corruption on a massive scale! https://t.co/DOCvfM8eqi
President Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing amid the controversy, arguing that
there is nothing illicit about requesting an ally to investigate potential corruption. He has
stressed that Biden himself publicly bragged about threatening to withhold US loan
guarantees to Ukraine unless the country fired its head prosecutor, who happened to be
investigating the gas firm that hired Biden's son, Hunter.
What is fascinating in the texts is the 4 attempts that Bill Taylor made to entrap
Sondland-beginning less than a week after Shifty's staffer Thomas Eager met with Bill in
Ukraine.
A showdown between the White House and Democrats is in full swing with the former penning a
letter declaring it would not cooperate with an "illegitimate" and "unconstitutional"
impeachment inquiry conducted in secret. The
letter , published on Tuesday evening, condemned the impeachment initiative in the harshest
terms yet, arguing it deprived President Trump of "constitutionally mandated due
process," and that the inquiry lacked legal legitimacy, as it was never authorized by a
House vote.
Congressional Democrats have flouted the Constitution and all past bipartisan precedent
under the guise of an "impeachment inquiry."
You have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses,
to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and
many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans.
"You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the
separation of powers," the letter continued "All of this violates the Constitution, the
rule of law, and every past precedent ." [emphasis in original]
The White House accused Democrats of using impeachment as a tool to not only "undo the
democratic results" of the previous election, but to "influence" the upcoming
contest as well, citing the words of Congressman Al Green (D-Texas), who in May expressed
concerns that "if we don't impeach the President, he will get reelected."
The letter also notes that ranking Republican committee members had not been granted the
same subpoena powers as the Democratic chairmen leading the impeachment process – as they
were during previous inquiries – slamming the process as unfair and
"one-sided."
Earlier on Monday, the Democratic committee chairs issued a subpoena to compel the testimony
of EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, a key figure in the inquiry, after the White House signaled
that it would block his appearance before Congress. The Trump administration appears to be
doubling down on that move, arguing in the letter that it will simply not comply with future
subpoenas.
Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of
fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch cannot be
expected to participate in it.
Going along with the inquiry under its "current unconstitutional posture" would
"inflict lasting institutional harm on the Executive Branch and lasting damage to the
separation of powers," the letter said, adding that Democrats have "left the president
no choice" but to refuse to cooperate.
The missive is the White House's latest response to intensifying impeachment efforts
spearheaded by House Democrats, who launched the proceedings late last month accusing Trump of
pressuring the President of Ukraine to probe into the activities of former Vice President Joe
Biden and his son in the country.
Several Democratic opponents shot back at the document, some denouncing the move as an act
of obstruction.
"The White House letter is only the latest attempt to cover up his betrayal of our
democracy, and to insist that the President is above the law," said House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi in a statement on Tuesday, adding the president had "normalize[d]
lawlessness."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Called the House Rules Committee office this morning. In order for House Rules to change
after they pass at the start of the session – in this case January 2019 –
there would have to be a vote taken. In looking at the House Resolution ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/6/all-actions
) all actions occurred in Jan. this year so no vote to amend has been taken. That doesn't
mean that Nan won't use this wonk's paper to bolster her position OR that a particular
committee didn't change their rules. But according to the person I spoke with, the standing
House Rules can not be changed without a vote.
The gentleman also said that Congressional Research Service papers are just that –
interpretations/research on a particular subject that do not hold any legislative weight.
They are requested anonymously so there probably isn't a way to trace who
requested this particular paper or how it ended up being authored by Rybicki (one of seven
she's written this year). Additional little tidbit is that the papers can be requested by
members of Congress or their staff members.
While trying to figure it out on my own found this chilling little factoid from the Rules
Committee page re: bills considered under a "special rules" scenerio ( https://rules.house.gov/about archived here:
http://archive.fo/VIK1C ):
"The Committee has the authority to do virtually anything during the course of consideration
of a measure, including deeming it passed. The Committee can also include a self-executed
amendment which could rewrite just parts of a bill, or the entire measure. In essence, so
long as a majority of the House is willing to vote for a special rule, there is little that
the Rules Committee cannot do. " (emphasis mine)
That makes the House Rules Committee more powerful that the full house voting on "special
rules" bills. Well doesn't that just sound .wrong.
No doubt many surprises lie ahead. Yet the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives have passed the point of no
return. The time for prudential judgments -- the Republican-controlled Senate will never convict, so why bother? -- is gone for good.
To back down now would expose the president's pursuers as spineless cowards. The
New York Times,
the
Washington Post,
CNN,
and
MSNBC
would not soon forgive such craven behavior.
As this process unspools, what politicians like to call "the people's business" will go essentially unattended.
Notable quotes:
"... It seems curious, to say the least, that neither the FBI nor former special counsel Robert Mueller discovered the successful 2016 efforts by the Democratic National Committee to reach out to the Ukrainian government to provide dirt on Trump and his campaign associates . Considering that both of those investigations were focused on uncovering a possible conspiracy with a foreign power to influence the presidential election, why was the Ukraine-DNC connection not looked into? It can only be gross incompetence or a deliberate decision to overlook that vital piece of the puzzle. ..."
As the phony
impeachment
investigation
targeting President Donald Trump rumbles on, there really is no definitive list of questions that
as yet remain unanswered. Were anyone to compile such a list, it would probably start with five
questions that strike at the heart of the entire affair.
These questions clarify whether the current process is being conducted correctly or is
colored by partisan hostility
– and, indeed, whether the Russian "collusion" investigation
was similarly tainted.
1. Ukraine-DNC Connection?
It seems curious, to say the least, that neither the FBI nor former special counsel Robert
Mueller discovered the successful 2016 efforts by the Democratic National Committee to reach out
to the
Ukrainian
government
to provide dirt on Trump and his campaign associates
.
Considering that both of
those investigations were focused on uncovering a possible conspiracy with a foreign power to
influence the presidential election, why was the Ukraine-DNC connection not looked into? It can
only be gross incompetence or a deliberate decision to overlook that vital piece of the puzzle.
2. Anonymous Witnesses?
The so-called whistleblower who came forward with a complaint about the nature of the
president's phone conversation with the new Ukrainian president is hardly a credible witness
since he or she had no firsthand knowledge of the call. Democrats are already making elaborate
but secretive plans to extract testimony from this individual. Can his or her identity be kept
from the public – and from the president – indefinitely?
The president's opponents cannot possibly believe that they can impeach Trump using
secondhand allegations provided by an anonymous source. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has vowed
that, if Democrats refuse to identify this "whistleblower," then he will ensure that any Senate
impeachment trial will do so. Further, it would be necessary for the identities of White House
sources from whom the whistleblower claims to have obtained information to be exposed.
Regardless of laws and rules designed to protect whistleblowers, any formal impeachment
cannot be based upon testimony from unknown persons. Given that Democrats, since day one of the
Trump presidency, have made no secret of their desire to impeach the president, the entire
credibility of such an effort would stand or fall on complete transparency. The American public
and the president himself deserve nothing less than to know the identities of the accusers and
the sources from which they drew their information.
3. Another Whistleblower?
At least one additional whistleblower has now come forward, according to reports, but does
this fact change anything? Indeed, the outrage over the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky appears even more fabricated the more that anonymous individuals
come forward with complaints. Already, it is highly suspicious that almost three weeks passed
between the phone call itself and the filing of a
complaint
about
what was said. Additional complaints filed even later hardly bolster the credibility of the case
against Trump.
4. Schiff's Role?
How has Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-CA) role in this latest assault upon the president compromised
the entire process? Schiff has been less than forthcoming about his knowledge of events or the
extent to which his own staffers worked with the whistleblower even before any complaint was
filed with the intelligence community's inspector general.
Adam Schiff
As if the congressman were not already looking foolish and dishonest, his performance at a
recent hearing was reason enough for Schiff to be compelled to recuse himself. During the event,
he read out his own version of what Trump said to Zelensky – which bore no resemblance to the
now-public transcript. The very idea that Schiff has either the capability or the desire to
conduct a fair and objective investigation is utterly laughable.
5. Window Of Opportunity?
Finally, how big is the window of opportunity for congressional Democrats to impeach the
president? They may have so far avoided making the process official, but articles of impeachment
must, at some point, be brought to the floor of the House for a vote.
Once the opposition party chooses its presidential nominee, the campaign for the White House
begins in earnest, and impeaching Trump during an election campaign is going to be seen as
purely an attempt to influence the 2020 election – even by those Americans who do not already
see it as such.
Democrats, therefore, have around eight months to conclude their investigations, draw up
articles of impeachment, and bring them up for debate and a vote. The holiday season will take a
bite out of that time, so the clock is ticking. The chances of impeachment going before the
Senate before the 2020 Democratic National Convention are slim to none.
These five basic questions, when answered objectively,
determine whether there is any
realistic chance of Trump's enemies removing him from office before the next election
or
this entire
exercise
is,
for Democrats, a
political catastrophe.
The public isn't buying any of this because people are
desensitized after hearing for 3 years that Trump will be gone in
days, the walls are closing in, etc. 3 years of that **** and it
was all nonsense. Remember how every Friday was going to be the
day that Mueller dropped the dime on Trump? You can't do that for
years and expect people to have any ***** left to give. That
shipped has sailed.
I want to know about
Burisma
. It is at the heart of the
matter.
I want a timeline of their recent activities, board of
directors etc. Why was their money seized in London? Who
released it and why? Who asked Biden to join the board and why?
Both Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky have said the impeachment
tactic a a major mistake. Chomsky says the Dems have not discussed
jobs, economy, etc even once. They have only satisfied their own
shallow egos by screaming "RussiaGate" "Impeachment" etc.
according to Chomsky.
This latest impeachment effort is as phony as all get out. It is
for show to the Democratic base and it is guaranteed to fail. As
long as Trump is handling the Epstein investigations. Heat from
democrats is going to be completely manageable.
http://quillian.net/blog/an-epstein-deal-is-in-place/
"... To cap it off, on Tuesday we learned that the whistleblower has "a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates" - as revealed by Inspector General Michael Atkinson during a closed-door interview with the House last Friday. ..."
"... take two shots ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... take eight shots ..."
"... Politico ..."
"... Keep reading for an interesting Biden connection ..."
To review; the wheels of impeachment were set in motion after the original whistleblower, a CIA
officer, approached House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's office with second-hand
information (a contact
Schiff lied about
) that Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a
foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election."
One of Schiff's aides then directed the
whistleblower, a registered Democrat, to a
Democratic operative attorney
worked for Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. The CIA officer
then filed a whistleblower complaint on a
recently altered form
which now allows for the submission of second-hand
information.
To cap it off, on Tuesday we learned that the whistleblower has "a
professional relationship
with one of the 2020 candidates" - as revealed by Inspector
General Michael Atkinson during a closed-door interview with the House last Friday.
How visibly shaken are we talking about?
According to a memo written by the first whistleblower on July 26, the day after the
Trump-Zelensky call, the White House official said the call was
"crazy," "frightening" and
"completely lacking in substance related to national security."
Trump "
sought to pressure
the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help
the President's 2020 reelection bid."
"
the President pressured
Mr. Zelenskyy to..."
(
take two shots
)
So let's take a look at the 'pressure' impeachment-hungry Democrats continue
to claim Trump applied:
"I would like you to
do us a favor
though because
our country
has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it
.
I would like you to
find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine,
they say
Crowdstrike
...
I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say
Ukraine has it There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation I think you're
surrounding yourself with some of the same people.
I would like to have the Attorney
General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it
. As
you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert
Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine.
Whatever
you can do,
it's very important that you do it if that's possible
.
"
The transcript makes clear no such pressure was applied, while Zelensky himself publicly stated
that "
nobody
pushed me
" to investigate matters requested by the Trump administration and Rudy Giuliani.
Democrats have also claimed that nearly $400 million in US military aid was paused in order to use
as leverage to kick start an investigation, however that theory has been relegated to at least the
side-burner after it emerged that
Zelensky
had no clue
it was being withheld at the time of the call.
Whatever the case, Democrats appear to be following the original script - as though Trump never
released the transcript and all we know comes from
inaccurate reporting first peddled
through MSM outlets
.
For example - the
Washington
Post
's original reporting from September 18th, when the whistleblower story broke:
"Trump's interaction with the foreign leader
included a "promise"
"
"President Trump in a July phone call
repeatedly pressured
the
president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden's son, according to people familiar with the
matter, urging Volodymyr Zelensky
about eight times
to work with Rudy
Giuliani"
(
take eight shots
)
Yet, with the record having been set straight by both the transcript and Zelensky, and the CIA
whistleblower's credibility in tatters, Democrats appear to have passed the point of no return -
with a few realizing that the GOP-controlled Senate could flip the impeachment effort on Democrats
by
airing the Bidens' dirty laundry
along with other 'matters' in a very public
trial going into the 2020 election.
Conspiracies everywhere
After Robert Mueller and the FBI took more than three years to prove an actual "conspiracy
theory" that Trump was 'colluding' with Russia,
the
Times
describes documented Ukrainian
election meddling in 2016 as just that -
writing that the whistleblower "detailed key
aspects of the [Trump-Zelensky] conversation, including Mr. Trump's request for investigations into
former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, and a
conspiracy
theory
about Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election.
"
(
take a shot
)
As a matter of fact,
a DNC operative
did
coordinate with Ukrainians to meddle
in the 2016 election to benefit Hillary Clinton,
as has been by now
widely
reported
. Veteran Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa
worked directly with the
Ukrainian Embassy
in the United States,
along with investigative reporter Michael
Isikoff,
to target Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort according to
Politico
.
"
They were coordinating an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with
Alexandra Chalupa
," said Andrii Telizhenko, who worked in the embassy at the time,
adding "the embassy
worked very closely
with" Chalupa.
"If we can get enough information on Paul [Manafort] or Trump's involvement with Russia, she can
get a hearing in Congress by September," Telizhenko recalls Chalupa saying.
Thanks to Chalupa's outreach on behalf of Clinton and the DNC,
Artem Sytnyk
,
Ukraine's Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU - which Joe Biden helped
form) and lawmaker Serhiy Leshchenko
released a "black ledger" containing off-book payments
to Manafort
. In December of 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that Sytnyk and Leshchenko "
acted
illegally
" by releasing Manafort's name, according to the
Kiev
post
(
Keep reading for an interesting Biden connection
).
LOL haha.......American leadership are a bunch of eunuchs! My
god.......our inner cities are basically third world
shitholes.........we've got ****** shaboons slashing patrons
throats in McDonald's and some grown man snowflake is "visibly
shaken" by a goddamn nothing burger of a phone call between
Presidents? Fuk outta here!
It's being reported this week by the AP and others that Energy
Secretary Rick Perry was involved in pressuring Ukrainian
president Zelensky to place hand-picked allies of Trump on the
board of the state gas company, Naftogaz, in order to steer
business to insiders that have given big bucks to Trump and the
Republicans, insiders like Soviet-born businessmen Lev Parnas and
Igor Fruman whose company, Global Energy Producers LLC, made
massive donations to Trump and the Republicans and which stood to
make millions supplying liquid natural gas to Ukraine if allies
placed on the board of Naftogaz could steer business to them. And
Trump's so-called lawyer, Rudy Giuliani was in the middle of this
facilitating the connections at the same time he was helping Trump
pressure the new president to investigate the Bidens and other
matters such as Manafort and CrowdStrike.
It shouldn't come as a
surprise to anyone that Don the Con and his band of thieves were
involved in their own corruption in Ukraine even as they
hypocritically pushed for an investigation into the Bidens. And
although this is mostly the kind of corruption that involves
insiders who made large political donations getting the payoff
they hoped for - which is, unfortunately, perfectly legal - it
wandered into possible criminal territory when it involved
removing from positions of power people seen as obstructions to
this attempt to gorge at the trough. That included the American
ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and members of the
supervisory board of the state gas company, Naftogaz,
who are supposed to help root out corruption. Not if Trumptards
have their way!
And, laughably, Trump is using concern for corruption in the
Ukrainian government as his cover for pushing for an investigation
of the Bidens. And he hopes to get away with it with his usual
barrage of chutzpah and lies . . . and with the help of the
ignorant rubes that support him.
They are alleged hearsay
accusers. And we have the ******* TRANSCRIPT.
We are out of our minds. A person who did not hear the
conversation, who did not read the transcript, is put before us
instead of the transcript itself - and acting like they need
witness protection.
Rudy – For years Obama had a pay for play operation in
his administration and it's disgusting and one of the reasons
they're fighting so hard – If Biden comes out, so does Clinton
come out and about three others. This goes right to the top of
the Obama administration and the administration that says, 'I
didn't have scandals' will be the most scandal ridden
administration in our history. Obama didn't care about
ethics. He didn't care otherwise it wouldn't happen.
Joe – That's right
Rudy – A Vice President should have been stopped from
doing this by a President who had the slightest bit of
integrity. But a Chicago 'pol' like Obama – pay for play eight
times – millions of dollars to your Vice President [Biden] and
hundreds of millions of dollars to your Secretary of State
[Hillary Clinton]. They just bought the offices. Crooks.
USA is made up of largely people who will vote Trump back in 2020,
but because of this Democrats have no ability to control
themselves and so lies, hear say, and just general jackholery will
be their direction. Fine. I am cool with it bitch all you want,
have fun making up lies to make yourselves feel better but most of
the rest of us. We just feel bad for you, its like an emotional
break down of someone you know. It's kinda scary, but at the same
time I am no longer interested in rebuking you for being "off" you
just have to seek help at this point. As for Trump, he's not the
greatest president but the insanity of what's gone on has forced
him to be our choice again because no party is willing to put
forth middle of the ground candidates that appeal to the country
as whole.
Remember this we're all Americans and we're just worried about you
TDS people at this point, you need help. And Trump would be best
to put the entire congress on hiatus as did Boris Johnson until
the next election.
Huey Long - there was a Democrat who at least had a platform.
Ex
post facto logic says he was assassinated because he was a
populist or worse. ********. He was assassinated because he
appealed to the people and was thus a threat.
There was a time Dems in Government stood for something..
In examining the CIA's past and present use of the U.S. media, the
Committee finds two reasons for concern. The first is the
potential, inherent in covert media operations, for manipulating
or incidentally misleading the American public. The second is the
damage to the credibility and independence of a free press which
may be caused by covert relationships with the U.S. journalists
and media organizations.
Sen.Frank Church
Yeah, the whole Biden corruption stuff has been debunked just like the Trump-Putin
conspiracy. But lots of people still believe one debunking or the other. It all depends on
which side of the infowars you find yourself. The facts themselves are too obscure and
byzantine.
And while we're at it, get a handle on what Hunter Biden, Biden's bundler, and the CIA
friendly former president of Poland were all doing on Burisma's board ostensibly with no
knowledge of it all from Obama's point man on Ukraine--Joe Biden.
'Why do the CIA assassins and coup-plotters love this "whistleblower"?'
" Ninety former national security officials under the Obama and Bush administrations -- and
three who served for a period under Donald Trump -- have signed an "Open Letter to the American
People" defending the CIA officer, as yet unidentified, whose whistleblower complaint has
become the basis for the House of Representatives opening an impeachment inquiry into the
president.
The signers "applaud the whistleblower not only for living up to that responsibility but
also for using precisely the channels made available by federal law for raising such
concerns."
They further claim, "A responsible whistleblower makes all Americans safer by ensuring that
serious wrongdoing can be investigated and addressed What's more, being a responsible
whistleblower means that, by law, one is protected from certain egregious forms of
retaliation."
They draw the conclusion that the anti-Trump whistleblower's identity must be protected at
all costs, writing that "he or she has done what our law demands; now he or she deserves our
protection."
This professed defense of whistleblowing as a critical function of democracy would be more
convincing if it did not come from high officials in the administration that prosecuted more
leakers and whistleblowers than all previous US administrations combined.
The signers include former CIA directors John Brennan, Michael Hayden and Michael Morell,
former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ,
former Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy, former Undersecretary of State for Political
Affairs Wendy Sherman (Obama's point-woman on Ukraine). Bush administration officials who
signed the letter include Matthew G. Olsen, former head of the Justice Department's National
Security Division, and Paul Rosenzweig, former deputy assistant secretary for policy,
Department of Homeland Security. Among the former Trump aides who signed is Andrea
Kendall-Taylor, former deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the
National Security Council.
These officials had a much different attitude toward genuine American whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and John Kiriakou, who exposed crimes of US imperialism.
Manning supplied WikiLeaks with Pentagon files documenting US war crimes in Iraq and
Afghanistan as well as State Department cables showing US conspiracies against governments
around the world. Snowden brought to light NSA spying on the entire world. Kiriakou exposed CIA
torture in secret overseas prisons during the "war on terror."
None of these genuine whistleblowers received any form of protection. On the contrary, they
were rebuffed in their efforts to expose atrocities by the US military-intelligence apparatus
and felt compelled to release the information to the public. For their courageous actions, they
have been brutally persecuted." [snip]
"In a recent commentary in Consortium News , Kiriakou noted the contrast between his
own treatment and that accorded the "whistleblower" in the Ukraine case. He wrote, "If he's a
whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president, then his career
is probably over. Intelligence agencies only pay lip service to whistleblowing." [snip]
"In other words, the former CIA agent suggests, the entire "whistleblower" complaint against
Trump is likely an operation directed by higher-level officials at the agency.
Similar questions are raised in a remarkable
article posted Monday on the website of Rolling Stone magazine, written by its main
political writer Matt Taibbi."
And if you haven't seen it already:
"Meet the Press" anchor Chuck Todd grills senator: "You don't trust the FBI and CIA?", Barry
Grey, wsws.org
And of course Grey speaks to the irony and hypocrisy afoot with Senators Ron Johnson and
Chris Murphy as well:
"When Johnson evaded Todd's questions concerning Trump's bullying of Ukraine to advance his
personal electoral chances, and instead repeatedly raised the Clinton campaign's collaboration
with Ukrainian officials against Trump, Todd exclaimed as though in exasperated disbelief:
" Do you not trust the FBI? You don't trust the CIA? "
Johnson replied, "Absolutely not," to which Todd responded incredulously, "You don't trust
any of those agencies?" [snip]
"The Democrats and their media chorus present what was rightly known as America's "Murder,
Incorporated," along with its domestic counterpart, the FBI, as pillars of "democracy,"
improbable as this would seem to anyone familiar with the criminal history of these
organizations. They evidently believe that the public is infinitely gullible and suffering from
collective memory loss.
These, after all, are the organizations that justified the war in Iraq on the basis of the
Big Lie of "weapons of mass destruction." They created the fraudulent narrative of the "war on
terror" to justify aggressive wars in Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Africa that killed
millions and destroyed entire societies . Meanwhile, in Libya and Syria, they funded and
collaborated with Al Qaeda-linked terrorist militias in wars for regime-change.
The CIA has engineered coups and installed military dictatorships and far-right regimes all
over the world. It would take many volumes to detail all of the lies and crimes of these
pillars of the "deep state" against the people of the United States and the entire world."
[snip]
"Todd's next guest was Senator Chris Murphy (Democrat from Connecticut), who co-sponsored
with Johnson the bill to provide more arms to Kiev. Murphy repeatedly attacked Johnson for a
lack of "patriotism."
The final guest was John Brennan -- now a senior national security and intelligence analyst
for NBC -- whom Todd presented as a national hero unjustly slandered and victimized by Trump
and his political allies. Introducing the 25-year veteran of the CIA, who served as deputy
executive director under George W. Bush and director under Barack Obama, Todd asked: "And how
would you explain to somebody, you have been completely character assassinated and eviscerated
Do you understand how you got here?"
Brennan replied that he has indeed been "pilloried as an example of the deep state." To
which Todd exclaimed indignantly: "Well, at this point, it's a campaign to destroy the
credibility of the intelligence community. Even now, Senator Johnson would not affirm that he
trusted the CIA and FBI right now. What does that say about those two agencies right now and
their ability to conduct the work of protecting America?"
Brennan took the opportunity provided by Todd to denounce the "disinformation" that is
"inundating the airwaves," singling out "social media platforms," with the implication that
media sources that do not disseminate the CIA line should be shut down or censored. "
Grey finishes with a brief resumé of Brennan's fascistic Imperial crimes.
"This entire country should be scared that at a moment when we need patriots, what we are
getting is blind partisan loyalty." pic.twitter.com/Fvq2OAriKo
'We Absolutely Could Not Do That': When Seeking Foreign
Help Was Out of the Question https://nyti.ms/30Lkzni
NYT - Peter Baker - October 6
WASHINGTON -- One day in October 1992, four Republican congressmen showed up in the Oval
Office with an audacious recommendation. President George Bush was losing his re-election
race, and they told him the only way to win was to hammer his challenger Bill Clinton's
patriotism for protesting the Vietnam War while in London and visiting Moscow as a young
man.
Mr. Bush was largely on board with that approach. But what came next crossed the line, as
far as he and his team were concerned. "They wanted us to contact the Russians or the British
to seek information on Bill Clinton's trip to Moscow," James A. Baker III, Mr. Bush's White
House chief of staff, wrote in a memo (*) later that day. "I said we absolutely could not do
that."
President Trump insists he and his attorney general did nothing wrong by seeking damaging
information about his domestic opponents from Ukraine, Australia, Italy and Britain or by
publicly calling on China to investigate his most prominent Democratic challenger. But for
every other White House in the modern era, Republican and Democratic, the idea of enlisting
help from foreign powers for political advantage was seen as unwise and politically
dangerous, if not unprincipled.
A survey of 10 former White House chiefs of staff under Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bush,
Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama found that none recalled any circumstance under
which the White House had solicited or accepted political help from other countries, and all
said they would have considered the very idea out of bounds.
"I served three presidents in the White House and don't remember even hearing any
speculation to consider asking for such action," said Andrew H. Card Jr., who ran the younger
Mr. Bush's White House and was the longest-serving chief of staff in the last six
decades.
William M. Daley, who served as commerce secretary under Mr. Clinton and chief of staff
under Mr. Obama, said if someone had even proposed such an action, he probably would
"recommend the person be escorted out of" the White House, then fired and reported to ethics
officials.
Other chiefs were just as definitive. "Did not happen on Reagan's watch. Would not have
happened on Reagan's watch," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, his last chief of staff. "I would
have shut him down," said Leon E. Panetta, who served as Mr. Clinton's chief of staff and Mr.
Obama's defense secretary.
The sense of incredulity among White House veterans in recent days crossed party and
ideological lines. "This is unprecedented," said Samuel K. Skinner, who preceded Mr. Baker as
chief of staff under Mr. Bush. Other chiefs who said they never encountered such a situation
included Thomas F. McLarty III and John D. Podesta (Clinton) and Rahm Emanuel, Denis R.
McDonough and Jacob J. Lew (Obama).
History has shown that foreign affairs can be treacherous for presidents, even just the
suspicion of mixing politics with the national interest. As a candidate in 1968, Richard M.
Nixon sought to forestall a Vietnam peace deal by President Lyndon B. Johnson just before the
election.
Associates of Mr. Reagan were accused of trying to delay the release of hostages by Iran
when he was a candidate in 1980 for fear that it would aid President Jimmy Carter, but a
bipartisan House investigation concluded that there was no merit to the charge. Mr. Clinton
faced months of investigation over 1996 campaign contributions from Chinese interests tied to
the Beijing government.
In none of those cases did an incumbent president personally apply pressure to foreign
powers to damage political opponents. Mr. Trump pressed Ukraine's president this summer to
investigate involvement with Democrats in 2016 and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
while holding up $391 million in American aid. Mr. Trump has said he was simply investigating
corruption, not trying to benefit himself.
"The right way to look at it is the vice president was selling our country out," Rudolph
W. Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, said in an interview on Sunday. Mr. Trump was
fulfilling his duty, he said. "I don't see what the president did wrong."
Mr. Giuliani has been leading Mr. Trump's efforts to dig up evidence of corruption by the
Democrats in Ukraine, meeting with various officials and negotiating a commitment by the
newly installed government in Kiev to investigate conspiracy theories about Ukrainian
involvement in the 2016 election and supposed conflicts of interest by Mr. Biden.
Told that past White House chiefs of staff said any legitimate allegations should be
handled by the Justice Department, not the president, Mr. Giuliani said: "That's if you can
trust the Justice Department. My witnesses don't trust the Justice Department, and they don't
trust the F.B.I." He added that he would not have either until Attorney General William P.
Barr took over.
Mr. Barr has contacted foreign officials for help in investigating the origin of the
special counsel investigation by Robert S. Mueller III into Russian interference and ties
with Mr. Trump's campaign, part of an effort to prove that the whole matter was a "hoax," as
the president has insisted.
Mr. Trump defends himself by saying that other presidents have leaned on foreign
governments for help. That is true, but when other presidents have pressured counterparts and
even held up American assistance to coerce cooperation, it has generally been to achieve
certain policy goals -- not to advance the president's personal or political agenda.
As an example, Mr. Trump often cites Mr. Obama, who was overheard telling President Dmitri
Medvedev of Russia in 2012 that he would have more "more flexibility" to negotiate missile
defense after the fall election. While that may be objectionable, it is not the same thing as
asking a foreign government to intervene in an American election.
"They assume everybody's as sleazy and dirty as they are, which is not the case," Mr.
Emanuel said.
Mr. Trump points to Mr. Biden, arguing that the former vice president was the one who
abused his power by threatening to withhold $1 billion in American aid to Ukraine unless it
fired its prosecutor general.
Mr. Biden's son Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company,
earning $50,000 a month. The company's oligarch owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, had been a subject
of cases overseen by the prosecutor, and so Mr. Trump contends that Mr. Biden sought the
prosecutor's ouster to benefit his son.
As a matter of appearances, at least, the former vice president's family left him open to
suspicion. Even some of his defenders say it was unseemly for Hunter Biden to seemingly trade
on his family name. The elder Mr. Biden has said he never discussed his son's business
dealings in Ukraine with him, but some Democrats suggest he should have if only to prevent
just such a situation from arising.
For all of that, however, no evidence has emerged that Mr. Biden moved to push out the
prosecutor to benefit his son. No memo or text message has become public linking the two.
None of the American officials who were involved at the time have come forward alleging any
connection. No whistle-blower has filed a complaint.
In pressing for the prosecutor's ouster, Mr. Biden was carrying out Mr. Obama's policy as
developed by his national security team and coordinated with European allies and the
International Monetary Fund, all of which considered the Ukrainian prosecutor to be
deliberately overlooking corruption.
Indeed, at the time Mr. Biden acted, there was no public evidence that the prosecutor's
office was actively pursuing investigations of Burisma, although Mr. Zlochevsky's allies say
the prosecutor continued to use the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from the
oligarch and his team.
The 1992 episode involving Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker provides an intriguing case study in the
way previous administrations have viewed seeking political help overseas. At the time, Mr.
Bush was trailing in the polls and eager for any weapon to turn things around.
Representatives Robert K. Dornan, Duncan Hunter and Duke Cunningham of California and Sam
Johnson of Texas urged the president to ask Russia and Britain for help.
Mr. Dornan, reached last week, said Mr. Baker offered no objections during the meeting.
"Baker sat there in the Oval Office like a bump on a log," he recalled. "He said nothing." If
Mr. Baker advised Mr. Bush not to reach out to foreign governments, then he did so after the
congressmen had left, Mr. Dornan said.
Mr. Dornan said that was a mistake and that Mr. Bush should have done as Mr. Trump has.
"The bottom line from me was, 'If you don't do this, Mr. President, leader of the free world,
you will lose,'" Mr. Dornan said. "And he didn't do it and he lost. Baker cost Bush that
second term."
As it was, Mr. Baker and some of his aides got in trouble anyway because State Department
employees searched Mr. Clinton's passport file to determine whether he had ever tried to
renounce his American citizenship. They found no such evidence, but an independent counsel
was appointed to investigate whether the search violated any laws.
The attorney general who requested the investigation? Mr. Barr, in his first tour running
the Justice Department. The independent counsel who was appointed? Joseph diGenova, a lawyer
now helping Mr. Giuliani look for information in Ukraine. In the passport case, Mr. diGenova
concluded that no laws had been broken and that he should never have been appointed in first
place.
As for seeking help from Russia and Britain, Mr. Baker declined to comment last week, but
his peers said he did exactly as they would have. "It would have been ludicrous at that stage
to do anything," Mr. Skinner said. "Baker's decision was obviously the right one."
* Read the 1992 Memo President George Bush's Team
Sent About Seeking Foreign Help to Beat Bill Clinton
When Republican congressmen suggested Mr. Bush reach out to Russia or Britain for
information that could help him win his re-election race against Bill Clinton, James A. Baker
III, then the White House chief of staff, wrote this memo.
This is pretty superficial: Ukraine is vassal state dully controlled by Washington (kind of
Puerto Rico); what foreign influence we are talking about ?
Peter Baker just repeats Clinton camp talking points.
Ukrainian security establishment and probably large part of Ukrainian Congress (Rada) is
probably fully controlled by CIA.
So anything Ukrainian side was doing to interfere with the US election has to be ordered
from Washington, DC (which was done by "Obama regime", who wanted dirt of Trump team)
The CIA
officer who contacted the IG on Trump will never be trusted internally again. The view in Langley will be, "If he's willing to rat out
the president of the United States, he'd be willing to rat out all of us."
Notable quotes:
"... If he's a whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president, then his career is probably over. ..."
From a former CIA whistleblower: "If he's a whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president,
then his career is probably over. Intelligence agencies only pay lip service to whistleblowing. A potential whistleblower
is supposed to go through the chain of command as the current whistleblower did...
So even if he is a legitimate whistleblower, the CIA officer who contacted the IG on Trump will never be trusted internally
again. The view in Langley will be, "If he's willing to rat out the president of the United States, he'd be willing to rat out
all of us." https://consortiumnews.com/2019/09/30/john-kiriakou-what-was-this-cia-officer-thinking/
Strange, very strange and suspicious, too, particularly since Mike Morrell, former head of the CIA, helped start the campaign
against Trump?
Do we really want spooks meddling in domestic politics?
The difference in my mind is that in 'Russiagate' the evidence was a frame up to get Trump
impeached. The 'evidence' in this particular case seems more in what I assume almost every
political entity from the local school board on up in trying to dig up dirt on the
opposition. He does not appear to be asking anyone to 'fix' the evidence.
The 'whistleblower' feels to tale be more in the 'tattletale' category than someone at real
risk for their job and safety.
A CIA employee who lodged a whistleblower complaint over President Trump's request that Ukraine
investigate former Vice President Joe Biden
has a "professional relationship with one of
the 2020 candidates,"
according to the
Washington
Examiner
's
Byron York - citing a source familiar with last Friday's impeachment inquiry
interview with Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
Now we know why House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) won't release the
transcript...
"
The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship
with one of the Democratic candidates
," said York's source.
"What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered
Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential
candidate," said a
third
person with knowledge of the testimony.
All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the
whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship
between the two was.
In the Aug. 26 letter, Atkinson said that even though there was evidence of possible bias on
the whistleblower's part, "
such evidence did not change my determination that the
complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible,' particularly given the other
information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review
."
Democrats are certain to take that position when Republicans allege that the
whistleblower acted out of bias
. Indeed, the transcript of
Trump's
July 25 call
with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a public document, for all to
see. One can read it regardless of the whistleblower's purported bias. -
Washington
Examiner
In short, a registered Democrat on the CIA payroll went to Adam Schiff's committee, who referred
him to a Democratic operative attorney, who helped him file a whistleblower complaint on a form
which
was altered to allow second-hand information
.
Update:
Former State Department official Peter Van Buren told
Tucker
Carlson
on Monday that
the second 'whistleblower' is simply the the source for the
original 'second-hand' complaint.
(h/t Gateway Pundit)
"... "much of this Volume's analysis is derived from" ..."
"... "Russian troll farm" ..."
"... "Intelligence Community Assessment," ..."
"... "Strategic Communications Center of Excellence." ..."
"... "a cybersecurity company dedicated to protecting the public sphere from disinformation attacks." ..."
"... "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet." ..."
"... "Russian" ..."
"... "significantly informed the Committee's understanding of Russia's social media-predicated attack against our democracy," ..."
"... Ever since Hillary Clinton blamed "Russian hackers" ..."
There is a
reason for that. By the committee's own admission,
"much of this Volume's analysis is derived
from"
the work of two Technical Advisory Groups (TAG), which produced two public reports back in
December 2018, to the same kind of fawning press coverage the report is receiving now.
NEW: The Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S.
elections involved using social media content to mostly target African-Americans, a new
Senate committee report concludes.
https://t.co/7BRUmiG18T
Not surprisingly, the report's
"findings"
are being cited as conclusive proof that
Democrats were right and President Donald Trump was wrong about 2016, Russia, Ukraine and the US
presidential election.
The Senate Intelligence Committee unveiled a sweeping new bipartisan
report showing Russian efforts to boost Trump's White House bid on social media during the
2016 U.S. election
https://t.co/TUjUhBdMnc
The only trouble with that is that the committee provides no actual evidence for any of its claims
– only assertions. For example, their description of the Internet Research Agency – the
"Russian
troll farm"
– is basically copied over from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's indictment of a
dozen of its alleged members. Yet a federal judge presiding over the case ruled back in May that
allegations cannot be treated as established evidence or conclusion, coming close to finding Mueller's
prosecutors in contempt.
Another document presented as evidence is the January 2017
"Intelligence Community Assessment,"
the disingenuously named work of a small group of people, hand-picked by the Obama administration's
DNI and chiefs of the CIA, FBI and NSA – all of whom, except for the NSA, have since been implicated
in what seems to be a campaign to spy on Trump, delegitimize his presidency, and have him impeached.
The Senate report also quotes testimonies from Obama aides such as Ben Rhodes – helpfully redacted
of course – Gen. Philip Breedlove, the NATO commander who tried to set off a war with Russia;
professional
"Russian bot"
hunters like Clint Watts and Thomas Rid; and NATO's
"Strategic
Communications Center of Excellence."
The best part, however, has to be the reliance on New Knowledge, presented as
"a cybersecurity
company dedicated to protecting the public sphere from disinformation attacks."
In reality, New
Knowledge was exposed by the New York Times as the outfit that actually ran bots and disinformation
operations during the 2017 Alabama special election for the US Senate, targeting Republican candidate
Roy Moore on behalf of Democrats – while blaming Russia!
In an internal memo, New Knowledge executives boasted how they
"orchestrated an elaborate 'false
flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a
Russian botnet."
The other TAG, led by British academics and researchers, found that the
activity of 'Russian trolls' increased after the election – by 238 percent on Instagram, 59 percent on
Facebook, 52 percent on Twitter, and 84 percent on YouTube. So it was influencing elections
retroactively?
Left unsaid was that the absolute quantity of
"Russian"
posts was minuscule, a proverbial
drop in the bucket compared to the billions of social media posts generated and consumed by the US
electorate during the campaign.
These are the people who
"significantly informed the Committee's understanding of Russia's
social media-predicated attack against our democracy,"
as this week's report puts it.
Ever since Hillary Clinton blamed
"Russian hackers"
for the revelations of corruption
within the DNC in July 2016, the Washington establishment has been eager to blame Moscow for all the
ills of the US political system, real or imagined. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report seems to
be nothing more than an attempt to reheat the long-cold corpse of a conspiracy that should have been
buried with the Mueller Report and allowed to rest in peace.
"The president is dropping by the city on Thursday for one of his periodic angry
wank-fests at the Target Center, which is the venue in which this event will be inflicted
upon the Twin Cities. (And, just as an aside, given the events of the past 10 days, this one
should be a doozy.) Other Minneapolis folk are planning an extensive unwelcoming party
outside the arena, which necessarily would require increased security, which is expensive.
So, realizing that it was dealing with a notorious deadbeat -- in keeping with his customary
business plan, El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago has stiffed 10 cities this year for bills relating
to security costs that total almost a million bucks -- the company that provides the security
for the Target Center wants the president*'s campaign to shell out more than $500,000.
This has sent the president* into a Twitter tantrum against Frey, who seems not to be that
impressed by it. Right from when the visit was announced, Frey has been jabbing at the
president*'s ego. From the Star-Tribune:
"Our entire city will stand not behind the President, but behind the communities and
people who continue to make our city -- and this country -- great," Frey said. "While there
is no legal mechanism to prevent the president from visiting, his message of hatred will
never be welcome in Minneapolis."
It is a mayor's lot to deal with out-of-state troublemakers. Always has been."
This is not about Trump. This is not even about Ukraine and/or foreign powers influence on
the US election (of which Israel, UK, and Saudi are three primary examples; in this
particular order.)
Russiagate 2.0 (aka Ukrainegate) is the case, textbook example if you wish, of how the
neoliberal elite manipulates the MSM and the narrative for purposes of misdirecting attention
and perception of their true intentions and objectives -- distracting the electorate from
real issues.
An excellent observation by JohnH (October 01, 2019 at 01:47 PM )
"It all depends on which side of the Infowars you find yourself. The facts themselves are
too obscure and byzantine."
There are two competing narratives here:
1. NARRATIVE 1: CIA swamp scum tried to re-launch Russiagate as Russiagate 2.0. This is
CIA coup d'état aided and abetted by CIA-democrats like Pelosi and Schiff. Treason, as
Trump aptly said. This is narrative shared by "anti-Deep Staters" who sometimes are nicknamed
"Trumptards". Please note that the latter derogatory nickname is factually incorrect:
supporters of this narrative often do not support Trump. They just oppose machinations of the
Deep State. And/or neoliberalism personified by Clinton camp, with its rampant
corruption.
2. NARRATIVE 2: Trump tried to derail his opponent using his influence of foreign state
President (via military aid) as leverage and should be impeached for this and previous
crimes. ("Full of Schiff" commenters narrative, neoliberal democrats, or demorats.)
Supporters of this category usually bought Russiagate 1.0 narrative line, hook and sinker.
Some of them are brainwashed, but mostly simply ignorant neoliberal lemmings without even
basic political education.
In any case, while Russiagate 2.0 is probably another World Wrestling Federation style
fight, I think "anti-Deep-staters" are much closer to the truth.
What is missing here is the real problem: the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA (and
elsewhere).
So this circus serves an important purpose (intentionally or unintentionally) -- to disrupt
voters from the problems that are really burning, and are equal to a slow-progressing cancer in the
US society.
And implicitly derail Warren (being a weak politician she does not understand that, and
jumped into Ukrainegate bandwagon )
I am not that competent here, so I will just mention some obvious symptoms:
Loss of legitimacy of the ruling neoliberal elite (which demonstrated itself in 2016
with election of Trump);
Desperation of many working Americans with sliding standard of living; loss of meaningful
jobs due to offshoring of manufacturing and automation (which demonstrated itself in opioids
abuse epidemics; similar to epidemics of alcoholism in the USSR before its dissolution.
Loss of previously available freedoms. Loss of "free press" replaced by the neoliberal
echo chamber in major MSM. The uncontrolled and brutal rule of financial oligarchy and allied
with the intelligence agencies as the third rail of US politics (plus the conversion of the
state after 9/11 into national security state);
Coming within this century end of the "Petroleum Age" and the global crisis that it can
entail;
Rampant militarism, tremendous waist of resources on the arms race, and overstretched
efforts to maintain and expand global, controlled from Washington, neoliberal empire. Efforts
that since 1991 were a primary focus of unhinged after 1991 neocon faction US elite who
totally controls foreign policy establishment ("full-spectrum dominance). They are stealing money from
working people to fund an imperial project, and as part of neoliberal redistribution of wealth up
Most of the commenters here live a comfortable life in the financially secured retirement,
and, as such, are mostly satisfied with the status quo. And almost completely isolated from
the level of financial insecurity of most common Americans (healthcare racket might be the
only exception).
And re-posting of articles which confirm your own worldview (echo chamber posting) is nice
entertainment, I think ;-)
Some of those posters actually sometimes manage to find really valuable info. For which I
am thankful. In other cases, when we have a deluge of abhorrent neoliberal propaganda
postings (the specialty of Fred C. Dobbs) which often generate really insightful comments from the
members of the "anti-Deep State" camp.
Still it would be beneficial if the flow of neoliberal spam is slightly curtailed.
Trump solicited a campaign contribution from a foreign power and withheld congressionally
approved military aid in an act of extortion. The transcript is 7 freaking pages. If you are
okay with this you are a traitor.
Further, last night he did what Putin wanted him to do in respect to Syria and Kurdistan -
and this will like result in our ally being annihilated. If you are okay with this you are a
traitor.
You just do not understand the reality basking in your delusional neoliberal Grand
Myth.
Ukraine is not a sovereign state. At least since 2014. It is a a vassal state totally (I
mean totally) controlled from Washington, DC. Including country security services. Kind of
Puerto Rico.
"... My belief is that many things are classified for the benefit of the IC Community. The guy from Judicial Watch said as much. ..."
"... In fact, I would not be at all surprised if Shokin were investigating Burisma Holdings simply to shake down the owners. That's just business in Ukraine. Things have only gotten worse since the 2014 coup. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to hire a cokehead failson like Hunter Biden for a $600K a year no-show job, except for the political cover he provides. ..."
"... And when Shokin was fired - his replacement was just as corrupt, but the replacement left Burisma Holdings alone. The Ukrainians got the message. And as soon as that happened, Joe Biden suddenly stopped caring about corruption in Ukraine. In other words, the political cover (the "krysha" as they call it there) worked exactly the way it was supposed to work. ..."
"... For that matter, Trump doesn't care about corruption in Ukraine, either. Anyone who thinks otherwise should not buy bridges. The only thing Trump cared about was getting the Ukrainians to provide him with a stick to beat his political opponents with. ..."
"... The consideration for Ukrainian assistance was more weapons to use to sell surreptitiously or to butcher the civilians on Donbass with. And Zelensky sounded like he was auditioning to be Trump's prison bride. ..."
"... The difference in my mind is that in 'Russiagate' the evidence was a frame up to get Trump impeached. The 'evidence' in this particular case seems more in what I assume almost every political entity from the local school board on up in trying to dig up dirt on the opposition. He does not appear to be asking anyone to 'fix' the evidence. ..."
"A second whistleblower is now considering filing a complaint about President Donald Trump's
conduct regarding Ukraine, the New York
Times reported Friday.
This whistleblower has "more direct information about the events than the first
whistle-blower," according to the Times. It's a claim that, if true, could bolster the
credibility of the initial complaint that triggered the Democrats' impeachment inquiry into
whether Trump solicited election interference from Ukraine.
The first whistleblower's complaint, which was released in redacted
form to the public in late September , alleged that on a July 25 phone call Trump pressured
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to push for investigations into potential 2020 rival Joe
Biden." Vox
------------
The lawyer representing this person states that he has "multiple whistleblowers" as clients.
Ah! How clever! Are all these public spirited citizens career employees of the CIA? Little
birds still twittering in the trees in my back garden tell me they are. This sounds like a CIA
conspiracy designed to force Trump from office. The WH and NSC staffs are peopled by some
political appointees and a horde of career people detailed from various departments of the
Executive Branch; CIA, Defense, State, Justice , Treasury, etc. The lending agency selects the
people who are lent. The opportunity for someone like Brennan who still has a lot of faithful
followers at CIA to plant a group of informants and operatives in Trump's WH has been evident
and remains so.
My instincts and the application of Occam's Razor lead me to the conclusion that there is an
"operations room" somewhere that is coordinating the efforts to remove Trump from office in
what does amount to a "soft coup d'etat." A fair minded person looking back over Trump's term
will see that the attempts to undermine and bring him down began the day after his inauguration
and have continued ever since in wave after wave of accusations and press induced frenzies.
This cannot be accidental and it will continue through his second term if he has one. Trump is
leader of a counter-revolution of the Deplorables. From the point of view of the Globalist Left
Trump must be removed and prevented from doing things like packing the federal judiciary with
pro-Deplorable judges. Stay tuned. PL
I have no connections with the CIA and I considered Trump to be incompetent ever since he
came down that escalator and continued downhill. I would think that many in the government
would agree with me and would have more firsthand knowledge of his misdeeds. So, it is
probably more of a consensus than conspiracy at hand.
Many see the income inequality as a big problem and unsustainable. We don't want the
historical remedies, which were the French and Russian revolutions. The good news is that
there are important discussions about it...
Unlike you I know a great deal about CIA. I have two medals from them for assistig their
overseas ops in specific cases. The fact that you are sympathetic to their campaign to eject
Trump from office means little. You have always hated Trump.
Do you wish to hold Deplorables accountable for Trump, in what way?
I can excuse Trump a great deal of his unconventional style and behavior for exactly one
reason; he was legitimately elected, according to the Constitution, to the office he
presently holds. This, together with the huge turnouts at his rallies, is evidence that a
sizeable segment of the population does not consider him corrupt and in fact still ardently
believe that he has their best interests at heart. Who am I to disagree?
If the Dems can produce real evidence of corruption then impeachment will be
appropriate. But what we are seeing right now is a plot to use impeachment as the
continuation of democracy by other means - heck Rep. Al Green even said so out loud. The Deep
State wants rid of Trump, but last time I looked, in the absence of High Crimes, it is still
the People who get to make this decision.
A while back our host came up with a brilliant alternative motto for the CIA;
"L'état, c'est nous". It seems clear that elements in the CIA now want to accomplish
regime change domestically. I hope that Trump accomplishes what JFK could not and scatters
them to the winds.
Sir,
Can you kindly tell me what specific crimes were perpetrated by Pres Trump say in comparison
to Pres Bush (starting an illegal war on trumped up charges in Iraq and many others including
use of torture) or by Pres Obama (overlooking the banksters fraud on the American people or
starting the illegal Libya operation). So you are willing to give the above two saints a
pass, and hold Trump for a higher standards, I am wondering what is this higher standard?
By all means, impeach him for high crimes. I don't know what those would be, and neither do
you. The Borg wants him gone because he is a disrupter to the established corrupt status quo
of both parties. I didn't vote for him in '16, but plan to in '20. Tulsi Gabbard is the only
Dem I would consider voting for.
Y'know, Biden isn't really "the candidate" at present, but simply an aspirant. So why is it a
big deal if in a phone call Trump suggests some sort of Douchebaggery on Biden's part was in
play with the deal involving the sinecure for his cokehead son? And furthermore, it seems to
me that Trump would relish having Biden, the eternal weak sister, as his opponent in next
year's election. So, the idea that this is a campaign tactic by Trump, to me just doesn't
pencil out. As for the WH lawn thing? Injudicious maybe, but I'd like to hear a cogent
explanation of why it's a violation of law.
Nancy has the majority in the House. 235 members in her caucus. All she needs is 218 votes
to send the Bill of Impeachment to the Senate for a trial. This charade they are playing by
not having a full House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry is to prevent the minority from
having any voice in the proceedings. This is NOT about high crimes. This is an attempt at
political decapitation. As Democrat Rep. Al Green said - we need to impeach him or else he'll
be re-elected. Nancy and her posse don't want the American electorate from making their
choice if Trump should have a second term.
The big question is if 20 Republican senators will join all the Democrats in convicting
Trump? We know guys like Romney will, who else will join him from the GOP side?
An attack on democracy he claims. Yet he was one of the chief advocates of the Russia
Collusion hysteria wherein the Obama administration used both domestic & foreign
intelligence to ACTUALLY INTERFERE in an election. That was an attack on the very foundation
of our Republic.
Former CIA director John O. Brennan, whose security clearance was revoked by president Trump,
was given six minutes to talk on today's Meet the Press program on the NBC television
network--
"....the attempts to undermine and bring him down began the day after his inauguration and
have continued ever since in wave after wave of accusations and press induced frenzies."
Sir
Other than tweet furiously, my perception is that Trump has not fought back. Considering
the persistence of the putschists, I would have expected him to have been far more ruthless,
aggressive and pointed in taking the battle to the Deep State.
I don't understand what happened to the CIA. It has morphed from "a university gone to war"
to some kind of bizarro globalist socialist anti-American ideals HQ with a neocon twist. Did
that happen under Obama?
Does anyone know when the Dems started investigating Trump? Was it during the campaign? Or
the day after the election? Did they receive help from a British
intel operator? Silly me I've just assumed all of the lead contenders investigate
the competition.
It was never a "university gone to war." The first generation were OSS men from the
elites. The next generation of leaders were former military intelligence enlisted operatives
whom the elites recruited from the services as people who would do the hard work for them.
Want me to name them? The present generation are antifa types who have infiltrated the
system. They are Brennan and Clapper's natural allies. You do remember that Brennan voted for
Gus Hall?
There is no "line" in this case. Trmp is not a threat to the constitution. He has done
nothing to threaten the constitution. You leftists are simply attempting to eject him from
office qlong with your allies in the Deep State and the media, some of them in Fox News.
It's a war of Globalists Vs Nationalism/Populism. And Trump is in the way of the
Globalists who wants their Totalitarian Iron Fist Rule over all humanity.
Trump and Putin both advocate Nationalism Vs Globalist Tyranny.
I keep hearing the talking point 'that everyone, the EU, IMF (and of course God Almighty),
wanted Shokin removed because he was corrupt, that this was not Biden's idea'. Have any of
these elite stepped up and publicly said, 'I wanted Shokin dismissed'? I wish someone in the
MSM would ask Biden how he got the idea to pressure for Shokin's removal, who else did he
discuss this with.
Regarding the Deep State
By that I mean the permanent bureaucracy in our Intelligence Community that believes they
have a right/duty to enforce orthodoxy on neer-do-well elected officials; not a hidden govt.
(IMO they are incapable of governing, they can only destroy). Their main weapon is, surprise, information warfare, selectively leaking partly true info to
a compliant MSM. This is extremely effective. How would a President combat this?
Why doesn't the President use his power of declassification to either release the full
context of the leak or to declassify past operations that the IC would find embarrassing. I
would never, under any circumstances, favor releasing info that would harm the security of
the U.S., especially for political reasons. My belief is that many things are classified for
the benefit of the IC Community. The guy from Judicial Watch said as much.
I claim no special knowledge of the CIA, but Ukraine is a place that I know well.
Everyone in the Ukrainian government is corrupt, from the postman and the fire department
all the way up to the president. Everything there is for sale, everything, everywhere, all
the time.
Of course Shokin, the fired prosecutor, was corrupt. Everyone knows it.
In fact, I would not be at all surprised if Shokin were investigating Burisma Holdings
simply to shake down the owners. That's just business in Ukraine. Things have only gotten
worse since the 2014 coup.
That said, there is no reason to hire a cokehead failson like Hunter Biden for a $600K a
year no-show job, except for the political cover he provides.
And when Shokin was fired - his replacement was just as corrupt, but the replacement left
Burisma Holdings alone. The Ukrainians got the message. And as soon as that happened, Joe
Biden suddenly stopped caring about corruption in Ukraine. In other words, the political
cover (the "krysha" as they call it there) worked exactly the way it was supposed to
work.
For that matter, Trump doesn't care about corruption in Ukraine, either. Anyone who thinks
otherwise should not buy bridges. The only thing Trump cared about was getting the Ukrainians
to provide him with a stick to beat his political opponents with.
The consideration for Ukrainian assistance was more weapons to use to sell surreptitiously
or to butcher the civilians on Donbass with. And Zelensky sounded like he was auditioning to
be Trump's prison bride.
As far as I am concerned, none of the parties come out of this looking good at all.
The difference in my mind is that in 'Russiagate' the evidence was a frame up to get Trump
impeached. The 'evidence' in this particular case seems more in what I assume almost every
political entity from the local school board on up in trying to dig up dirt on the
opposition. He does not appear to be asking anyone to 'fix' the evidence.
The 'whistleblower' feels to tale be more in the 'tattletale' category than someone at real
risk for their job and safety.
Ukraine is not an independent country. It is a de-facto colony of the USA. Trump just ordered
his subordinate (in a very polite ) term to conduct investigation of criminal behaviour of Biden
family.
When the framers of the constitution gave Congress the power to impeach a president, one of
the high crimes they had in mind was acceding to what Alexander Hamilton called "the desire in
foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils". James Madison argued for
impeachment lest a president "might betray his trust to foreign powers".
The second question is whether Trump did this. The answer is also an unqualified yes. In the
published version of his phone conversation with Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy,
Trump asks for the "favor" of digging up dirt on Joe Biden.
Trump is much more than the kid with his hand in the cookie jar, like a brat he smashed the
cookie jar and said "What cookie Jar? Biden did it!"
And the GOP wimps are there, either nodding in agreement, or looking the other way..
Well.. Total Sociopath, then, maybe even a full-on Psychopath.
Anti-social-personality disorders in the highest scale -so to speak- always are there
since childhood. Psychopaths are as such genetically, from birth. Unlike sociopaths.
Sociopaths usually have become as such through things/trauma's experienced in life. Their
initially healthy front-cortex is usually either damaged, or has less influence on their
behaviour. In Psychopaths, the front cortex doesn't function at all it seems, or at
sùch a low level that it can be considered absent. Psychopaths usually have a history
of seriously harming animals, people, insects, around them for fun since childhood.
End-result almost the same, though. Complete and utter lack of empathy, ( though,
Sociopaths often dó have empathy for their direct family/relatives, where Osychopaths
even lack thàt.) stratospherically elevated sense of superiority, prone to
uncontrolled ( sometimes even violent and murderous) tantrums when things do not go as he/she
wants/demands etc... Enjoyment in the suffering of others. No conscience to speak of etc.
The brand value was all he wanted and that has multiplied. It was always win-win.
Heh. I wonder if you underestimate the ruthlessness of the establishment. Once stripped of
the (so far surprisingly robust) protections afforded by elected office I imagine it's more
likely he'll be hounded to his grave pour dencourager les autres than ignored as
merely a spent pol. I doubt they'll observe the decencies of the mafia and leave his family
alone either.
The US is a tinpot republic that ever since the Patriot Act has virtually reduced all
citizens to enemies of a paranoid state, untl proven otherwise.
In a strange sort of way a president like Trump seems like the ideal sort of man to head
such a dysfunctional system (because it reflects how uncivilised it is).
Put another way - even if a piece of political theatre does take place (in the shape of an
impeachment) it is only a matter of time before Trump is replaced by an unequally
unappetising leader who will resume business as usual with powers that really control US
economic and military policy.
all the patriot act did was tell the American people that the government doesn't give a
"hoot" about the US constitution (specifically the 4th amendment). If the American people
wish to trade their freedom for their security, then the constitutionally legal way to do
that is with another amendment effectively repealing the fourth.
In a strange sort of way a president like Trump seems like the ideal sort of man to head
such a dysfunctional system (because it reflects how uncivilised it is).
The American public have been groomed for years, mainly through cutting education budgets, to
accept this kind of president. The pesky internet tends to even things up, but people need to
want to use it. They certainly will when their buying power drops.
Put another way - even if a piece of political theatre does take place (in the shape of
an impeachment) it is only a matter of time before Trump is replaced by an unequally
unappetising leader who will resume business as usual with powers that really control US
economic and military policy.
It goes in a pendulum swing. Bush, Obama, Trump, Someone Else... It's not so much a right
left swing as an Idiot-swing. What the American public want is someone they can admire. Many
people admired Obama but so do many people admire Trump. They're not the same people. What
Obama promised, and delivered, was get the USA out of the shock of 2007-08 and put it back on
its feet again after Bush spent all that money on the Irak war. This keeps everyone happy, as
a large part of the US economy is from consumption. It also keeps a part of industry happy,
as they need to be able to export and import. The public is not happy with a weak dollar, nor
tarifs that both push import prices up. Bush kept the arms industry very happy, for obvious
reasons and Trump's constant tension-building abroad sort of does the same. But it still
comes down to how happy the public is and how much they can or refuse to be manipulated.
They're a bit wiser now.
Newsflash: Politics the world over is a cesspool. History and Ancient history says it has
always been so. Names and places, incidents and scandals are in no short supply to confirm
nothing much has changed in the modern world.
"Politics is a dirty business" is the understatement of all time. While many
politicians are indeed working in the interests of their constituents, many more are not and
political parties have only one interest - themselves.
If you want an indication of how much the table is tilted, witness the recent announcement
that it's ok for politicians to lie when trying to increase their support. If that doesn't
tell us all we need to know - about the links between politics and business, or the
fundamental lack of morals inherent in all politics, of the contempt the public are held in,
I don't know what will.
Yeah but they changed the rules to bypass a vote on an impeachment inquiry specifically to
prevent the accused due process & the ability to challenge the accusations.
In other words they'll vote to impeach after preventing opposing evidence, in this case
the Obama administration meddling in 2016 with the Ukraine's help & the Biden pay for
play operation laughably conducted under the guise of rooting out corruption in
Ukraine.
As grizzled old prosecutor Rudy Giuliani said he learnt early on if you want to find where
the corruption is ignore everything else, follow the money, and it all leads straight to the
Bidens.
That didn't take long. There we have it. The Dems are totally justified conducting a kangaroo
court show trial because 'there is no opposing evidence'.
But then what? Is there any core of decent politicians left to rule the country? Who? The
GOP crooks? The Clinton gang? The Bidens whose son is peddling political influence in corrupt
countries? Peloisi and Schumer who are up to their eyeballs in dirty money from AIPAC and are
savaging the few clean young politicians in their own party ? There's no end to it.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only person running that has the moral authority to run this nation
and the ability to get the required votes in order to win. Doing that is going to extremely
difficult since the media is controlled by the corporations and the corporations don't want
her. Ike warned us about the military industrial complex over 50 years ago and she is the
first candidate to openly challenge its authority since that warning.
We truly have lost all sense today, from the USA to the UK, these two nations have most
certainly lost the plot, I suppose the writing was always on the wall. Most of us are for our
neighbours no matter their class, colour or religion, most of us want a civilised society
where we have the necessities in live, decent wages, health care, education. Services that
protect us. Shame the actual few keep voting against these things, whether that be from their
misery, ignorance or whatever the latest excuse is, those of us who want to return to dignity
and work towards progress must vote the charlatans out.
Western democracy is dying of greed, consumerism and power madness. Xi and Putin can't
believe their dumb luck at how the US and UK are falling apart. People in places like Eastern
Europe, Taiwan, etc., may start wondering whether they should gather winter coats and heavy
shoes and have a talk with their children.
Sleaze, greed, bigotry, and cowardice were common in both parties.
Joe and Hunter Biden Handed Trumps Dual Freebies
Goldberg's column is unusually honest for a Democrat like Goldberg. It includes two
important admissions about Joe and Hunter Biden's poor judgment in dealing with Ukrainian
matters.
As all this was happening, Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board of Burisma Holdings, a
natural gas company that Zlochevsky co-founded, at some points earning $50,000 a month.
Zlochevsky might have thought he could ingratiate himself with the Obama administration by
buying an association with the vice president. All available evidence suggests he was
wrong.
We need to put Hunter Biden's $50,000 per meeting in perspective, he began receiving it in
2014, when the purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita GDP figure for Ukraine was slightly
over $8,500. In a single month, Hunter Biden received fees over six times what a typical
Ukrainian received in a year. Hunter Biden had no relevant expertise to be on the Ukrainian
firm's board of directors. The only disagreement I have with Goldberg's description is her use
of the word "earning" instead of "received." Hunter Biden does not "earn" his money. He makes
money off those who seek to get in good with his dad. The Trump children, of course, have
super-charged this sleaze.
Hunter's one real job miraculously led to his ludicrously rapid promotion to EVP of a major
bank. The bank, of course, was a major contributor to his dad. Hunter's miraculous advancement
to EVP is a typical sleazy payoff to elite politicians' kids. Both parties do it. The sole
reason Zlochevsky hired Hunter was to try to influence favorably his dad and the Obama
administration. This too is typical elite sleaze. Yes, we should remember that Trump's spouse,
children, and their spouses, make Hunter look like a highly competent saint when it comes to
cashing in on their tawdry Trump ties.
Goldberg correctly notes the modest nature of the sleaze in the Bidens' case. There is no
evidence that hiring Hunter Biden ingratiated the Ukrainian firm with the Obama administration.
There is no evidence that hiring Hunter Biden ingratiated the Ukrainian firm with Joe Biden.
Joe Biden's successful effort to fire the corrupt non-prosecutor increased the chances
that the Ukrainian government would sanction the firm. Trump's claim that the fired prosecutor
was an anti-corruption hero investigating Hunter's purported corruption is a double lie.
Trump's attacks on Joe and Hunter Biden are lies. This should not surprise us. First, Trump
always lies. Second, Joe and Hunter Biden's sketchy actions are not crimes or ethical
violations. They may be 'corrupt' in the broad sense of that word in everyday usage, but not in
the legal sense of statutes against corruption. Trump, therefore, has substituted lies for the
nuanced reality.
Sadly, the fact that Trump's attacks on both Bidens are lies does not mean that either acted
at the minimum level of integrity we should demand. Goldberg implicitly admits Joe Biden's
fundamental failure through her effort to excuse it.
It's not hard to imagine why Biden didn't press Hunter. The Biden boys and their father
had been through hell together. Hunter has said his first memory was waking up in the
hospital next to his older brother, Beau, after the car crash that killed their mother and
baby sister. He grew up to be a troubled man, his life pockmarked by addiction and
failure.
Beau died of brain cancer a few months before Biden
traveled to Ukraine to push the government to crack down on corruption. It's not shocking
that, at a moment when his family was consumed by grief, Biden wasn't inclined to confront
his surviving son.
We can agree with Goldberg's sympathy for Joe Biden while recognizing that he displayed
terrible judgment. He put himself in an obvious apparent conflict of interest when he chose to
take the lead in the Obama administration's effort to replace Ukraine's corrupt prosecutor.
Biden volunteered to take that role. There was no need to do so. The Obama administration and
the various European and international organizations that agreed with the need to fire him had
a host of effective leaders with the leverage to get him fired.
Joe Biden's Problems Dealing with Hunter Biden's Demons
The sympathetic accounts stressing Joe Biden's concerns with protecting Hunter Biden miss
three related point. The common denominator is that Joe has acted in a manner sure to harm
Hunter. The first point is the nature of Joe's special concerns about Hunter.
Mr. Biden nearly did not run for president because of the effect it would have on his
family -- and particularly on Hunter Biden and his children, according to multiple advisers
to the former vice president. Hunter Biden has struggled for years with substance addiction
and had recently gone through a very public divorce from his first wife.
As parents and humans, it is easy to sympathize with Hunter and Joe Biden. We also have to
discuss how an immensely powerful father who desperately wishes to be President needs to
address his surviving son's demons. We can start with the fact that Joe had no good answer
available. Sometimes, all the available options range from bad to terrible. Hunter is an
alcoholic. He repeatedly abuses hard drugs. He cheated on the women he professed to love. That
pattern of abuse had a number of obvious, deeply harmful implications. He lied, probably
hundreds of times, to the people who loved him most. That pattern is inherent to abusing
alcohol and drugs and cheating on the women you say you love. The pattern of lies means that no
one close to Hunter could believe him without being repeatedly deceived.
The decades-long pattern of alcoholism and hard drug abuse meant that Hunter was frequently
unable to meet his family and business responsibilities. He washed out of the National Guard
because he continued using drugs even when he knew the Guard would test him for drug use. Yes,
like millions of Americans he 'struggled' with addiction – without success. The odds that
he has put his loved ones' lives in danger by driving or providing child care while impaired
approach certainty. Given the tragic history of the Bidens that began with the fatal car crash,
this must have terrified the entire family. Hunter is not in control of his life. Drugs and
alcohol control his life. He was not loyal to the central member of his family – his
spouse. Joe knew from repeated, bitter experience that he could not rely on Hunter's word,
judgment, restraint, or moral compass.
These facts were essential for Joe to take into account when considering what to do about
Ukrainian events. He knew he could not trust whatever Hunter told him about his Ukrainian
business deal. Again, the key is to understand that Hunter's demons meant that Joe had no good
choices. Even if Joe recused himself from all Ukrainian matters, Hunter was likely to embarrass
him. Joe has stated publicly that he did not discuss Hunter's business involvements with
Hunter, which is a strategy that invites apparent conflicts of interest and scandal. Joe knew
that no company of integrity would put Hunter on its board of directors and pay him $50,000 a
meeting. Hunter had no meaningful expertise, no knowledge of Ukrainian matters, a history of
sketchy hires and promotions by those hoping to buy influence with his politically powerful and
ambitious dad, and a history of screwing up royally.
Hunter, of course, has a Yale law degree and is an adult. He knew better than to take the
Ukrainian position and cash. Throughout his adult life, however, Hunter has been willing to
take advantage of his dad's name and contacts. We can be sympathetic with Hunter's demons, but
we also need to hold him accountable for his record of terrible decisions.
Joe knew that the Ukrainian company hired Hunter for one reason – he was Joe's son.
Joe knew that was a terrible reason to hire Hunter. Joe knew that hiring Hunter indicated that
the Ukrainian firm lacked integrity. Joe chose to take the administration's lead on Ukrainian
events in circumstances he knew created an apparent conflict of interest with Hunter and his
Ukrainian firm. Joe knew that there was no reason why Hunter needed to accept the sketchy
Ukrainian firm's over-the-top largess and no reason why Joe had to take the Obama
administration's lead in implementing its Ukrainian policies.
Joe knew that the apparent conflict of interest would expose Hunter and Joe to attack by
Joe's political enemies – and that Hunter's addictions and record put Joe and Hunter in a
position where they could not effectively fight back. Joe knew Hunter was particularly
vulnerable to political attack and humiliation.
Summing it Up: Both Bidens Gifted Trump Freebies
Joe knew the action he could take that guaranteed venomous partisan attacks on Hunter was
running for president. No one has ever doubted Joe's ambition to be President. What we do not
understand is what Joe's policy passion is. His statement of why he is running cannot be true.
No one rational believes that electing Joe as President would turn Moscow Mitch into a
bipartisan legislator eager to pass Biden's legislative agenda. It is fine to yearn for a
'Kumbaya' bipartisan fantasy world. Even in that fantasy, few of us have any sense what
legislation Biden thinks McConnell would support that Democrats would not find odious.
Joe knew that the Democratic Party was rich in talent. He did not have to run for President
to save the Party or the Nation. Joe knew that he and Hunter had each gifted Trump Ukrainian
freebies. Joe knew that his infamous 'electability' mantra ignored both freebies that Trump was
sure to exploit.
The next to last thing Joe should have done was add to the incentive to attack Hunter by
creating gratuitously an apparent conflict of interest by taking the lead role in firing the
corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor. The absolute last thing Joe should have done if he wanted to
protect Hunter from attack was to run for president. Joe's decision to run made it a certainty
that Trump would concentrate his attacks on Hunter – and Joe's apparent conflict of
interest in gratuitously taking the administration's lead on firing the Ukrainian prosecutor
given Hunter's cashing in on the Ukrainian firm's desire to buy influence. Joe's ambition
trumped Joe's desire to protect Hunter.
Even more bizarre, while it has been clear for months that Trump was setting up to attack
Joe and Hunter Biden's far from excellent Ukrainian adventures, Joe's response to those attacks
has been feeble. Joe's 'electability' trope has died – and Joe is the one that killed it.
If Joe cannot manage an effective response to Trump lies he has known are coming for months,
imagine what will happen in a debate when Trump hits him with unexpected smears. Trump's smears
will be lies, but few believe that Biden will prove agile and tough in counterpunching against
novel Trumpian lies.
It is Impossible to Compete with Trump or the Democrats' Unintentional Self-Parody
We need to step back for a moment and stress the unbelievable chutzpah of Trump
claiming that his passion for ending corruption explains his obscene perversion of the powers
of government to extort other nations to create – not reveal – dirt on his
political opponents. The Trump administration is the most corrupt in U.S. history. Relatives of
the corrupt cabinet members that made the Harding and Grant administrations infamous can
rejoice that their forbearers have become relatively less infamous. Trump is profoundly corrupt
and he loves his fellow corrupt autocrats like Putin. The willingness of Republican enablers to
repeat his corruption excuse for urging other nations to investigate his political opponents is
simply another in the long line of examples proving that they have betrayed America and their
oath of office.
The Obama administration, however, had its own geyser of hypocrisy when it came to the way
it phrased its demands that Ukrainian officials fire their top anti-corruption prosecutor. The
hypocrisy is not that they unjustly insisted that Ukrainian leaders fire the prosecutor.
The evidence is conclusive that the prosecutor was, at best, a coward who refused to prosecute
elite corrupt officials and CEOs. The hypocrisy is that at the same time the Obama
administration was (correctly) pointing out the need to fire prosecutors who refuse to
prosecute the most elite business fraudsters, the Obama administration's top prosecutor was
refusing to prosecute our elite fraudsters.
The key character we should be talking about is Eric Holder, President Obama's Attorney
General. No one has commented on the chutzpah of the Obama administration demanding
Ukraine fire Viktor Shokin, its top prosecutor, for failing to prosecute Ukraine's most elite
criminals that had corrupted the entire system. Goldberg explains:
"Shokin was seen as a single point of failure clogging up the system and blocking
corruption cases," a former official in Barack Obama's administration told me. Vice President
Joe Biden eventually took the lead in calling for Shokin's ouster.
"We weren't pressing Ukraine to get rid of a tough prosecutor, we were pursuing Ukraine to
replace a weak prosecutor who wouldn't do his job," Mr. Biden said.
Mr. Volker in his deposition defended Mr. Biden's work in Ukraine and pointed out that the
prosecutor was corrupt and worked to shield favored people from prosecution, rather than go
after wrongdoers, according to the person familiar with his testimony.
The international effort to remove Shokin, who became prosecutor general in February 2015,
began months before Biden stepped into the spotlight, said Mike Carpenter, who served as a
foreign policy adviser to Biden and a deputy assistant secretary of defense, with a focus on
Ukraine, Russia, Eurasia, the Balkans, and conventional arms control.
As European and U.S. officials pressed Ukraine to clean up Ukraine's corruption, they
focused on Shokin's leadership of the Prosecutor General's Office.
"Shokin played the role of protecting the vested interest in the Ukrainian system," said
Carpenter, who traveled with Biden to Ukraine in 2015. "He never went after any corrupt
individuals at all, never prosecuted any high-profile cases of corruption."
That demonstrated that Poroshenko's administration was not sincere about tackling
corruption and building strong, independent law enforcement agencies, said Heather Conley,
director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a
Washington-based foreign policy think tank.
I have not found any article that points out the obvious hypocrisy of the Obama
administration demanding that a nation's top prosecutor be fired for failing to prosecute the
nation's most powerful, corrupt, and destructive elite financial criminals. The hypocrisy of
Obama praising Holder while demanding Shokin's 'head' was epic. To fix a problem one must first
admit it and resolve to fix it. Instead, Holder and Obama went with the preposterous lie that
there were no fraudulent elite bankers, so they brought no prosecutions of the elite bankers
whose frauds drove the GFC.
President Obama and Vice President Biden ignored that hypocrisy. The media continue to
ignore the hypocrisy. Trump and the Republicans ignore the hypocrisy. We need to emphasize that
in addition to refusing to prosecute elite banksters, the Trump administration has reduced
white-collar prosecutions even below Obama's pathetic record. Worse, Barr and Trump are making
it clear that while their elite contributors can loot with impunity, the Department of Justice
now threatens to prosecute corporations that oppose Trump on obviously pretextual grounds.
If Holder had prosecuted the elite banksters, Trump would have been defeated in the
election. The refusal to prosecute the banksters who gained immense wealth by leading frauds
and predation, along with the massive bank bailout, was a critical contributor to the public
rage that gave Trump his Electoral College victory.
Hillary Clinton's gratuitous decision to enrich herself through secret speeches to two of
the world's most fraudulent banks – Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank – gifted
freebies essential to Trump's election. Clinton advisers repeatedly warned her that the
Republicans would use the secret paid speeches as a mace to attack her. She and Bill Clinton
were, through tens of millions of dollars in speech fees, already wealthy. She had no financial
need to take money from two of the world's most destructive criminal enterprises. Her greed
trumped her ambition, so she ignored her advisers' warnings and did the secret speeches. Those
freebies gifted the election to Trump.
Why, given that bitter failure by the 2016 Democratic candidate who won her Party's
nomination based on her purported 'electability' would Biden gift Trump a freebie? From the
beginning of this campaign, Biden's paramount claim has not been policies, but his purportedly
unique 'electability.' The highly electable do not give the Trumps of the world freebies to
bash them during the election contest. The highly electable do not stare like a deer mesmerized
by a car's headlights when Trump lies about them and their children on a daily basis. They do
not simply counterpunch – they unleash a devastating assault on the lies and smears,
Trump's corruption, and Trump's hypocrisy.
The blowback from Trump is going to be incredible, whether he gets removed or not.
Basically the narrative will be that Democrats got foreign governments help to fuel
opposition research against him in 2016 and then used rumor and hearsay from that research to
wage a two year long investigation that ultimately debunked his culpability.
Now Democrats are impeaching him for trying to get to the bottom of that disinformation
campaign.
Correct or not, Trump thrives on victimization. His supporters will lap it up and be
angry, very angry. Democrats basically shot themselves in the foot by constantly publicizing
'evidence' that could never be substantiated which is why Mueller refused to prosecute. Worse
much of that 'evidence' was probably fabricated by foreign sources.
Sadly this has degenerated into a finger pointing exercise. With Ukraine as corrupt as it
is, Democrats could have bought any fabrications they wanted and now Trump can, too. Finding
the truth will remain a distant mirage.
Correct or not, Trump thrives on victimization. His supporters will lap it up and be
angry, very angry. Democrats basically shot themselves in the foot by constantly publicizing
'evidence' that could never be substantiated
== end ==
This is simply brilliant. IMHO.
For now, he's losing the battle for public opinion.
... ... ...
A 41 percent approval rating is obviously not good. Morning Consult released a
state-by-state poll yesterday showing Trump with net negative approval in Arizona, Iowa,
Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, all of which he won in 2016. He is hovering around the
break-even point in Florida and Georgia.
This story has a long way to go, and much of it will depend on how well Democrats conduct
their impeachment inquiry. Currently, though, things are going quite poorly for Donald
Trump.
Indeed. Among presidents, several indicted (which is what the House does, essentially),
NONE convicted by the Senate. The only prez who resigned might have been convicted, but then
received a pardon. It's an inherently political process. And this time around, it's as if
GOPsters are fighting for the very existence of their party.
The US society is too polarized for David Leonhardt's arguments to hold any value. He just
regurgitated a typical neoliberal camp propaganda.
Which, of course, resonates with True Believers in this camp. But it is not enough.
Biden's criminal extortion can't be denied. He boasted of this racket on a public occasion.
You would ask, why Biden admitted to the crime? First, he is prone to gaffe; second, he
probably considered himself untouchable like Mrs Clinton and other people of her circle.
In 2014 Obamoids removed the legitimate president by using the full spectre of illegal
operations, and Joe Biden became Obama viceroy in the Ukraine. Biden's involvement in the
coup d'état was a "crime against peace", but nobody speaks of that
Ukraine is the second home for CrowdStrike, the cyber-security company that was
instrumental in creating fake Russiagate accusations. People in Kiev say that CrowStrike
honcho Alperovich had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single server
allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in Ukraine, not in Russia.
President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President
Mr. Zelensky.
BTW Alperovich, obsessed with his hatred of Russia, could cook the case of Russian
meddling, but it had to be ordered and utilized by somebody up the feeding chain. It might
well be Joe Biden, or Brennan.
IMHO Ukrainegate is viewed by the majority of people, who try to understand the situation
and not blindly follow MSM propaganda, as another stage of the intelligence agencies' color
revolution against Trump, as Russiagate 2.0.
Be interesting to see what, if anything, China does about trump's request for campaign aid.
"We Had the Quid, Now We Have the Quo
Ukraine has gotten its $400 million in military assistance and its visit to the White
House, where President Zelensky dutifully reported that he had felt no pressure from the
Trump administration to open an investigation into the Biden family. So this, I suppose, is
just an amazing coincidence:
'Ukraine's new chief prosecutor said Friday his office will conduct an "audit" of an
investigation into Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company that had recruited Hunter Biden for its
board.
Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka reiterated at a news conference Friday that he knows
of no evidence of criminal activity by Biden. He said that he is aware of at least 15
investigations that may have touched on Burisma, its owner Nikolai Zlochevsky, an associate
named Serhiy Zerchenko, and Biden, and that all will be reviewed. He said no foreign or
Ukrainian official has been in touch with him to request this audit.'
See? Ryaboshapka has been on vacation on Mars for the past few months and just got back.
And when he did, he immediately turned around to his deputy and said, "Hey, we really need to
audit the investigations of Burisma. It just seems like the right thing to do."
Private prisons, detention centers, Saudi Arabia, Russia, ... these deals were all made
before the election in 2016. Who amongst Trump's circle made them? This is what needs be
brought out.
"... This mess will also have the effect of taking (the now strangely silent) Biden off the 2020 board on the grounds of credibility or even criminality. ..."
"... Sanders and Warren will then, prematurely, have to move up the board one place and move further into the spotlight. That will suit Trump very well, and indirectly, Gabbard. ..."
"... I suspect Gabbard is being held in reserve for the VP slot, since the top slot contenders are all crazy and will need some balance on the ticket. ..."
"... I note that the IGIC ICWPA "Urgent Concern" report form (link below) includes the following on page 2: ..."
"... I also note at the bottom of the form that the last revision date was August this year. Just before 12th August perhaps? Now that second tick box choice looks rather out of place on a whistleblower form to me. I'd be interested in seeing the previous version of the form and finding out who revised it. ..."
"... Why have 2 links, is this the old form? Maybe someone here can confirm what the pre August 2019 report form looked like. If the IGIC get caught gerrymandering their website and reporting processes to cover up this latest attempt to get at Trump we'll should see some real fireworks. ..."
"... Stephen McIntyre (a sometime commentator here on Russiagate) whose Twitter I linked to above has had his investigation of the form doctoring picked up already. He thinks it was done retrospectively to provide justification for the second hand nature of the rumorblower's report. ..."
"... It appears that this is a political act to enable the steady erosion of the administrations' ability to govern effectively for as long as the circus is in town. The gamble is, among others, that the steady drumbeat of the parade of hearings, inquiries and misstatements of fact continuing through the campaign season will: ..."
"... That said, this should be sufficient evidence to warrant the IG's suspension, and investigation by an IG for the IG's office. We shouldn't be holding our breath. ..."
"... Central to the charges made by Democrats is that Trump was "pressuring" Zelensky to investigate Biden. The fact is that there is absolutely no need to investigate Biden. The story he has told out of his own mouth is sufficient in itself. ..."
"... But "Hunter accepting money = embarrassment, but far from crime?" Is the whole mess, beginning with Nuland Kagan, which had to have been directed by H Clinton which had to have been directed by Obama -- embarrassments or crimes? ..."
"... Matthew Vadum points out (totally news to me) that a Clinton era treaty with Ukraine signed in 2000 actually OBLIGATES the US to interfere in Ukraine's system of justice (and vice versa, which should give us all pause). ..."
"... I see this move of Pelosi's as furtherance of the "Ukraine coup" movement, probably triggered more than by constitutional concerns by fears of cutting of military aid to Ukraine and fears of Zelensky's potential for making peace with the Russians. She comes across in this episode as a US intelligence stand-in ..."
"... Long before she was speaker, Ms. Pelosi served as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, overseeing the secretive workings of America's national security apparatus and helping to draft the law that governs how intelligence officials file whistle-blower complaints, and how that information is shared with Congress. ..."
"... You may want to read this, including the linked documents, and rethink your comment: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story ..."
"... Maybe we should have all the Obama & Biden conversations with Poroshenko also released to the public? And while we're at it what about releasing all the conversations that Hillary, Ms. Nuland, John McCain and all those involved with Ukraine had with various parties. ..."
"... Are there any conflict of interest laws in DC? We don't know what the REAL deal between Hunter and Burisma was. On paper what we've seen was he got paid for being a board member at Burisma. That doesn't even pass the laugh test as Hunter's most recent experience was being discharged from the Navy reserve for being a coke head. He had no experience in the natural gas business or corporate strategy or even corporate governance in the US let alone in Ukraine. What was the real quid pro quo here? ..."
"... Then there is the deal with the Chinese who invested $1.5 billion in a private equity fund launched by Hunter and John Kerry's stepson. That too smells since neither of them had any experience running any pool of capital nor having worked at a PE firm before. I work in the investment management business and I know the near impossibility for a first time manager to raise $100 million let alone $1.5 billion and from all people the Chinese government. What was the real quid pro quo here? Inquiring minds want to know. ..."
"... I am really getting sick of these coup attempts. The Democrats must feel they have no chance at the ballot box and that a majority of Americans will accept a coup. I don't think the propaganda is working as well as they think it is. I'm not a fan of Trump overall except for a couple of his policies but I am a fan of our Republic. ..."
"... https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/a-dumpster-fire-on-a-garbage-barge/ "UkraineGate, son of RussiaGate..." ..."
"... I have no comment to this latest "production" of the Democratic Party. That is because Adam Schiff pushed it out of the political and into the dramatic with his rendition (he called it a parody) of a Mob Boss. ..."
"... While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should have been rejected by the IG. ..."
"... Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over. ..."
"... Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute. ..."
"... Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing less that NatSec coup attempt. ..."
Now that we have seen the whistleblower complaint filed by a CIA officer against President Trump, there should be little doubt
that it is a fraud and represents an abuse of the whistleblower process. I know genuine whistleblowers (e.g., Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe,
Ed Loomis, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, etc.) and have been one myself. I am familiar with the kind of information one must possess
(or should possess) in order to initiate a complaint. This complaint does not even meet the stupid standard. It is a trumped up complaint.
This CIA officer who filed the complaint has no direct evidence or knowledge. He heard things from other people. He was not party
to the phone conversation and did not have access to the transcript. Instead, he cited public media as "corroboration" for his allegations,
including reports by John Solomon.
The whistleblower is supposedly an analyst. Pray to God he is not. If this is an example of this clown's analytical chops then
we now know why the CIA has been on the downward slide. Rather than focus on evidence and facts, this guy relied on rumor. The egregious
conduct of the whistleblower is exceeded by the incompetence of the Intelligence Community Inspector General. When the complaint
was filed a competent professional IG would have dismissed it immediately because it was based on hearsay. If we follow his logic,
every single Presidential conversation with a foreign leader that involves discussion of a policy or issue an analyst does not support
could/should become an IG investigation. That is not an intelligence function no matter how sincerely or fiercely the complainant
believes their beef merits attention.
It would appear that the Democrats who plotted with this CIA officer were counting on Donald Trump to claim executive privilege
on his conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky and, based on the same privilege, withhold the whistleblower complaint.
Whoops!! Trump did not play ball. He preempted the Democrat Kabuki theater by releasing the relevant documents and transcripts.
President Trump pre-empted the ability of the Democrats to accuse him of illegal acts by citing his refusal to turnover documents.
How can anyone claiming whistleblower status be allowed to file a complaint on something about which they have no direct knowledge?
The entire premise of the intelligence community is the access to reliable sources, i.e., people who have direct knowledge of what
they are reporting on. The Dems are in a state of flacid erectus.
To appreciate the lies of the so-called Whistleblower, let us compare his claims with what actually transpired:
The Whistleblower Claims:
The President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020
U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's
main domestic political rivals.
I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike I guess you have one
of your wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think
you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and
I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a
man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's
very important that you do it if that's possible. . . .
The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find
out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the
prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
COMMENT--At no time did President Trump say anything about the 2020 election or the need to do something to Biden to preempt
his ability to run for the Democrat nomination. Trump's request was specifically about what happened in light of Joe Biden's public
claim--I REPEAT, PUBLIC CLAIM--that he used the threat of withholding aid from Ukraine unless they fired the Ukrainian prosecutor
who was investigating the company that hired Joe's cocaine head son, Hunter.
The Whistleblower Claims:
Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries,
the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader
to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid:
• initiate or continue an investigation2 into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;
• assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 20 I 6 U.S. presidential election originated
in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike,3 which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated
the DNC's networks in 2016; and
• meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney
General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.
What Zelensky Actually Said about Hunter and Joe Biden:
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation.
. . He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation
of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation
of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would
be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to
the United States from Ukraine as far I as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told
me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the
previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough. . . .
I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy,
there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence.
I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation.
President Zelensky is asking President Trump for more help and strongly agreeing with Trump that the U.S. Ambassador was acting
as a foe of Ukraine. To reiterate--the issue of corruption by Joe Biden and his spawn was already in public and was an issue for
Ukraine, not just Trump. Again, not one word about the 2020 election or the Democrat scramble to find a candidate. No threat by
Trump to withhold aid. No quid pro quo of any type. Joe Biden is on the record in public demanding Ukraine do what Biden wants
or else the U.S. would withhold $1 Billion dollars in aid.
The Whistleblower lied. Not a single mention was made of "locating and turning over DNC servers." This is a complete fabrication
by the so-called Whistleblower.
President Zelensky noted that his people had already spoken with Rudy Giuliani and voiced not one single concern about that. And
Zelensky said that his Government would fully cooperate with a U.S. law enforcement investigation.
Worth noting that John Solomon of the Hill is out tonight with documents that expose Joe Biden as a liar in this matter.
The heart of the Whistleblower complaint is a lie. The analyst reported hearsay but, as you can read for yourself, was not what
was said on that call.
This is an outrageous abuse by the intelligence community. The CIA cannot and should not be trusted. This analyst is an incompetent
who does not know how to distinguish between fact and suspicion.
This mess will also have the effect of taking (the now strangely silent) Biden off the 2020 board on the grounds of credibility
or even criminality.
Sanders and Warren will then, prematurely, have to move up the board one place and move further
into the spotlight. That will suit Trump very well, and indirectly, Gabbard. If this is part of some DNC strategic plan then
it's not well thought out for this reason alone.
I suspect Gabbard is being held in reserve for the VP slot, since the top slot contenders are all crazy and will need some
balance on the ticket.
Is Gabbard that craven she will allow her political future go into free fall, hooking her wagon to any of the doomed to fail
Democrat candidates. She cannot win 2020 on her own - she needs the Democrat machine behind her. But she has earned no points
to be leading it. Yet.
I note that the IGIC ICWPA "Urgent Concern" report form (link below) includes the following on page 2:
I know about the information I am disclosing here and:
[] I have direct and personal knowledge
[] I heard about it from others
I also note at the bottom of the form that the last revision date was August this year. Just before 12th August perhaps? Now
that second tick box choice looks rather out of place on a whistleblower form to me. I'd be interested in seeing the previous
version of the form and finding out who revised it.
Why have 2 links, is this the old form? Maybe someone here can confirm what the pre August 2019 report form looked like.
If the IGIC get caught gerrymandering their website and reporting processes to cover up this latest attempt to get at Trump we'll
should see some real fireworks.
Stephen McIntyre (a sometime commentator here on Russiagate) whose Twitter I linked to above has had his investigation of
the form doctoring picked up already. He thinks it was done retrospectively to provide justification for the second hand nature
of the rumorblower's report.
just found this myself. you were well ahead of the curve on this one! & it is seriously damning, imo. when you're basically forced
to bend or alter the rules in order to gain any kind of advantage, you've basically admitted that you can't win honestly...
frustrating that this information, & similar information, will simply go unmentioned in the msm. back in the day, the msm would
spin things that ran counter to the narrative. today? they simply ignore them...
Well done, and thank you to Barbara Ann and to all those, like Col. Lang, who put their time and talent to creating & maintaining
sites like this that are civic virtue in action.
It appears that this is a political act to enable the steady erosion of the administrations' ability to govern effectively
for as long as the circus is in town. The gamble is, among others, that the steady drumbeat of the parade of hearings, inquiries
and misstatements of fact continuing through the campaign season will:
A) Result in an actual conviction. (unlikely)
B) Result in a Democratic controlled Senate, House and/or Presidency (moot point)
3) Insurance policy -- gain control the Senate after 2020, so that the impeachment test is judged under new leadership. (They
probably believe this)
Rules of evidence? Due process? Cross examination? What a strange idea.
As far as his leadership of the movement/counterrevolution? Maybe he's just the catalyst-the precursor. But he saw the zeitgeist
and picked up the ball and ran with it. isn't that what demagogues do?
Not clear that this is incompetence on the complainant's part or the IG's, or the media's for that matter. While incompetence
aplenty is in evidence, that evidence speaks to how clumsily they do it, rather than to why they have reached the decision to
participate in this. That said, this should be sufficient evidence to warrant the IG's suspension, and investigation by an
IG for the IG's office. We shouldn't be holding our breath.
Central to the charges made by Democrats is that Trump was "pressuring" Zelensky to investigate Biden. The fact is that there
is absolutely no need to investigate Biden. The story he has told out of his own mouth is sufficient in itself. You don't
need to know anything about the Ukranian prosecutor or what he was doing. You don't need to know anything about Biden's son or
the son's business dealings. You just have to listen to Biden himself tell the story.
Two facts are plain in the story as Biden tells it. That he coerced compliance as to Ukraine's internal governance, and that
he used $1 billion of US foreign aid money as an instrument of extortion in order to do it. He himself says so.
President Trump says in that phone call that, "What Joe Biden did was shameful," a statement with which I cannot help
but agree. The media's comment in their followup was a stunning, "There is no evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong."
Bill H, Joe Biden served as the point man for the Obama administration's effort to root out some of the corruption rampant in
the Ukrainian government. The IMF and EU were also pushing this. This was probably the only non-shameful aspect of our terribly
misguided and implemented policies concerning Ukraine. I'm still convinced one of the ultimate goals of that fiasco was to make
Sevastopol into a NATO naval base. Screwed the pooch on that one, didn't we?
Biden boasted of bullying the Poroshenko government into getting rid of chief prosecutor Victor Shokin, a notoriously corrupt
individual who refused to investigate corruption by oligarchs and government officials. Shokin stymied any investigation into
Mykola Zlochevsky and Burisma. His stonewalling led to a Britsh fraud and money laundering case against Zlochevsky and Burisma
to fall apart. In my opinion Zlochevsky hired Hunter Biden in an effort to protect himself from US efforts to root out corruption.
This didn't help Zlochevsky or Shokin. The US and Biden still pushed for the firing of Shokin and the investigation of Zlochevsky
and Burisma in spite of Hunter's position at Burisma.
The Trump-Guliani effort to paint the story as Joe Biden shielding his son from prosecution is a pure fabrication. Biden was
part of the whole ugly Ukraine mess orchestrated by the Nuland-Clinton crowd at DOS and fully supported by Obama, but Biden's
part in the firing of Shokin was a rare bright spot in that mess. Hunter Biden's accepting the position and money from Burisma
is an embarrassment, but far from a crime.
Now that's an interesting re-direction of focus, TTG.
But "Hunter accepting money = embarrassment, but far from crime?" Is the whole mess, beginning with Nuland Kagan, which
had to have been directed by H Clinton which had to have been directed by Obama -- embarrassments or crimes?
By what right, based on rule of law and principles of UN Charter that proscribe a nation's involvement in the domestic affairs
of another nation, does the US presume to " root out some of the corruption rampant in the Ukrainian government?"
Matthew Vadum points out (totally news to me) that a Clinton era treaty with Ukraine signed in 2000 actually OBLIGATES
the US to interfere in Ukraine's system of justice (and vice versa, which should give us all pause).
K, you might want to stick with the actual language, instead of your odd interpretation stating the US is "required to interfere
in Ukraine's system of justice".
Here is the treaty language from your link:
Article 1 that "[t]he Contracting States shall provide mutual assistance, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty,
in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of offenses, and in proceedings related to criminal matters."
In my defense, I am NOT a lawyer and only threw the article out there for the consideration of others.
Like most normal Americans, I am blithely unaware of all the ways our country has been drawn into the machinations of parts
of the world where I believe we don't belong.
These spiderwebs are now two decades old. Trump walked right into them. Now at least we see them for what they are, or are
beginning to see their outline in the dark.
Artemisia, The whole Obama Ukrainian fiasco would be a fascinating subject for investigation. The decade long Orange Revolution
project was a high water mark in As Obama's point man on this project, Biden would have a lotto sweat over such an investigation.
However, his part in getting Shokin fired is not part of his problem. Shokin slow rolled the investigation into Burisma and Zlochevsky
for years. He even fired one of his assistants who was trying to push the investigation along. His firing was a good thing.
In spite of this, some think Trump was referring to Shokin when he talked about a "very good" and "very fair" former Ukrainian
prosecutor in his phone call to Zelensky. Trump may have fallen for Shokin's version of events.
Zlochevsky hired Hunter most likely as an insurance policy given that his father was Obama;s point man for Ukraine. He probably
hoped that would force the US and Biden to back off. Ukrainian business and politics have been notoriously corrupt since soon
after the breakup of the Soviet Union so Zlochevsky's move was in line with modern Ukrainian culture, just as Shokin's antics
as chief prosecutor.
It doesn't have to be a crime to be relevant in the context of the 2016 and 2020 elections. If we are so easily confused as to
what has actually been going on Ukraine, that both parties are hopelessly smeared in the scent of corruption and failure, what
exactly are we doing there? Why are we giving them billions?
And if you are not convinced that $50k a month in pay off for a do-nothing connected American board member is actually a crime,
what do you make about the $1.5B from the Bank of China? Is that also excusable?
You are free to loathe Trump, but right now the very fabric of our Constitution is at stake and Trump is not the only pouring
kerosene on it.
That's accurate - 100%. I see this move of Pelosi's as furtherance of the "Ukraine coup" movement, probably triggered more
than by constitutional concerns by fears of cutting of military aid to Ukraine and fears of Zelensky's potential for making peace
with the Russians. She comes across in this episode as a US intelligence stand-in. But I have grown cynical. This Wednesday
night article in the NY Times strengthened my outlook in such regard, especially the passage I quote below:
Quote:
Long before she was speaker, Ms. Pelosi served as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, overseeing the
secretive workings of America's national security apparatus and helping to draft the law that governs how intelligence officials
file whistle-blower complaints, and how that information is shared with Congress.
Maybe we should have all the Obama & Biden conversations with Poroshenko also released to the public? And while we're at
it what about releasing all the conversations that Hillary, Ms. Nuland, John McCain and all those involved with Ukraine had with
various parties.
Are there any conflict of interest laws in DC? We don't know what the REAL deal between Hunter and Burisma was. On paper
what we've seen was he got paid for being a board member at Burisma. That doesn't even pass the laugh test as Hunter's most recent
experience was being discharged from the Navy reserve for being a coke head. He had no experience in the natural gas business
or corporate strategy or even corporate governance in the US let alone in Ukraine. What was the real quid pro quo here?
Then there is the deal with the Chinese who invested $1.5 billion in a private equity fund launched by Hunter and John
Kerry's stepson. That too smells since neither of them had any experience running any pool of capital nor having worked at a PE
firm before. I work in the investment management business and I know the near impossibility for a first time manager to raise
$100 million let alone $1.5 billion and from all people the Chinese government. What was the real quid pro quo here? Inquiring
minds want to know.
Blue Peacock, I'd like to get the read out on all those conversations. So far, all we have is the "F the EU" phone call between
Nuland and Pyatt. I'd also like to get a readout of Trump's one on one discussions with Putin. I wonder how they compare with
his conversation with Zelensky.
The real deal between Hunter and Burisma was that his hiring was supposed to serve as a shield for Burisma, Zlochevsky and
Shokin. Unfortunately for them, the shield failed when the US and Biden went after Shokin in spite of Hunter's bogus seat on the
board of Burisma. Hiring Hunter was clearl an attemp to influence, just as the massive flows of donations to the Clinton Foundation
when Hillary appeared to be on the ascendency, and all the foreign and domestic money now flowing into Trump properties. It doesn't
mean it will work, but it is a clear effort to buy favor. I would not be surprised that the Chinese money to Hunter was the same
thing.
I am really getting sick of these coup attempts. The Democrats must feel they have no chance at the ballot box and that a
majority of Americans will accept a coup. I don't think the propaganda is working as well as they think it is. I'm not a fan of
Trump overall except for a couple of his policies but I am a fan of our Republic.
Have we really reached the stage where an American Praetorian guard picks our President and the ballot box and electoral
college become Imperial window dressing?
I'm a left leaning Independent but I hope that the Democrats get a tremendous whipping at the ballot box in 2020. I plan to
do my small part in that.
I have no comment to this latest "production" of the Democratic Party. That is because Adam Schiff pushed it out of the political
and into the dramatic with his rendition (he called it a parody) of a Mob Boss.
Jean Paul Sartre is enjoying this wherever he may be. We are now truly living in the realm of the absurd and there seems to
be "no exit."
I have been an attorney for over 20-years. So when I first read of the alleged whistleblower complaint, I immediately looked at
the statute allowing such complaints, 50 USC sec. 3033. Read it for yourself if interested.
While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say that this "intelligence activity
whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should have been rejected by the IG.
Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a person or activity that is under
the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of
the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over.
Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning
the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute.
Same as a "whistleblower" complaint that the US Postal Service is slow delivering my mail or that there is no toilet tissue
in the Yellowstone National Park men's room is not an activity supervised supervised by the DNI and is not the proper subject
of an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint, for these same reasons a complaint about the president or his phone calls
is also not the proper subject of such a complaint. This complaint should have been rejected by an honest and competent IG.
Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower complaint was crafted by one or more
NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at
this as nothing less that NatSec coup attempt.
You wrote this: He was not party to the phone conversation and did not have access to the transcript .
and yet on page #3 the WB wrote this:
. I was not the only non-White House official to receive readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State Dept
and IC officials were also briefed on their contents of the call ...( abbreviated for easy typing )
Am I missing something since POTUS keeps mentioning second hand info whilst it looks like the WB did have a readout?
Hearsay is any statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It can be confusing. For example. Assume I was in an
automobile accident. Moments after the accident, I said to the other driver "You ran the red light." In court, a witness who heard
my statement cannot testify about it if that testimony is being used to prove the other party ran the red light. The matter being
asserted is the other driver ran the red light. The witness is testifying to prove the light was red. It is a hearsay statement.
However, if I were claiming to have been knocked unconscious for a week by the accident, my "You ran the red light" statement
would not be hearsay if the same witness was testifying to prove I was conscious after the accident. Here, the statement is not
being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (The other driver ran a red light) but to show I wasn't knocked unconscious
by the accident.
There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule which would takes about 3-weeks of a law school evidence class to explain. I
don't have the time..
Here, the so-called whistleblower is claiming that others told him what was said during the call. That is hearsay, (a statement
used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, aka-what was said is true.) If he heard to call himself, it wouldn't be hearsay
as to what he heard. If he read the transcript, then him testifying about what he read would not be hearsay either.
Since the public have access to the transcript now the questions then becomes was Trump's request inappropriate during the call,
was there a quid pro quo, are any of the assertions by the whistleblower accurate, was this a legitimate complaint or was it a
political statement to gin up controversy?
Since the "intelligence activity whistleblower complaint" had nothing to do with an "intelligence activity" as was legally required,
the drafting and filing of this particular "intelligence activity whistleblower complaint" were political acts. They accomplished
their mission in that Trump was forced to release the call and the complaint to the public, instead of him delaying and Congress
leaking them. The complaint has resulted in what appears to be an attempt to impeach Trump, so politically it was very successful.
If it were a legitimate complaint, the DNI could look into the problem and fix it. That's why these types of complaints must
concern activities and individuals that the DNI is responsible for, so the responsible government official, the DNI, can fix the
problem. As this complaint is illegitimate, because the DNI can do nothing about the problem, no government official will investigate
because none has the authority to do so.
Instead, Congress will investigate with an eye towards impeaching the President. Will we discover truthful answers to your
questions, either from Trump or Congress' investigation? I have no idea. Personally, I doubt it.
If the matter is as serious as alleged..then how can one take anything said by Mr. Schiff seriously when he jokes about the whole
conversation , according to his own words ,after the spectacle he made.
I'm starting to see Trump as the Joker incarnate. Any sane effort to take down the deep state would have been quickly quashed,
but he has them all shooting themselves in the foot.
It is starting to appear that foreign policy under Obama and the Democrats was simply a government sponsored money laundering
operation. The gig being that a certain percentage of the money the US and other governments gave to Ukraine was then sent back
to Democratic/Liberal supporters in the form of salaries or contracts. I would imagine most NGO's who support Democratic or Liberal
governments are in part funded this way, they then in turn use the money to support their re election efforts. I would imagine
the reason the Democrats are holding up many of Trump's nominations for embassy positions is that much of this was run through
those offices.
I suppose this is how AIPAC has become such a force in American politics, money sent to support Isreal is sent back through
contracts and salaries and other assorted shenanigans. This has been going on for over 50 years, no wonder they are so entrenched
in the US government policy machine.
I could not figure out why Canada's current PM Trudeau, given his fathers penchant not to involve Canada in any foreign disputes,
especially those the US was involved with, was so eager to get involved in the Ukraine. Of course its obvious now why he appointed
Freeland who is of Ukranian background to the position of Minister of foreign affairs. They both have ties to the Atlantic Council
and other NGO's who are associated with Ukraine in some fashion. The allegation being that the Liberal party has in part been
funding its re-election bid with some of the money sent to Ukraine and funneled back the Biden way. Of course it will never be
investigated properly up here as both the senior management of the RCMP, the judicial system and the media are full of liberal
appointed or promoted hacks.
I would imagine that it goes further than the Ukraine as well, in fact any country that the US provides aid to has to be under
suspicion. I always wondered why the Dutch and the Australian's were so interested in the Ukraine and the airliner that was shot
down, bet this goes much deeper than we have been allowed to see so far.
I believe this was a running joke for a season on "Veep." It was a pretty funny one, but if you are right it was all too true
(hence as funny as Schiff's "parody").
Time for the classic Ronald Reagan face down of the Democrat politics of personal destruction smear machine .......".aw shucks,
there you go again".
And with that, Reagan ended and closed down the assaults. Time to get our of the weeds the Democrats keep planting that are
keeping far too many of us on the defensive. Just tell them ...aw shucks, there you go again.
Their modus operandi is established, their intent is confirmed, they just switch out body parts now hoping there is an Achillies
heel in there somewhere.
0) I have carefully read the 2019-08-25 "urgent concern" of the Complainant.
It is a carefully-written, very-well-documented account of what its author believes are, essentially, impeachable offenses.
It is in fact quite useful, giving such a good account of one view of things.
It is a big, big mistake to attack it merely on the grounds that it is reporting things other people have said, i.e., "hearsay".
Such attacks, while true, do not detract from its argument.
There are, however, several other ways to attack its argument.
1) First, he is clearly giving only one side of things.
It is crucial to obtain a balanced, more accurate, view of things by giving the other side of the argument, as John Solomon does
in what is linked to above.
Hopefully other countervailing views can be expressed.
2) Point out flaws in his reporting, as LJ has done so well above.
3) Ask the question "So what?"
The writer, and practically all of the media I have read, essentially assumes the equation: "US national security" = "Preventing Russian domination of Ukraine".
My view: This is not merely wrong, but insane.
What on earth does US national security have to do with the territorial boundaries or geopolitical orientation of Ukraine?
Look, in the 1970s I was very involved with supporting US national security.
What did that mean back then?
It meant, for example, preventing West Germany, with its vast industrial and scientific capabilities, from becoming part of the
Communist block.
That would really have changed the geopolitical balance between
"The First World" and
"The Second World" , to use terminology in use back then.
Does anyone really believe that Russian domination of the Ukraine would have the same effect on geopolitics as the USSR controlling
the FRG (i.e., West Germany).
Ukraine is not West Germany.
As I said, that is really insane.
Yet we see both reporters and columnists in, for example, the Washington Post claiming the Ukraine is vital to the U.S.
national interest.
See, for example this ludicrously overwrought recent David Ignatius column:
"Trump compromised our security for his gain." .
"Compromised our security"? Please, David.
4) On the corruption issue:
Think about it. If Hunter Biden's last name had been Smith, and he, even with the work and educational background that he did
have,
(see
this article for an extremely detailed, 27-page, examination of that)
had been just the son of some nondescript middle-manager in America. would he EVER have been have been put on the Board of Directors
of Burisma?
Never in a million years.
So the only reason he was put there was because of the position of his father, Joe Biden.
Now ask another question:
Assume that the Obama administration had valid reasons for wanting the dismissal of the Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin.
Why was Joe Biden given the job of pressuring for that dismissal?
Why not, say, SecState John Kerry?
Or some other member of the administration.
Maybe even Obama himself.
Why was Joe given that job? Especially considering the connection between his son and Burisma, which was generally considered
part of the Ukraine corruption mess.
So why on earth didn't Joe say,
"Sorry, I have a family connection there. Better have someone else put the pressure on."?
Evidently WaPo and most of the rest of the media doesn't see a problem there, but it is very strange that they do not see
the problem.
5) One final point: The "dirty" point.
The media is playing a word game, by consistently, and I mean really consistently, describing any effort to examine and publicize
the issues Solomon raised above as "Dirt" , as in "digging up dirt".
Why prejudice the effort to shed some sunlight on such issues as "digging for dirt".
After all WaPo 's motto is "Democracy dies in darkness".
So why call the effort to shine some light on the Biden/Ukraine connection as "digging for dirt"?
The hypocrisy is plain for me to see, if not for the people at WaPo .
I have to say, I have become rather a pariah since shifting reluctantly (post-election) into the Trump camp. My spouse and
I absolutely cannot talk about it at all, since the last time we did I ended up spending several days camping out at a friend's
place. I have one close friend from college who has taken a similar trajectory and we are like shipwrecked soulmates in the midst
of a violent storm (that doesn't end!).
It means the world to me to be able to read so many well-thought out posts and comment threads. It is much better then Twitter
(I have exiled myself from Facebook).
Persuasive, but it will only convince those who wish to be convinced. Your number 3 is right on. It is insane beyond words. Possibly
downright evil. On why use Biden? I guess because it is the executive branch. Obama had washed his hands of Ukraine and all things
Russia related, so his supporters say, having abnegated to State, Defense and CIA. Poor excuse, but that's the tale that's been
going around. So sending the VP is a way to put some real sting into it? So it will be said.
But your point is exceedingly well taken. Pat Buchanan, while going over some of your ground, cleverly avoids attempting a
rigorous demonstration in favor of showing the effective political damage being done.
Quote:
There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor or forego the loan guarantee. Why
was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to be threatened with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor
whom all of Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt?
Whatever the truth of the charges, the problem here is that any investigation of the potential corruption of Hunter Biden,
and of the role of his father, the former vice president, in facilitating it, will be front and center in presidential politics
between now and New Hampshire.
Endquote
There are some very astute remarks in that column's comment thread
.
My question is why this Ukraine brouhaha NOW? The timing of why the media wurlitzer is spun is always interesting to me.
Trump's call with Zelensky took place in July just after Mueller published his report. Trump suspects that folks in Ukraine
may have information regarding Crowdstrike and the DNC server "hacking". So it is a legitimate request IMO considering attacks
on him, his kids and his administration around Russia Collusion. The whistleblower made his complaint now. Why? Who actually wrote
the complaint as Robert Willmann notes in an earlier thread it was likely a lawyer. It seems it was coordinated with the House
Democrats and the MSM as they both latched on to it with similar talking points immediately in a highly coordinated manner.
My speculation is that they didn't count on Trump immediately declassifying and releasing it to the public and further going
on the attack along with Rudy to paint Biden and his son in the vortex of potential corruption.
Now we are back to he said, she said and the usual confusion. It would be good to read opinions on what was the goal here as
the bar to an impeachment conviction is very high. No President in the history of our country has been convicted by the Senate.
What were the political motives for the Russia Collusion redux with this Ukraine "quid pro quo"?
Sundance thinks Lawfare wrote it. The 'whistleblower' is simply the delivery platform for their latest weapon. Given the legalistic
style, their involvement in Russiagate and the similar modus operandi this seems a reasonable guess. Lawfare themselves (who are
clearly Resistance central) are already trumpeting success.
Why now? The Kavanaugh smear fell apart. This was the next Trump "scandal" on the Democrat's Roladex. There will be more until
Nov 2020, and there after. We know this now, so no cause for alarm. Even Saul Alinksy warned about over-playing your hand. Democrats
have over-played their hand.
IMO the Clinton apparat has been at the root of much that has happened. It still exists and hopes for a stalemate in the Democratic
nomination process.
The irony here is that Trump originally beat the Republicans. You know, Bush/Cheney and company. If the Democrats had played by
the assumption that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and tried to at least work around Trump and let him stew in his own juices,
rather than taking the low road and just throwing as much mud as possible, they would be in far better shape than they are. What
if a Democrat ever becomes president, ever again? How would they govern, given the destruction to the system, they are engaging
in? It is much easier to tear down, than build up.
If I were to guess the direction of this country, it will be that disaster capitalism/predatory lending comes home to roost and
those with the largest piles of treasuries, likely bought pennies on the dollar, when the debt bubble bursts, will be trading
them for the remaining public assets, facilitated by those functionaries who know who their future employers are.
Then we find out what true oligarchy is.
What is the back story about breaking news reports that Whistleblower statute and complaint form was very recently revised that
now allows second-hand reporting.
Was there also a problem with back-dating this complaint to slip under the new policy? So much for the "hearsay" rebuttal under
these very new, brand new, new guidelines.
John Solomon Has another article on The Hill. The gist being:
"Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents -- many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its
legal troubles -- conflict with Biden's narrative.
And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma's
legal troubles and stop prosecutors' plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election."
A year after his appointment, the replacement prosecutor dropped the case against Burisma. Now Ukraine is in the clutches of
the IMF. This looks like a future of austerity and privitization of the countries resources. The Bidens are just the public faces
of a deeper corruption.
"... The intemperate comments of an imperial-minded candidate for the presidency ..."
"... The democrat coup/impeach/coup machine suffers is bi-polar disorder. Every they way fill the military industry complex trough! In their war manic state they supress freedom fighters, and arm their jailers, in their war depress state they support rioters in Hong Kong. If Donbass rebels were in Macao they would get US support, in Dobass the US will suppress freedom. ..."
"... With Ukraine, because the democrat neocons want to surround Russia, US national security arms Ukriane to forcibly put down Donbass as they attempt some form of "self determination". ..."
"... In the case of Hong Kong because US is enemy to the PRC (Red China at Menzie Chinn blog) the US is all for self determination, like Hitler was for pulling Sudetenland out of Czechoslovakia in 1938! ..."
"... This bipolar morality fits with deep state surveillance on Trump in 2016 and in 2019 claiming Trump doing it to Biden so that Trump/DoJ cannot fight corrupt (all) democrats ever! ..."
Is Time for the United States to Stand Up to China in Hong Kong
Tweets aren't enough. Washington must make clear that it expects Beijing to live up to its
commitments -- and it will respond when China does not.
By ELIZABETH WARREN
It Is Time for the United States to Stand Up to China in Hong Kong
Tweets aren't enough. Washington must make clear that it expects Beijing to live up to its
commitments -- and it will respond when China does not.
By ELIZABETH WARREN
[ Shocking and appalling; unethical and immoral; discrediting. The intemperate comments of an imperial-minded candidate for the presidency. ]
The democrat coup/impeach/coup machine suffers is bi-polar disorder. Every they way fill the
military industry complex trough!
In their war manic state they supress freedom fighters, and arm their jailers, in their
war depress state they support rioters in Hong Kong. If Donbass rebels were in Macao they would get US support, in Dobass the US will suppress
freedom.
With Ukraine, because the democrat neocons want to surround Russia, US national security
arms Ukriane to forcibly put down Donbass as they attempt some form of "self
determination".
In the case of Hong Kong because US is enemy to the PRC (Red China at Menzie Chinn blog)
the US is all for self determination, like Hitler was for pulling Sudetenland out of
Czechoslovakia in 1938!
This bipolar morality fits with deep state surveillance on Trump in 2016 and in 2019
claiming Trump doing it to Biden so that Trump/DoJ cannot fight corrupt (all) democrats
ever!
This "corruption" meme is simply hilarious. Even the deplorables cannot believe it is true.
Well, other than the brain dead.
"On Friday, though, the GOP Ratchets Up Pressure on Biden and Schiff narrative train got
derailed a bit. One blow was delivered by CNBC's Eamon Javers, who asked Trump the simple
question of which other cases of alleged corruption he is pursuing besides the one that
involves his potential 2020 election opponent. In reply, Javers got what by Trump standards
is a straight-up acknowledgment of having been stumped:
MSNBC
✔
@MSNBC
Replying to @MSNBC
WATCH: @EamonJavers: "Have you asked foreign leaders for any corruption investigations
that don't involve your political opponents?"
President Trump: "You know, we would have to look"
Then Republican Utah Sen. Mitt Romney articulated the implication of that non-answer in
what, by Romney standards, was a devastating frontal attack:
Mitt Romney
✔
@MittRomney
When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China's investigation is
his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains
credulity to suggest that it is anything other than politically motivated.
171K
9:02 AM - Oct 4, 2019
Mitt Romney
✔
@MittRomney
Replying to @MittRomney
By all appearances, the President's brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to
Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling.
84.5K
9:02 AM - Oct 4, 2019
Romney is stating the obvious: All the available evidence -- including the evidence
supplied by Trump -- says the president tried to use Ukraine to do a political hit job for
him; none of the evidence supports the alternative theory that this was part of an earnest
anti-corruption crusade. But the fact that Romney is the one who stated it provides a tiller
for evenhanded journalists and non-zealot voters to hold amid the swirling storm of alternate
reality disinformation that the rest of his party is emitting.
The [neo]liberal mob was standing around with their torches and pitchforks in a state of
shock.
Doctor Mueller, the "monster hunter," had let Trumpenstein slip through his fingers.
The supposedly ironclad case against him had turned out to be a bunch of lies made up by
the Intelligence Community, the Democratic Party, and the corporate media.
Russiagate was officially dead . The President of the United States was not a Russian
secret agent. No one was blackmailing anyone with a videotape of Romanian prostitutes peeing
on a bed where Obama once slept.
All that had happened was, millions of liberals had been subjected to the most elaborate
psyop in the history of elaborate deep state psyops which, ironically, had only further
strengthened Trumpenstein, who was out there on the Portico balcony, shotgunning Diet Cokes
with one hand and shaking his junk at the mob with the other.
"... Biden's criminal extortion wasn't a secret. He boasted of this racket at a public occasion. He famously admitted that: ..."
"... The Ukrainians put in place someone who was solid at the time, so solid that he terminated the investigation of Burisma oil company. This company was the vessel to transfer bribes to VP Biden, via his son Hunter Biden. John Solomon of The Hill wrote: ..."
"... The Ukraine became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their viceroy in the Ukraine. Biden's involvement in the coup d'état was his biggest crime, but nobody speaks of that, noticed Joe Lauria . ..."
"... Joe Biden had been treated royally in Kiev. He was asked to chair government meetings and proudly sat on the Presidential seat. The Ukrainians are not famous for their subtlety. Nice people, but rather simple ones, even by East European measure. ..."
"... People in Kiev say he had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single server allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in the Ukraine, not in Russia. President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President Mr Zelensky. ..."
"... The Dems claimed Trump threatened to withdraw funds from the Ukraine if they won't cooperate with the US enquiry. This claim had been debunked after the full transcript of two Presidents' chat had been published ..."
"... How could they find fault in Trump allegedly threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if they think Biden was perfectly all right for doing exactly that? But these guys aren't playing cricket. ..."
"... The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite camp. ..."
"... All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the President, is an enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund, the powerful bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine. ..."
"... People in Kiev say that about 1.7 billion dollars of the latest loan had been pocketed by the American supporters of Poroshenko, meaning Joe Biden and his ilk. Now Mr Kolomoysky suggests the new Ukrainian president may default on IMF loans. ..."
"... The Ukrainians like to back winners; once they made a mistake supporting Mrs Clinton, as they were sure she would win. Perhaps they will make this mistake again. It would depend on the actual Dem contender. Joe Biden had cooked his goose by taking too many bribes in the Ukraine, but another contender may have a better chance, the Ukrainians think. Mrs Warren, perhaps? ..."
"... "Maverick" Kolomoysky is a Zionist, Jewish supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater- in the mold of Khodorkovsky . A couple of Rothschild stooges installed to loot Ukraine and Russia respectively. ..."
"... You are 100% bang on with this article, Mr. Shamir. If anyone should be impeached, it's Joe Biden and his criminal enterprise, otherwise known as his family. Joe Biden should be pre-emptively impeached before he has even bigger chance to do even more damage to his country and the world. ..."
"... Notice how Eliz Warren is skyrocketing. Because she's talking about government corruption and the middle class. Most people .that have a brain at all will unite against corruption ..no matter which party they support .there will be tunnel vision knuckle draggers who wont .but most people will. No one likes being cheated or betrayed. ..."
"... The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite camp. ..."
"... Adam Schiff received campaign contributions from a Ukrainian donor/host at a fundraiser. All solid citizens, especially the host, an arms dealer. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi also received funding for her campaign in the Ukraine and other Democrats may have as well. ..."
The Borderlands of the Ukraine have been a decisive battlefield for centuries. Here
Stockholm, Berlin and Moscow vied for dominance. Karl XII had lost here to Peter the Great;
Stalin defeated Hitler; now the Clintonites are likely to suffer in the Ukraine their ultimate
defeat. The Democrats had made their biggest political mistake of the century in attacking
Trump for the Biden affair -- that is, if the Americans retain any common sense.
Vice-President Biden extorted millions of dollars in personal bribes from the vulnerable
Ukrainian client state. When this sordid affair came under investigation, he blackmailed
Ukrainians, using his position and American taxpayer money to force the sovereign state to fire
its Attorney General for investigating the bribes.
Instead of covering their face in shame and dismissing Biden as a potential party candidate
in the 2020 race, the Dems led by the superannuated Mrs Pelosi decided to impeach the President
for uncovering this rogue. In the well-remembered flick Dirty Harry the lawyers tried to
save a criminal by attacking the policeman who didn't observe the niceties of a Miranda warning . This was
the model for the Dems in their impeachment attempt.
Biden's criminal extortion wasn't a secret. He boasted of this racket at a public occasion.
He famously admitted
that:
I said, I'm telling you [the Ukrainian leaders], you're not getting the billion dollars. I
said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about
six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not
fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they
put in place someone who was solid at the time.
The Ukrainians put in place someone who was solid at the time, so solid that he terminated
the investigation of Burisma oil company. This company was the vessel to transfer bribes to VP
Biden, via his son Hunter Biden. John Solomon of The Hill wrote:
"U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners
LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a
month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President
Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with
Russia."
The fired prosecutor Mr Viktor Shokin
said that Biden fils had been under investigation. After he was dismissed due to
Biden père interference, the money continued to pour out of poor Ukrainian pockets
to well-stuffed Biden coffers. My Kiev acquaintances had a memory of a good-for-nothing young
man, keen on coke and broads, who by himself would never get such a salary.
You would ask, why Biden admitted to the crime? He considered himself untouchable like Mrs
Clinton and other people of her circle. Mischievous President Trump decided to prosecute Biden
for bribery and extortion, as if he were an ordinary mortal. This was a direct threat to the
Clintonites (let us use this nickname for the power variously described as Democrats, Liberals,
Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State). This challenge caused them to
abandon caution and to start a furious pre-emptive campaign against cocky Trump.
Their accusation is outright ridiculous: they claim Trump's intention to bring Corrupt Joe
to justice was criminal per se , as Biden was a likely contender for the Dem nomination.
As it happens, the US Constitution didn't find it fit to provide likely contenders with full
immunity for past and future crime prosecutions. It's just the Clintonites were used to be
above the law. Indeed, for three years President Trump avoided to touch them. Crimes of Mrs
Clinton were well known, from the simple affair of the email server to the Libya murders.
It was expected victorious Trump would unleash the law against the defeated dowager for Mrs.
Clinton's role in the Obama administration's decision to allow the Russian nuclear agency
to buy a uranium mining company . Conservatives have long pointed to donations to the
Clinton family foundation by people associated with the company, Uranium One, as proof of
corruption, reported the New
York Times . The Clintonites saved the old lady's skin by starting the Russiagate
hoax. In 2016 election debate Trump told Clinton that, if he was in charge of the nation's
laws, "you'd be in jail". But a year later he was in charge, and she wasn't in jail, not even
charged. The ruse of Russiagate worked wonders: the President accused of collusion with
Russia did not dare to charge his adversary with this very offence.
Now the Clintonites decided to repeat their feat and began impeachment procedure hoping it
will keep Trump busy and away from uncovering the Ukrainian Hell's Kitchen.
What actually had happened in the Ukraine? In 2014, Clintonites had managed the regime
change in this former Soviet republic. They removed the legitimate president by using the full
spectre of illegal operations. The Ukraine became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their
viceroy in the Ukraine. Biden's involvement in the coup d'état was his biggest crime, but
nobody speaks of that, noticed
Joe Lauria . They had turned Ukraine against Russia and instigated the civil war in the
East of the poor country, despite strong efforts of president Putin to keep Russia out of
Ukrainian turmoil. But they also gave a thought to personal profiteering, like they did in
Russia in 1990.
Joe Biden had been treated royally in Kiev. He was asked to chair government meetings and
proudly sat on the Presidential seat. The Ukrainians are not famous for their subtlety. Nice
people, but rather simple ones, even by East European measure. They became involved in 2016
election campaign on the Clintonite side. There is no doubt VP Biden was the man who directed
this "foreign involvement in the US elections". The obliging Ukrainians delivered to him the
dirt on Paul Manafort, and Manafort went to jail.
The Ukraine is the second home for CrowdStrike , the cyber-security company that was
instrumental in accusing Russia of meddling. Its founder and head, a Russian Jew and American
citizen Dmitry Alperovich is a pathological Russia hater on the model of Masha Gessen and Max
Boot. People in Kiev say he had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single
server allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in the Ukraine, not in Russia.
President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President Mr
Zelensky.
The subject of the server makes many people in the Clintonite camp extremely nervous. They
already
marked it with "conspiracy" marker, meaning you may not touch it. In another "conspiracy
debunking" item they
created a straw man, saying "the notion that there is some missing "server," and that the
server might exist somewhere -- like in Ukraine -- has no basis in reality. The DNC's network
consisted of many servers and computers". However, the server Trump asked about is not the DNC
server, but the server allegedly used to hack DNC server. It had left some Russian-language
traces, and it was presented as a proof of Russian involvement. But Alperovich's hackers in the
Ukraine also use Russian as their working language, and this allowed the Russia-hating Jew an
opportunity to create the whole chain of "proofs" of Russian hackers' activity with fancy
names. Recovery of the server would put paid to the whole myth of Russian hacking, and would
make the Clintonite case untenable.
Alperovich, obsessed with his hatred, could cook the case of Russian meddling, but it had to
be ordered and utilized by somebody up the feeding chain, most probably Joe Biden. And now Joe
Biden, the real criminal, who took bribes and blackmailed the friendly state officials, who
orchestrated foreign involvement in the US elections, went on to become the leading contender
for Dem party.
The Dems claimed Trump threatened to withdraw funds from the Ukraine if they won't cooperate
with the US enquiry. This claim had been debunked after the full transcript of two Presidents'
chat had been published. But even if it were sterling truth, it would be business as usual for
the US. You probably remember the threats of cutting aid that were issued by the US
representative in the UN in order to force sovereign states to vote for Israel. The execrable
Nicky Haley
said , 'The US will be taking names', and Donald Trump
added his own threats to cut aid.
How could they find fault in Trump allegedly threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if they think
Biden was perfectly all right for doing exactly that? But these guys aren't playing
cricket.
The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many
countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are
tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In
the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky
promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite
camp.
All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the
President, is an enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund,
the powerful bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine. Just this year, Kiev has to
pay six billion dollars to the IMF to remain solvent, and IMF refused to refinance it. The
loans were mainly stolen by the gang of the former President, Mr Poroshenko. People in Kiev say
that about 1.7 billion dollars of the latest loan had been pocketed by the American supporters
of Poroshenko, meaning Joe Biden and his ilk. Now Mr Kolomoysky suggests the new Ukrainian
president may default on IMF loans.
Kolomoysky is also the only oligarch who is not in bed with the liberals. The balance of
power in the Ukraine is not in favour of Trumpers. The Ukrainians like to back winners; once
they made a mistake supporting Mrs Clinton, as they were sure she would win. Perhaps they will
make this mistake again. It would depend on the actual Dem contender. Joe Biden had cooked his
goose by taking too many bribes in the Ukraine, but another contender may have a better chance,
the Ukrainians think. Mrs Warren, perhaps?
They even fiddle with the idea of Mrs Hillary Clinton running again and winning this time.
The Ukrainian oligarchs, and first of all Mr Victor Pinchuk, a Jewish billionaire from Dnepro
city, No. 1 among the rich Ukrainians, would do anything for her. He contributed many millions
to her fund; he finances the Atlantic Council, the Clintonite think-tank, fighting against
Russia and Euro-sceptics. He is 'the wealthy businessman' Trump referred to in his talk with Mr
Zelensky. Judging by Trump's interest in the Ukrainian server, the President is aware that the
old lady is still able to do some mischief, and his promise to take her to jail is still
unfulfilled.
It is possible in the presidential race 2020, the Dems will use drafting technique, as the
long-distance runners (or bikers, or cross-country skiers) do. The first leading contender (in
our case, Biden) would get the flak, get exhausted, and in the last moment he would withdraw
from the race yielding the nomination to his well-rested comrade, be it Warren or Clinton or
whoever. Bearing that in mind, Trumpers could keep some of the ammo they have on Biden (and
there is a lot to find in the Ukraine) until (or rather if) he gets the nomination.
If this depiction of events is remotely true (I haven't personally researched it), one might
conclude that the cunning, ruthlessness, brazenness, greed and malice of the Clintonite
Democrats is off the charts -- of Mafia or Stalinist caliber.
One might also conclude that, with their command of the Deep State (especially the CIA and
FBI) and mainstream media, they will come out the winner in this game.
The key mode of operation: aggressively, and very loudly, accuse your opponents of
whatever crimes you are committing. Flip reality upside down.
The mainstream media have thoroughly obstructed all lines of investigation into facts
which contradict the Clintonite narrative. And Silicon Valley is working furiously to shut
down any discussion in alternative media on the Internet which addresses these issues.
Are we moving towards the consolidation of a Soviet-style regime in the United States?
Great summary. There is also that one billion dollars the Biden clan got from China. More
from my blog:
Jun 7, 2016 – The $5 Billion Coup
I thought the claim that the USA spent $5 billion to organize a coup to take control of
Ukraine was a wild estimate. I recently found this 2013 video where the semi-covert coup
manager from Hillary's State Department, rabid neocon Victoria Nuland, spouts nonsense and
states that $5 billion was spent! I love the Chevron sponsorship symbol in the
background.
For those unfamiliar with the massive Uranium one Clinton bribery scandal, here is a hot
story that disappeared from our news, from my blog:
Dec 16, 2018 – Rogue FBI
As a follow-up to my December 2nd blog post, our major media failed to report that last
week:
"The Justice Department and FBI have missed a Wednesday deadline to provide information
about the government's mysterious raid on a former FBI contractor-turned-whistleblower's home
last month. Sixteen FBI agents on Nov. 19 raided the home of Dennis Nathan Cain, who
reportedly gave the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) documents related to the
Uranium One controversy and potential wrongdoing by former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton.
The documents in question allegedly showed that federal officials failed to investigate
possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, a Russian
nuclear company. Its subsidiary purchased Canadian mining company Uranium One in 2013.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, whose panel has oversight of
the Justice Department, penned a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Justice
Department IG General Michael Horowitz, requesting information on the justification for the
raid. Grassley gave Wray and Horowitz until Dec. 12 to respond to his request. That deadline
has come and gone, and neither the FBI nor DOJ has produced any documents or response."
Why would a coke head like Hunter Biden, with a string of failed ventures with shady
characters and living in the US have been sought out for a position on the board of a Ukraine
gas company?
Even "if" Biden did not secure that job for is son and his son was 'sought out' by the
Ukraine gov or the company owners because they thought that contact would help them
Then Biden is still guilty of putting his son's advancement above obvious 'conflicts of
interest' in letting him assume the job.
Don't know about others but when I was growing up in teen years I was constantly schooled
by my father to 'not put myself in ' company or situations' that could lead to my being
associated with anything questionable that might happen.
I would think that should have been how Biden viewed his son taking the Ukraine company
position..
But then again Biden is both stupid and without any ethics. And so much for his free
speech support LOL
The Biden Campaign Is Demanding That TV Execs Stop Booking Guiliani
During this time, Hunter Biden was busy making a living in his father's wake.
He began working at MBNA bank, one of Delaware's largest employer, in 1996. He left to become
a lobbyist in 2001, though he continued receiving consulting fees from the bank. For years,
beginning in the late '90s, Joe Biden had been a top Democratic supporter of a controversial
bankruptcy bill that aided issuers of credit card debt, like MBNA, by making it harder for
borrowers to seek bankruptcy protections. The consulting fees to Hunter continued until 2005,
when the bankruptcy bill finally passed with Joe's support.
At his new firm, Oldaker, Biden & Belair, Hunter also lobbied for the music-sharing
service Napster while the Judiciary Committee, on which Joe sat, took on digital music piracy
and represented public universities seeking congressional earmarks. The Bidens have said that
Hunter avoided lobbying his father. In 2008, The Washington Post reported that, as a senator,
Obama had sought more than $3.4 million in earmarks for Hunter's clients before Joe became
his running mate and that another lobbyist at Hunter's firm had successfully lobbied Joe for
an earmark for the University of Delaware
Biden and his wife, Jill, have set about providing for themselves, earning more than $15
million in the two years following the end of his vice presidency in early 2017"'
Do me a favor did Biden say to Obama ????? .." Obama had sought more than $3.4 million in
earmarks for Hunter's clients before Joe became his running mate and that another lobbyist at
Hunter's firm had successfully lobbied Joe for an earmark for the University of Delaware"
So some Jewish oligarchs are for the Clintons (Biden Dems etc) and other Jewish oligarchs are
for Donald the Orange (Repugs etc) It seems uncannily just like the situation in the US with
good ole Sheldon and Haim. A cynic might even suggest that it was a type of a pincer movement
or a case of good cop/bad cop. Either way I suspect than none of the aforementioned
characters give a rodents patootie about Joe Six-pack and the American people.
Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the President, is an
enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund, the powerful
bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine.
Really? Sure he is agains bankers. Who are you fooling Shamir? Come on, get real. This is
intra-Jewish affair. Kolomoysky is as bad for Ukraine as the Clintonites.
"In the well-remembered flick Dirty Harry the lawyers tried to save a criminal by attacking
the policeman who didn't observe the niceties of a Miranda warning. This was the model for
the Dems in their impeachment attempt."
I want to be careful here because many people don't grasp the value of what the justice is
really all about. At it core the Constitution is by design intended to limit government
intrusion. The Miranda expectation is not a dodge. Its primary if fencing the abridgement of
a citizens personal space on a whim. In reality Miranda is probably not strong enough. It is
not a trick to cover up criminal behavior.
And the democrats call for impeachment is not in any way related to Miranda, not as simile
or metaphor.
" The ruse of Russiagate worked wonders: the President accused of collusion with Russia
did not dare to charge his adversary with this very offence."
If this depiction of events is remotely true (I haven't personally researched it), one
might conclude that the cunning, ruthlessness, brazenness, greed and malice of the
Clintonite Democrats is off the charts -- of Mafia or Stalinist caliber.
One might also conclude that, with their command of the Deep State (especially the CIA
and FBI) and mainstream media, they will come out the winner in this game.
"I now think that Trump WILL be impeached in the House."
-- Richard Spencer, Sept. 27, 2019
More from Richard Spencer on the Ukraine impeachment matter:
[Hide MORE]
"[Trump] still has 90% approval among Republicans. These Senators, though, they'll go with
the wind. They certainly could do it [vote to remove Trump from office], but something
dramatic would have to change."
"Trump will be impeached but will be let off by the Senate, and he will likely benefit
from this process because we're going to be talking about this [impeachment drama] and kind
of defending him, not criticizing him. So I think Trump ultimately will benefit."
"I'm rather shocked. This whole Ukraine thing is so weak . The Mueller and
Russia hysteria has apparently gone out the window, or it's kind of background to this. We've
now moved on to this -- phone call."
"I've seen this transcript I can only look at and laugh. It's basically Trump being Trump.
He is praising this comedian that won a miraculous victory "
"In 2014, Clintonites had managed the regime change in this former Soviet republic. Ukraine
became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their viceroy in Ukraine.
They instigated the civil war"
-- Let them rot in hell for the destroyed lives of the innocent civilians.
In a morally healthy society, these criminals would suffer anathema and ostracism. In a
morally unhealthy society well.
Kolomoysky is the beneficial owner of the company, Burisma Holdings, that Hunter Biden
supposedly worked for. All the MSM is pretending that the previous owner, Mykola Zlochevsky,
is the one who hired Biden – an obvious lie. The Wikipedia supports this Zionist lie:
It is important to realize that this company has acquired licenses to exploit Ukraine's
largest gas field through dishonest means. The bribes paid to father Biden are much greater
than what the son received. In any case, these bribes are a tiny fraction of the value of
these gas fields.
This gas company is in a position to greatly profit from any deterioration in
Russian-Ukrainian relations.
An extension and exacerbation of the civil war in the east of that country will lead to a
shortage of gas. Shortage of gas leads to higher prices for consumers. War-profiteering at
the expense of the poorest country in Europe.
@Sean
McBride Sean, I agree with what you say – mostly. The fact that we are reading Mr
Shamir's excellent appreciation here shows that not all Westerners are mugs, though.
The bigger question is: how much does it really matter what crimes and tricks are played
in Washington? I am reminded of J.G. Ballard's superb short story "Manhole 69", about an
experiment to see if men could be treated and trained to do without sleep. They succeed, but
are found one morning in a state of catatonic withdrawal. To them, the whole world has shrunk
and collapsed down to a tiny bubble surrounding each person's body, so that – with no
external source of stimuli – their minds shut down.
Similarly, the more fascinated the Swamp creatures get with their own navels, the less
their intrigues matter to anyone outside their little personal bubble. By and by, they may
look up to notice that the world has gone on without them.
Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no
way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from
those of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the
kind of man whose ideas are idiotic" H.L.Mencken
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure" Robert LeFevere
"Why should any self-respecting citizen endorse an institution grounded on thievery?
For that is what one does when one votes. If it be argued that we must let bygones be
bygones, see what can be done toward cleaning up the institution of the State so that it
might be useful in the maintenance of orderly existence, the answer is that it cannot be
done; you cannot clean up a brothel and yet leave the business intact. We have been voting
for one "good government" after another, and what have we got?" Frank Chodorov, Out of
Step (1962)
"Joe Biden , the Hawk " by Branko Marcetic in the Jacobin Magazine , " If you're looking for
a president with a track record of foreign intervention , expanding the surveillance state
and steadfastly backing Israel despite its war crimes Joe Biden is your guy ."
@EliteCommInc.
Shamir isn't saying that the Miranda ruling itself is a ruse. Clearly, the article states
that Clintonites are using misdirection as a ruse. Russiagate is also a ruse, and is
unrelated to Miranda.
The mention of Miranda is in reference to a fictional screenplay. What else you got over
there?
@NoseytheDuke
True (and funny). George Eliason has written a couple of pieces concerning the recent history
of the Ukraine connection with the US deepstate and its campaigns such as Russiagate and the
current impeachment push:
[Crowdstrike's] founder and head, a Russian Jew and American citizen Dmitry Alperovich
is a pathological Russia hater on the model of Masha Gessen and Max Boot.
Try as I might, I was hard pressed to confirm the ethnic origin of Dmitry Alperovich. But
Israel Shamir was kind enough to put that mystery to rest. Thanks Israel!
"Make no mistake about it: UKRAINEgate is very real, but not the false narrative pushed by
the media. Trump tricked the Democrats into blowing wide open their own Ukraine scandal under
Obama. Just how big is that? It will expose BIDENgate. Which will expose the real RUSSIAgate
conspiracy. Which will then expose Clinton's EMAILgate and SERVERgate
scandals. Which will in turn expose Deep State and their International Banking Cartel
sponsors. Even the Illuminati hidden hand may be revealed as never before along with the
forever veiled Black Nobility."
-- Intelligence Analyst & Former U.S. Army Officer
I'm not a "Q" follower or one who believes Trump is some kind of 5D chess player, but for
the life of me I could not see how UKRAINEgate would not come back to bite the Democrats in
the ass. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the above statements are true. http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=128744#more-128744
The Ukraine is a corrupt zionist controlled government just like the zionist corrupt ZUS
government so it is no surprise that the zionist backed Bidens would be feeding at the trough
just as they feed off the American taxpayers, corruption is as corruption does and that is
how zionists control governments.
Why would a coke snorting loser like Hunter Biden be given millions from a Ukrainian company
when he doesn't even speak the language? Same reason the Clintons used to get $500k for
"speeches". Give us a millions to our fraudulent charity and we will give you millions of tax
payer money.
@APilgrim" .There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other: either voluntarily or
coercively. The State is pure institutionalized coercion. As such, it's not just unnecessary,
but antithetical, to a civilized society. And that's increasingly true as technology
advances. It was never moral, but at least it was possible in oxcart days for bureaucrats to
order things around. Today the idea is ridiculous .":
Are we moving towards the consolidation of a Soviet-style regime in the United
States?
No it's already an upgraded Owellian regime that relies on 24/7 brainwashing. The Soviet
regime could repress people through violence or the threat of it. They could never convince
people that there really are 52 sexes or the need to bring in tens of millions of illegals
and replace the population with foreigners.
Bidengate is killing the blind Dems. Will he be in the Oct 15 debate or forced out before
that? For once, it may be worth watching as the other Dems will profit when he is out. Like
vultures they will seek his campaign donors and voters. The lying mainstream media can't make
this pig look pretty. Biden was already going to lose based on his failing mental abilities.
Now, he is really toast. The phony impeachment claims are killing the Dems also. It seems
they are suicidal this election and want to make SURE Trump wins in a landslide.
An 'independent' Ukraine is nothing more than a preponderantly Jewish directed outpost for
the Anglo-Zionist Empire. It is always going to be raped, and then charged for the service of
the rape, by those who run the Anglo-Zionist Empire.
@Whitewolf
Correct. The WASP-created and currently WASP+Jews administered Anglosphere, the Anglo-Zionist
Empire (which controls Western Europe and all of Latin America it wants to control), is today
much worse off in many ways than the USSR ever was.
Am I the only one who finds it strange Obama was never mentioned by Mr. Israel?
What no one is talking about here is the much bigger crime against humanity that the
Obama administration committed by engineering the catastrophic Ukraine Civil War. Not only
did Biden's warmongering tear apart that country, that continuing war served to re-start
the Cold War with Russia. How calamitous for the world community of nations is that
intentional outcome designed by the Obama-Biden-Clinton-Nuland war-making team?!
Which means that the recent UKRAINEgate is really about stifling Trump's initiative to
get to the bottom of BIDENgate because that will inevitably lead to the root cause of the
real UKRAINEgate, not the current fake one. It ought to be apparent how the Left is
co-opting real scandals with fake scandals by even using the same memes and MSM
emotionally-charged language. Deep State knows that the ensuing confusion is simply far too
great for the average American voter to comprehend as the true story is so obfuscated by
the CIA-controlled Mockingbird Media.
Clintonites? A clintonite would be a follower and not an equal partner in crimes. And
Clintons maybe everything else but powerful they are not. Let's call it the Cabalites. For
they are members of a cabal (not to be confused with Jews though certainly there are Jews in
it along with a ton of non Jews) and equal participants in crimes such as Biden corruption.
Biden was/is Obama errand boy and as such got paid his share of the thirty pieces of silver.
It's a cabal, deep and secretive with octopus like reach that has the government cornered
with Democrats and their counterparts, the Republicans!
This remains to be seen. I'm not optimistic considering the massive propaganda
loudspeakers being brought out to steer the narrative. The Clintons and Biden, among others,
have been irredeemably corrupt their entire lives yet have had a sense of impunity
throughout, a well grounded sense since nothing has ever touched them. The rottenness of all
of it makes one's head swim. All of them have also been fond of committing war crimes
overseas, killing and displacing millions of people everywhere, which is even worse than
their financial flimflam. American democracy, what a joke, way different in reality than the
garbage they taught us in school.
Only slow people, aka the willing slaves called the voting class, believe a difference exists
between democrats and republicans. The rich know better.
The US staged a Nazi coup in Ukraine and wanted to station the navy in the Crimea. Before
that, the US had the dying Soviet Union hand over Crimea to Ukraine for free, out of love of
Russia.
Clearly both Republicans and Democrats see the law as a tool to enrich themselves and harm
their "enemies."
@Alfred
Shamir, and now you, mention bribes to Joe Biden. Is there documentation in one of your links
about those bribes? (Shamir cited nothing.) I don't doubt it, but can't share empty
allegations. (D0es Shamir think this is common knowledge? Or does he just never back up his
claims.)
This is such a hoax conspiracy that I question why they allow this op-ed to be printed.
Without bank and tax records to prove it , why would you make these fictitious claims? You' d
be better off tracking Trumps financials and building on those facts. Good luck with that.
@Bastien
McCormick Was the de-nuclear treaty enforced by both US and Russia over Ukraine a US plot
as well?
Face it, a jew currently runs Ukraine, the national socialists are bidding their times in
every parts of the world, waiting for a chance to save this post-1945 world.
"Shamir isn't saying that the Miranda ruling itself is a ruse. Clearly, the article states
that Clintonites are using misdirection as a ruse. Russiagate is also a ruse, and is
unrelated to Miranda."
There is nothing in this matter that can be remotely associated with Miranda. By
referencing Miranda as like the collusion accusations the author is making the comparison
between the two. Such as lawyer uses Miranda to draw attention away from the case.
That is a false comparison, even if the person is actually guilty of the accusation.
Miranda says, the state cannot proceed to abuse a citizens ignorance of the process to
prosecute, The citizen is entitled to know how to protect himself/herself from state
authority – period. It is a legal standard.
There is no legal standard for the collusion accusation. It is not linked even remotely to
the Constitutional protections of citizens. Your response is circular self reinforcing and
flawed logic coming and going. The liberals are not claiming a legal standard -- they are
merely slinging mud. Because even if the president were in fact colluding, it would not
provide a legal basis that the liberals and democrats lost the election as result.
Furthermore, even if they colluded by sharing information that alone is not a crime.
Unlike collusion, Miranda is a legal standard that upon violation moots a case because of
the governments abuse of power --
nothing at all like manufacturing a lie to cover incompetence, face saving or illegal
activity (including conspiring with foreign powers to start violent revolutions among
sovereign nations, i.e. Syria, the Ukraine, Libya, etc.) in office, or ineffective campaign
choices.
The collusion argument does reflect the kind of circular rhetoric in defending this
authors false comparison.
For the lovers of the IQ : the collective , national , IQ of white blond ukraruinas , polacks
, and other ex-soviets specimens is much much lower than mexicans . Puro pendejos .
Did anyone actually believe that Biden is not corrupt? Or that Ukraine is not corrupt? Or
that Porky and his appointees are not corrupt? If these people exist, they must be either
remarkably naïve or simply retarded.
@anon It's
untrue that Lutsenko, appointed by his buddy Porky, has no legal experience. Yes, he has no
legal education. But he spent some time in jail, which counts as legal experience.
Clintonites (let us use this nickname for the power variously described as Democrats,
Liberals, Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State).
All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the
President, is an enemy of Clintonites.
a "maverick" eh?
Kind of like John McCain, huh?
As Truth3 mentioned,
"Kolomoisky is one of Rothschild's front men."
Yep.
However, the server Trump asked about is not the DNC server, but the server allegedly
used to hack DNC server. It had left some Russian-language traces, and it was presented as
a proof of Russian involvement. But Alperovich's hackers in the Ukraine also use Russian as
their working language
What's with all this misdirection?
Assange has all but said the DNC data was given to him by Seth Rich, [RIP]
There was no 'Russian (or Ukrainian) hacking. Rich was pissed that 'corrupt Hillary' had
shut out Bernie in the primaries. He had a motive.
What, pray tell- would be the motive of the corrupt, Obama State Dept. installed-
Ukrainians, (working for the Clintonites) to expose Hillary's corruption? (and their
own)?
Eh?
"Maverick" Kolomoysky is a Zionist, Jewish supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater- in the mold
of Khodorkovsky . A couple of Rothschild stooges installed to loot Ukraine and Russia
respectively.
The "maverick' is conducting himself in perfect, parallel alignment with the "Democrats,
Liberals, Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State", (i.e. the
Clintonites) that hate Putin's guts, and would like to see him dead.
In fact, there are deep ties between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and the
'Maverick'.
The Maverick owns the television station where Zelensky performed his comedy routine.
I'd say in all probability that Zelensky is the Maverick's boy. Which would go a long way
toward understanding why Putin is staying at arms length from the comedian.
All of this rot and corruption and its effects on ZUS politics is why I looked forward to
getting some insights from Mr. Shamir.
@Sean
McBride Spencer might say some things that are valid and even things that pro-Whites
agree with but he's still controlled opposition just like David Duke.
Its common knowledge that most politicians are crooked lying thieving bastards but the
brazenness of Biden is truly astounding. His boasting about the Ukraine affair should cost
him 10 years in prison if there was truly justice in America. But just like Hildabeast
Clinton they know no matter what they say or do they are a protected class in this God
forsaken country.
congrats issy, marvelous work.. while i read your column, i was also watching the clive owen
film "the international". i couldn't tell which one's more thrilling; possibly yours, because
your story is real!
all these show, that the fight between "patriots and globalists" (as pres. trump put it in
his UN speech: "the future belongs to patriots, not to globalists!") is flaring up.
globalist agendas like climate change and the EU are on the retreat, nevertheless
globalists seem not to leave the arena without bitter fighting.
patriots may be the last hope for earth to survive in the form known to us, but they are
more vital for america herself. why? -- because the "democraps and rebloodicans" with their
globalist agendas were growing to be disgusting in the eyes of many ordinary american people
before trump. remember, trump is a guy from the outside of the "political establishment",
don't get fooled by that he imitates the "rebloodican"!
for many american people, and for reasons above, the american federal government had
morphed into an alien body, regardless of the voters' political will, pushing its own alien
globalist agenda and endless wars.
4-5 years ago, there was the talk of secession.. american states should leave the union en
masse to cancel a useless federal govt. and summon a new continental convention. a new
constitution will be proclaimed which allows the states to fire any president or congress,
who don't heed to states' (people's) calls to come to senses, by a majority vote. i don't
know how widespread that discussion was.. i know, it exists. and if trump is unsuccessful
somehow or gets imprisoned, that danger still looms.
it may seem unimportant, what happens to america; but remember, she is the flagship of the
western civilization. for all people on earth, what happens to the u.s.a. will this or that
way affect what happens to them. regards..
@Smith
Yes.
I would love to see BO hoisted on this petard along with Biden.
Why should Biden be the only one to take the fall for BO, the Clintons, Nuland, etc.?
Actually, that logic doesn't seem quite kosher to me -- doesn't the actual truth/reality
count for something?
Its quite logical the 'appearance ' of a conflict of interest can lead to questioning
motives that's why judges 'recluse' themselves in cases where they have ties to anyone or
anything involved in the case.
Since you cant peer into the mind of someone who has the 'appearance 'of conflicting interest
the best approach is to remove said person from any involvement in the search for the
truth.
@Sean
McBride One issue that stuns me is that snarky comments of Chelsea Clinton to the
President, publicly made and without one ounce of fear. He tweeted something about the
Biden/Ukraine impeachment hoax was part of the biggest political scam, and this repellent
little beast shot back:
Yes, you are.
Readers here know, and certain members of the media know (Ammanpour, Anderson Cooper who
have actually traveled without fixers and entourages)
that if the daughter of a past PM or President smarted off to Erdogan, Xi or Rouhani on a
social media account,
she would likely disappear, be tortured or her children would be snatched for a few weeks,
to get her "mind right".
Chelsea Clinton is a repulsive slob who has no achievements other than inviting an actual
human sex trafficker to her marriage to a fat, sullen Jew that is unemployed.
Trump needs to go full thug. He needs to go completely bananas bat shit and have Biden's
son indicted TODAY.
From his first day, I was certain that it was a catastrophic error not to indict Hillary
Clinton and her accomplices. She never let up, and it appears she may just win yet.
@Johnny Walker
Read "Am I the only one who finds it strange Obama was never mentioned by Mr. Israel?"
No! Not the only one.
But in the case of Shamir I chalk it up to his focusing on the Biden details -- not on the
big Barry picture. Surely the buck for this whole thing comes to rest like a stinking turd on
Barack Obama's desk. It all occurred on his watch, overseen by his State Dept.
Or perhaps not on his desk.
Obama must owe major Jewish chits in Chicago. Rahm Emanuel, anyone?
I am kind of flailing here, but when I think Chicago and Dem party and Obama I think Rahm
Emanuel and Penny Pritzker, and when I think Rahm Emanuel I think dual citizen and dad was a
Zionist terrorist. What does all of that have to do with the Ukraine? I don't know!!
Plenty of Jewish oligarchs there . .
Biden is corrupted. Clinton is corrupted. But Trump is corrupted too for the following
reasons (among others):
1. Timing: He has not investigated Biden nor Clinton for almost 3 years. Now that Biden
seems likely Democrat nominee, he suddenly becomes so keen to investigate, while still
ignoring (or not pushing for) investigation of Clinton (who is not running).
2. Corruption: Trump appears corrupted too when he tries to use US aids as leverage to get
Ukraine to start the ball rolling on something that can benefit his re-election. This is
almost no difference than what Biden did.
3. Vengeance: Instead of letting the machinery of Justice and State departments work at
their own pace, Trump looks vengeful when he and his personal lawyer Giuliani are intimately
involved.
The end results is that Trump supporters becomes more convinced of Biden/Clinton/Democrats
wrong doing, and the Democrat supporters becomes more convinced of Trump's corruption and
guilt. So, the country hardens the divide and more people lose confidence of politicians.
Here's Scott Ritter , Iraq weapons inspector who objected to calling off the Iraq
inspections. .
My Letter From Joe Biden
Author's note: The 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by a U.S.-led coalition
will go down in history as one of the greatest geopolitical disasters in modern history.
Then-Sen. Joe Biden was in a unique position to prevent this war from happening. That he
chose not to speaks volumes about the man who now seeks to become the next president of the
United States. My personal experiences with Biden from 1998 to 2002 provide a window into the
character of the man that Americans should familiarize themselves with before considering
whether to give him their support.
Scott Ritter
[MORE]
"I envy your position. I sincerely do. I envy the ability to have such clarity on this
issue."
Listening to those words, coming as they were from Sen. Joe Biden, one of the most vociferous
defenders of the policies of Bill Clinton's administration, I knew I was in for a grilling.
It was Sept. 15, 1998. I was seated, alone, at a table reserved for witnesses, giving
testimony to a joint session of the Senate foreign relations and armed services committees
about the reasons behind my resignation as a chief weapons inspector with the United Nations
Special Commission (UNSCOM), charged with overseeing the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) programs. Arrayed before me were some of the most powerful people in
the United States, if not the world. The combined membership of these two committees totaled
36 senators, a little over a third of the entire membership of that esteemed body. More than
20 were present at the hearing and, over the course of the next hour and a half, I was
questioned in detail by 17 of them, none of whom seemed to object to my presence more than
Biden.
"Let me ask you a question," Biden continued. "Do you think you should be the one to be
able to decide when to pull the trigger?"
By Aug. 28, I had received a call from the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
requesting my presence on Sept. 3 before a joint session of that committee and the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
Biden, however, had taken umbrage over the fact that the hearing had been allowed to go
forward without the presence of either the secretary of state or secretary of defense to
offer balance, especially when, as he couched the issue, I was trying to push the United
States to war with Iraq. "Isn't that what this is about?" he demanded. And despite my answers
to the contrary, Biden proceeded to lecture me on the limitations of my position as an
inspector. "I respectfully suggest that [the secretaries of state and defense] have
responsibilities slightly above your pay grade that's why they get paid the big bucks. That's
why they get the limos and you don't." The issue, Biden said, was more complex than simply a
question of "Old Scottie Boy didn't get in." It was a decision "above my pay grade," and the
jobs of those charged with making that decision were "a hell of a lot more complicated than
yours." It was about as insulting an experience one could imagine, and it took all my
willpower to sit there and take it unflinchingly
Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, who said, "We realize, Major Ritter, as far as we
know, that you did not have a limousine; you did not make the big bucks we understand that,
like sergeants and junior officers and people who carry the rifles and actually do the
fighting and do the inspecting, that you may have a perspective that the big-bucks people
don't."
But rather than allow the inspections to run their course, the Clinton administration
instead used the work of UNSCOM to deliberately provoke a confrontation, seeking to inspect a
sensitive facility belonging to the Baath Party based upon old intelligence information that
had long since expired. The goal was to get the Iraqis to deny inspectors access to the site.
When Iraq instead agreed to allow inspectors inside the facility, the Clinton administration
immediately ordered all UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq, before initiating a 72-hour bombing
campaign, Operation Desert Fox,
Biden, later declined to talk to me directly, instead dispatching a senior member of the
minority staff of the Foreign Relations Committee to meet with me. This meeting was a
singular disappointment. The staffer began by calling me a traitor for speaking out about
Iraq and took umbrage when I backed up my claims with documents. "You are not supposed to
have these materials," he said. "They are classified, and you are a traitor for publicizing
the information they contain."
After reminding the staffer that he was walking a very
dangerous line in calling a former officer of Marines a traitor, I pointed out that the
information I cited was from my time as an inspector, and was not classified in any way.
The staffer agreed that the article was fact-based, even if he disagreed with its
conclusion. "But this isn't about facts. This is about politics, and Senator Biden will not
go against the policies of the Clinton administration, even if those policies are
failing."
Biden convened his hearing, which sought the testimony of witnesses hand-picked to sustain
the desired conclusion that Iraq was a threat worthy of war. He then went on to vote in
support of the use of military force against Iraq -- a sharp contrast to the position he took
in 1991.
You are 100% bang on with this article, Mr. Shamir. If anyone should be impeached, it's Joe
Biden and his criminal enterprise, otherwise known as his family. Joe Biden should be
pre-emptively impeached before he has even bigger chance to do even more damage to his
country and the world.
I also agree that all of this is a deep state operation against Trump. Why the deep state
doesn't like Trump? Because they are afraid that he is going to blow their cover about the
supposedly "liberal" US. It's all phony, but that's all they got, fake liberalism to keep the
proles quiet in order not to demand real social improvements in their "democracy", instead of
senseless voting in fixed elections.
The "catastrophic error" was allowing the Mueller/Russia farce to drag on and on, with the
media and hack political/pundit class shitting on him daily, questioning the legitimacy of
his election and robbing him of nearly all presidential authority -- he showed himself to be
an easy mark, which is one reason they haven't let up -- he should have given Mueller six
months and not a day more, then very publicly fired the lot of them -- but he didn't have the
balls and this is the result -- instead he kisses Jew ass and bleats on and on about low
black and Hispanic unemployment -- then he acts surprised when they still hate his guts and
show him zero respect -- what's the point of being President and having the power of the
presidency if you're not going to use it?
@d dan This
a zionist tactic, divide and conquer, it is not good enough for the zionists that they
control the ZUS government, the zionists like to see their puppets tear each other apart, is
a continual zionist recreation.
The mockingbird mainstream whore media is unrelenting in its coordinated effort to coverup
the crimes of creepy Joe Biden and his son Hunter, whilst hoisting the blame for said crimes
on President Trump who had the audacity to request that the crimes of Joe and Hunter be
investigated.
September 20, 2019 Video of Joe Biden admitting that he bribed the Ukrainian President
with $1 billion dollars to fire lead prosecutor investigating his corrupt son
@eah I see
Trump's tactical error differently. He needed to take a shot at the big money with a series
of antitrust cases against big tech, big banks and investment banks, big media.
It would have been very popular, and he would have been hitting the correct targets.
Trump
is a stupid cuck, a miserable pussy. That's why he can't get anything done. He TALKS big ..but then he rolls over every time. The biggest loss is on immigration/demographics. He isn't going to do anything about
it.
He responds to jewing by bending over more .and the jews respond by reaming his ass even
HARDER.
If he'd just stand up to them and tell them to fuck off, the whole world would be better
for it.
@Robert
Dolan Yea, Trump is not very good, but the cackling hyena would have been atrocious. It's
too bad we are reduced to choosing between shit and even bigger shit, but is it quite clear
which shit was bigger in 2016. It looks like it's going to be just as clear in 2020, as Dems
did everything to remove even half-decent candidates.
Best damn thing said about the Trump and Biden corruption fight..
Its everybody pilgrims everybody.
Just read thru to see ALL the US politicos and Elites involved in the huge money pit
corruption that is Ukraine. There are dozens of them. Protecting the Ukraine from Russia is
the guise for getting stinking rich for those using their office or connections to congress
or the StateDept.
ITS THE CORRUPTION THAT HAS BECOME NORMALIZED IN THE US BABY CAKES!
Don't waste your time with partisan bullshit defending Trump or Biden.
Notice how Eliz Warren is skyrocketing.
Because she's talking about government corruption and the middle class.
Most people .that have a brain at all will unite against corruption ..no matter which party
they support .there will be tunnel vision knuckle draggers who wont .but most people
will.
No one likes being cheated or betrayed.
There was little chance that the Trump Administration could prosecute Clinton Inc. without a
widespread hue and cry of political vengeance being leveled: Likewise with the Bidens.
As I've commented in UR a few times before, Trump should hand out Presidential Pardons to
the scurvy lot of them; they'll never be prosecuted for their misdeeds, so why not tar them
with pardons that spell out those misdeeds in gleeful detail.
This isn't partisan oppo war. Kurt Volker, the virgin they threw into the volcano when Biden
got burned? I knew him back when he disappeared into CIA. Think he quit, and just happened to
show up in all these sensitive jobs?
McCain's ventriloquist, then senior ratfuck officer
assigned to Dmytro Firtash? This is just more of the same shit, CIA picks up their
presidential Ken dolls and shakes them around like they're talking to each other.
Biden's
role as poster boy for corruption is all-you-can-steal, but don't imagine he has agency or
discretion or anything.
The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many
countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them
are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President
Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President
Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in
Clintonite camp.
The Clintonite clan can be better described as the Western Global(ist) Deep State. Whether
it's the global white genocide project or the global CO2 control initiative, it's glaringly
obvious that a lot of "our" political representatives are getting their marching orders from
a half-hidden group of wannabe masters of the universe.
The scary part is that a lot of those politicians are unflinchingly pushing unpopular and
ultimately political-career-ending policies. That's how much their loyalty lies on the side
of these enemies of humanity.
@renfro I
would only insert the note that all this mess started by Carter moving into Somalia.
I was really puzzled by that. Only years after I did realize that it was long term plan for
destabilization of Muslim power
@Realist I
guess you don't have the proper reverence for "Bite-Me". Every other story ever written about
that slimeball mentions that he lost a wife and child in an auto accident right after he won
his first election to the US Senate. He's been trafficing off of it for nearly fifty years
now. Sometimes he says the accident was caused by a drunk driver (not true). The family of
the other driver has been trying to get him to stop making that claim, but I guess it brings
more sympathy.
If you love Jews for Israel Vote for Joe.
Did you know that our constitution is based on Jewish values?
I didn't know that but Joe says it is.
Strange there's not a single Jew among the signers of the Del of Indep. or the Constitution.
Biden: 'Jewish heritage is American heritage'
excerpts
"The truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential
part of who we are that it's fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage," he said.
"The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized
influence per capita as all of you standing before you, and all of those who went before me
and all of those who went before you."
"So many notions that are embraced by this nation that particularly emanate from over 5,000
years of Jewish history, tradition and culture: independence, individualism, fairness,
decency, justice, charity.
Jews have also been key to the evolution of American jurisprudence, he continued,
namedropping Brandeis, Fortas, Frankfurter, Cardozo, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan. "You literally
can't. You can't talk about the recognition of rights in the Constitution without looking at
these incredible jurists that we've had."
"Jewish heritage has shaped who we are – all of us, us, me – as much or more
than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that's a fact," he said.
"We talk about it in terms of the incredible accomplishments and contributions" of Jews in
America, Biden added, but it's deeper "because the values, the values are so deep and so
engrained in American culture, in our Constitution."
"So I think you, as usual, underestimate the impact of Jewish heritage. I really mean
that. I think you vastly underestimate the impact you've had on the development of this
nation. We owe you, we owe generations who came before you," he said."
I don't think Nancy would impeach if she could not get a conviction. Why would Republican
Senators say no to Trumps head on a platter? He's not one of them. The House will impeach and
the Senate will convict.
Then what? Then the Clinton/Bush/Obama crime family and their paymasters will remain safe
and in charge of the Federal Government. Safe from Orange Man and the Deplorables I mean.
Russia, China and Iran are another matter.
Unless U.S. Atty Barr has something really good up his sleeve. Does anybody here think
Barr will actually do anything? Other than not inditing Comey?
Today America is governed by an Organized Criminal Enterprise. a take over that began with
then Vice President Bush after his bungled assasination of Ronald Regan. However, it wasn't a
complete failure as it resulted in Bush (a Rockefeller asset) actually running the WH, and
subsequently winning the presidency.
Bill Clinton (a possible Rockefeller offspring, who for
all his Democratic party trappings is a CIA (Bush) creation who was treated by G. Bush like
a favored nephew, and both benefitted greatly in partnership international narcotics
trafficking.
After Bill it was George's son's turn, after that came Rockefeller's next choice
Obama. Trump interrupted the Rockefeller reign, but he has problems too steming from his
accepting Russian mafia money in the late 80s early 90's, to save his real estate empire.
They, the Russian/Ukrainians, needed a brand name through which to launder money into the
states, looted from mother Russia, and Trump filled that need to a T. So today we're
witnessing a fight between the Russian mafia crooks including a reluctant but fatally comprimised Trump, and the Rockefeller's communist crooks, all for control of America, her
banks and military, and ultimately the world.
@Justvisiting
I understand the approach; it would be very popular with Joe 6-Pack. Big Media has been
exposed: watch Giuliani and George Stepinshitalopolous. The Naked Deceit of the MSM has been
laid bare. I think that in future, many will look back and see that a simple win as you
suggest was not doable;the lack of executive control of the Alphabet agencies and Civil
Bureaucracy is near non-existent at this point. 2020 will break the will of the Democrat
Party. Two years of controlling the House and Senate could actually allow for this type of
activity because the way was cleared to do so in the first term.
What the Dems did was go spastic for 3 years screaming Russia to hide Ukraine. I'm sure
there is more dirt in Ukraine and China and .Notice Trump has 2 personal lawyers that he has
briefed to handle items he could normally count on a Cabinet Secretary to do? Why? These are
not, I suggest, normal times. The C_A, Brennan, Clapper and others are in full court press.
But now it's the 4th period and they are out of gas (sorry, bad sports metaphor).
Trump could get impeached. The Senate would look at it. Rule it is spurious and throw it out.
Then McConnell could say: 'What about this CFR video, Biden, Ukraine what about that?" Trump
gets elected in 2020 with a landslide after gaining significant sympathy and support. The
MORE INSANE the MOCKINGBIRD CIA media behaves, the more people are leaving the Democrat Party
and the more Independents see Trump as the only game in town.
Who is their to vote for: Biden, Warren, Booker, Bernie? The Left has no one except Gabbard
and they don't trust her. Kamala Harris has lost all heart. Killary Clinton or Big Mike
Obama? The voters would reject both. They have nothing.
@Sean
McBride I have a colleague, who I believe to be a psychopath, who always backs the person
he thinks will win in our organization's power struggles.
He has been very successful, and
leads a happy and celebrated life. I would urge all of you to consider his example, think
first of your families, and desist from backing a losing cause.
America is mostly lost. We
can keep it alive in our homes, but our political culture is, and will remain, an alien
culture, that renounces the vision of our founders.
@Rurik
Rurik,
good or bad, Mr Kolomoysky is the only one Ukr oligarch who is against IMF and against
Clintonites. Good or bad, he is not considered as anti-Putin, or anti-Russian in the Ukraine.
If he is connected to the nefarious entity called Rothschild, this omnipotent Rothschild did
not help him when the other bankers took over his bank.
The world is not that simple, Rurik. You see a Jew and you presume he is a Zionist, Jewish
supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater and Rothschild stooge. With this presumption, you do not
have to read at all.
@Cato A
question to consider: has America been a Masonic project from the start? Has it been a
Masonic project all along? Has there always been a radical disconnect between America's overt
agenda and a hidden agenda?
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of
the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.
"We don't call him shifty Schiff for nothing," said Mr. Trump. "He's a shifty dishonest
guy."
Mr. Schiff's aides followed procedures involving the C.I.A. officer's accusations, Mr.
Boland said. They referred the C.I.A. officer to the inspector general for the intelligence
community, Michael Atkinson, and advised him to seek legal counsel.
Mr. Schiff never saw the full complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would
deliver to Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Boland said. -NYT
GOP spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington, meanwhile, responded to the Times ' article - calling
the whistleblower saga 'COLLUSION' and a 'CON JOB' in a Wednesday afternoon tweet.
"... the text does not read the way government people write. It sounds instead like an op-ed, a mediocre journalist "connecting the dots," a Maddow exclusive combining anonymous sources with dramatic conclusions. Sure, maybe the whistleblower had help writing it, but that's not the point. The point is that the complaint was written for the media. It was written to be leaked. It wasn't even about an intelligence matter. Maybe that's why the DOJ quickly rejected its accusations, and why both the Times ..."
"... If the whistleblower really is an analyst, he is not a very good one. He mixes second-hand sources with public ones to mimic a weary Dem narrative of foreign election help much like the Steele Dossier . The complainant witnessed nothing himself and produced no primary documents. The sourcing is as vague as "more than half a dozen officials have informed me of various facts." No law is cited because none applied; the whistleblower simply recorded his interpretation into bullet points, like the punchlines from Russiagate no one laughed at. ..."
"... The whistleblower's expected testimony will be played as high drama but actually it is meaningless; he has an opinion but his accusations were made without hearing the call or reading the transcript. At least he's in good company: Nancy Pelosi also declared her support for impeachment before she'd heard the call or seen the transcript. ..."
"... Elizabeth Warren will emerge as the nominee . Goodbye then to all the minor Dems, see you in 2024, perhaps running against Mike Pence after Trump's second term ..."
"... The case is weak, though with their House majority, that might not stop the Dems from impeaching a president just months ahead of an election based on a partisan interpretation of a few words to a minor world leader. ..."
"... Democrats are taking that road instead of talking about jobs, health care, immigration, or any of the other issues voters do care about. ..."
"... Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of ..."
the whistleblower complaint before the thing was
leaked to the Washington Post . The original complaint was passed from the
Intelligence Community Inspector General to the DOJ, which determined there was no crime and
closed the case. Officials found that the transcript did not show that Trump had violated
campaign finance laws by soliciting a thing of value, such as the investigation, from a foreign
national. Even as Democrats bleat about how corrupt the DOJ is, at some point during any
impeachment, they will need to make clear what evidence they have that finds crime where DOJ
did not. No one is above the law, sure, but which law exactly are we talking about here?
Trump is apparently no better at cover-ups than he is at extortion. He got no dirt on Biden
even as Ukraine pocketed its aid money (Ukraine, in fact, knew
nothing about the aid being frozen while Trump supposedly was shaking them down), and his
so-called cover-up concluded with him releasing in unprecedented fashion both the complaint and
the transcript. For a cover-up to even begin, you have to have something to cover, and a phone
call that led nowhere doesn't need to be covered up. In fact, it's on the internet right
now.
Advertisement
But the complaint says that the transcript was moved from one secure computer server inside
the White House to an even more secure server. That's a cover-up! Not discussed is that
Congress had no more access to the first server than the second. Exactly who was blocked from
seeing the transcript when it was on the more secure system who would have had access to it
otherwise? It seems the main person who suddenly couldn't grab the transcript was the
whistleblower. To make all this work, Democrats either have to argue for
less cybersecurity or impeach for over-classification. And of course, the Obama
administration also stored records of select presidential
phone calls on the exact
same server .
Bottom line: Trump asked the Ukrainian president to take calls from Bill Barr and Rudy
Giuliani to talk about corruption, a bilateral issue since the Obama administration with or
without Hunter Biden. There was no quid pro quo. Maybe a good scolding is deserved, but sloppy
statesmanship is not high crimes and misdemeanors.
Something else is wrong. The whistleblower is a member of the intel community (the New
York Times says CIA), but the text does not read the way government people write. It
sounds instead like an op-ed, a mediocre journalist "connecting the dots," a Maddow exclusive
combining anonymous sources with dramatic conclusions. Sure, maybe the whistleblower had help
writing it, but that's not the point. The point is that the complaint was written for the
media. It was written to be leaked. It wasn't even about an intelligence matter. Maybe that's
why the DOJ quickly rejected its accusations, and why both the Times and
the Huffington Post praised the writing, commenting on how much clearer the complaint was
than Mueller's legalese.
And that's a problem. A whistleblower complaint is meant to point out violations of law in
the language of prosecutors. It is legalese. A complaint requires data and references.
The evidence I needed to explain waste in Iraq's
reconstruction ended up at over 230
published pages. Daniel Ellsberg's
Pentagon Papers originally ran into multiple volumes to prove that the government lied
about Vietnam. Ed Snowden needed terabytes of data to demonstrate NSA illegality.
If the whistleblower really is an analyst, he is not a very good one. He mixes
second-hand sources with public ones to mimic a weary Dem narrative of foreign election help
much like the
Steele Dossier . The complainant witnessed nothing himself and produced no primary
documents. The sourcing is as vague as "more than half a dozen officials have informed me of
various facts." No law is cited because none applied; the whistleblower simply recorded his
interpretation into bullet points, like the punchlines from Russiagate no one laughed
at.
The whistleblower's expected
testimony will be played as high drama but actually it is meaningless; he has an opinion
but his accusations were made without hearing the call or reading the transcript. At least he's
in good company: Nancy Pelosi also declared her support for impeachment before she'd heard the
call or seen the transcript.
Here's where things stand. After three years of trying to keep Trump from assuming office,
then cycling through ways to throw him out, this plops onto the field. If an impeachment vote
comes, it will literally be with Trump having only a few months left in his term. This is no
longer about overturning 2016; it is about circumventing 2020, fear by the Democrats of what
will happen if they let the deplorables vote again. Is the Dem slate that weak? They are acting
as if they have nothing to lose by trying impeachment.
Pity Nancy Pelosi, who tried to hold back her colleagues. Now instead of answering the needs
of constituents, Democrats will instead exploit their majority in the House to hold hearings
that will likely lead to a show vote that would have embarrassed Stalin. History will remember
Pelosi as the mom who, after putting up with the kids' tantrums for hours, finally gave in only
a few blocks from home. She'll regret spoiling dinner over a hefty glass of white wine, but
what could she do: they just wouldn't shut up and her nerves were shot. Have you had
to listen to AOC complain from the back seat for two hours in traffic?
The last thing Joe Biden needed was more baggage. It'll take awhile for him to realize it,
but he's done, doomed by kompromat never actually found. Impeachment will so dominate
the media that no one will listen to whatever the other primary Dems have to say. Kamala Harris
in the midst of all this was so desperate for attention she was still trying to drum up support
for impeaching Brett
Kavanaugh .
Elizabeth Warren will emerge as the
nominee . Goodbye then to all the minor Dems, see you in 2024, perhaps running against Mike
Pence after Trump's second term .
The case is weak, though with their House majority, that might not stop the Dems from
impeaching a president just months ahead of an election based on a partisan interpretation of a
few words to a minor world leader. Impeachment didn't even come up in the last Democratic
debate, yet heading into the early caucuses, the faces of the party will be Adam Schiff and the
agita-driven Hillary. Democrats are taking that road instead of talking about jobs, health
care, immigration, or any of the other issues voters do care about.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant
Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People ,
Hooper's War: A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the 99
Percent.
"... Schiff's hate for Trump and hate for Russia, can be easily explained by the money he appears to received from his oligarch patron, who has an agenda to neo-liberalize Ukraine, and profit from the pillage started in Maidan in 2014. ..."
When in doubt follow the money. Congressman Schiff's When in doubt follow the money. Congressman Schiff's
well
documented Putin obsession may have something to do with his billionaire, military complex, oligarch patron from Ukraine.
In a Zerohedge post yesterday, chronicling the latest Adam Schiff idiocy, where the Democrat Congressman spoke to a crowd at
the University of Pennsylvania,
declaring Russian ads promoted the Second Amendment during the 2016 election "so we will kill each other" commenter
AlaricBalth linked some interesting information on Schiff's underlying motivation behind his Russia hysteria
Adam Schiff is an owned hatchet man of Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak. Schiff's anti-Russian narrative is carefully orchestrated
by his Ukrainian handlers Adam Schiff is an owned hatchet man of Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak. Schiff's anti-Russian narrative
is carefully orchestrated by his Ukrainian handlers
https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/843864725062664197
"TASTE OF UKRAINE RECEPTIONfor Adam Schiff" "TASTE OF UKRAINE RECEPTIONfor Adam Schiff" "TASTE OF UKRAINE RECEPTIONfor Adam
Schiff" http://politicalpartytime.org/party/34974/ Pasternak,
who was raised and educated in Ukraine before immigrating to the United States, is a passionate promoter of Ukrainian culture
and business. He has been active in both Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to support increased bilateral ties between the two
countries and has been especially active building awareness of Ukraine's strategic economic importance among Members of Congress.
Since political protests broke out across Ukraine in late 2013, Pasternak has worked to personally inform and educate Members
of Congress about the geostrategic importance of Ukraine to European and US security. Pasternak, who was raised and educated in
Ukraine before immigrating to the United States, is a passionate promoter of Ukrainian culture and business. He has been active
in both Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to support increased bilateral ties between the two countries and has been especially
active building awareness of Ukraine's strategic economic importance among Members of Congress. Since political protests broke
out across Ukraine in late 2013, Pasternak has worked to personally inform and educate Members of Congress about the geostrategic
importance of Ukraine to European and US security. Pasternak, who was raised and educated in Ukraine before immigrating to the
United States, is a passionate promoter of Ukrainian culture and business. He has been active in both Los Angeles and Washington,
D.C. to support increased bilateral ties between the two countries and has been especially active building awareness of Ukraine's
strategic economic importance among Members of Congress. Since political protests broke out across Ukraine in late 2013, Pasternak
has worked to personally inform and educate Members of Congress about the geostrategic importance of Ukraine to European and US
security.
Jack Posobiec tweeted in March 2017 on Schiff's connection to Pasternak and George Soros Jack Posobiec tweeted in March 2017 on Schiff's
connection to Pasternak and George Soros
Hi @RepAdamSchiff! Why did Soros-tied Ukraninan Arms Dealer Igor Pasternak hold a fundraiser for you? #ComeyHearing Hi @RepAdamSchiff!
Why did Soros-tied Ukraninan Arms Dealer Igor Pasternak hold a fundraiser for you? #ComeyHearing
PIN IT Who is Who is Who is Schiff's patron, Igor
Pasternak? He is a Ukraine globalist, military industrialist who was curiously spotted in Maidan, Kiev in 2014 for "diplomatic
reasons" during the US/CIA sponsored coup.
PIN IT
Founded 27 years ago in the U.S., the Aeroscraft Corporation (Aeros) has grown from a small aerostat production manufacturer
to a leading FAA-certified airship producer and R&D firm for the aerospace industry. Aeros has achieved multiple FAA airship
type certificates and operates with an FAA Production Certificate, while featuring a product line that includes advanced airships
and tethered aerostats utilized in commercial and government applications throughout the world. Learn more at
http://www.aeroscraft.com.
A Ukrainian billionaire oligarch, with military industrial complex contracts, funding Adam Schiff's campaign dinners at $2,500
a plate no wonder Schiff is pushing the Russia fear mongering so hard.
Schiff's hate for Trump and hate for Russia, can be easily explained by the money he appears to received from his oligarch
patron, who has an agenda to neo-liberalize Ukraine, and profit from the pillage started in Maidan in 2014.
Perhaps its time to shine a little bit of light on Adam Schiff's Ukraine collusion.
Ukrainegate is all about power of deep state to control the narrative
Notable quotes:
"... That is what this is all about. It always is. Then-editor Ben Bradlee of The Washington Post, when it looked like the Iran-Contra matter might break Ronald Reagan's presidency, after his 49-state landslide, chortled, "We haven't had this much fun since Watergate." ..."
"... This is what the deep state does to outsiders Middle America sends to Washington to challenge or dispossess it. ..."
To ensure the investigation was done swiftly, she took the franchise from Nadler and his
judiciary committee and handed it to Adam Schiff and the intelligence committee. Now she is
urging a narrowing of the articles of impeachment to just one -- Trump's request of Ukraine's
president to look into the Bidens.
Pelosi's hope: Have one House vote on a single article of impeachment by year end; then send
it on to the Senate for trial and be done with it. This is Nancy Pelosi's fast track to
impeachment of Trump and ruination of his presidency. But, to be sure, she is "heartbroken"
about all this.
For three years, the media-deep state axis has sought to overturn the election of 2016 and
bring down Trump, starting with Russia-gate. Now it appears to have tailored and weaponized the
impeachment process.
That is what this is all about. It always is. Then-editor Ben Bradlee of The Washington
Post, when it looked like the Iran-Contra matter might break Ronald Reagan's presidency, after
his 49-state landslide, chortled, "We haven't had this much fun since Watergate."
This is what the deep state does to outsiders Middle America sends to Washington to
challenge or dispossess it.
How should the Republican Party and Trump's base respond?
Recognize reality. Whether or not Trump was ill-advised to suggest to the president of
Ukraine that passing on the fruits of the investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden, the end game
is bringing down Trump, democracy's equivalent of regicide.
While the "whistleblower," whose memo is the basis of these impeachment hearings, is well on
his way to Beltway beatification, no campaign to depose the president can be allowed to cloak
itself in anonymity indefinitely, for one man's whistleblower is another man's seditionist.
Whom did the whistleblower collaborate with to produce his memo? What is his background?
What are his biases? The people have a right to know. And democracy dies in darkness, does it
not?
Not until 30 years after Watergate did we learn the "whistleblower" known as "Deep Throat"
was a corrupt FBI veteran agent who leaked grand jury secrets to The Washington Post to
discredit acting Director Pat Gray and thereby become FBI director himself.
His identity was sheltered for three decades. For whose benefit?
Republicans should not allow Democrats to fast-track this process but should give their
troops time to recognize the stakes involved, organize a defense and repel this latest
establishment attempt to overthrow a president elected to come to the capital to corral that
establishment.
Force all the Democratic candidates for president to take a stand on removing Trump for high
crimes -- over a nebulous phone call to Kiev.
And the U.S. Senate should refuse to take up and should return to the House any bill of
impeachment done in a short-circuited and savagely partisan manner, as this one is being done.
There should be no rush to judgment.
If the election of 2020 is going to be about President Trump, tell the nation that the
people will decide his political fate in November 2020, and that of Joe Biden if Democrats
believe he is as pure as the driven snow and choose to nominate him.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and
Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Pelosi is speaker in name only she runs nothing. She is old and addled , a real dumbass. In
fact most of Congress is that way. The Deep State is the real power anyway.
Perhaps this farce is all about Trump's recalcitrance over Iran.
Trump was supposed to do a 'Libya' to Iran by now. There is grumbling that he's too
worried about his own re-election, to follow through with the quid pro quo.
He was ousted from his role amid disputes over foreign policy.
Pelosi's hope: Have one House vote on a single article of impeachment by year end; then
send it on to the Senate for trial and be done with it. This is Nancy Pelosi's fast track
to impeachment of Trump and ruination of his presidency.
Pelosi has been in the DC swamp long enough to know that a Republican controlled Senate is
going to use any Senate Trial to their own ends.
So what does Senate Trial actually mean? Short answer, whatever Mitch Connell wants
it to mean.
Given how badly Adam Schiff is comprimised, there can be little doubt he will be
subpoenaed and forced give testimony under oath with the penalty of Justice Department
investigation for perjury if he lies. Will he:
-- Take the 5th to avoid perjury?
-- Refuse to testify?
Pelosi has to know that this will be bad for the Democrat party. So, "Why is she doing
it?"
Fortunately the author has already provided the correct answer:
But to Pelosi this was looking like a loser, a dead end, a formula for failure followed
by a backlash against House Democrats and her own removal as speaker in January 2021, if
not before.
After advising against this, and only reluctantly going along, she has laid the trail of
blame directly "The Squad" including AOC. Who is the greatest threat to Pelosi? Could it be
AOC?
Pelosi's first priority is Pelosi. She is acting to minimize harm and maximize gain to
Pelosi. Is anyone surprised?
To be honest, this makes her like most other politicians (1).
@Robert
Dolan What should make your head hurt is that the powers that be can make false
allegations against anyone, can provide fake witnesses and documents to back up their
allegations, can slander their name all over the mass media, can get them removed from their
job, and may be able to get them sent to prison.
Anyone.
This may appear to be about Trump, but it is not.
This is about every single living breathing person.
If you are not afraid you are not paying attention.
Republicans should not allow Democrats to fast-track this process but should give their
troops time to recognize the stakes involved, organize a defense and repel this latest
establishment attempt to overthrow a president elected to come to the capital to corral
that establishment.
I'm sure there is no shortage of Repubes who think letting Trump get the heave-ho will
allow them to get back to serious government; if Trump gets the heave-ho, they will find
themselves wandering in the desert longer than the last go-round following the Dems' capture
of the government in 1933. The thing about importing millions of new voters from south of the
border is that you get an electorate already accustomed to a century of one-party rule.
"Republicans should not allow Democrats to fast-track this process "
Oh, no doubt. Republicans should also slap down one of their own, Mitch McConnell, for
fast tracking Chuckie Schumer's Senate resolution to turn the whistleblower's complaint over
to Schiff's Star Chamber without debate from republicans in the Senate.
Did you miss that one, Pat? It was reported in NYmag's Intelligencer:
"One of the most pressing questions of the hectic Tuesday involved why Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell chose to counter his block-everything legacy and fast-track the
resolution. (McConnell chose to "hotline" the motion, meaning he bypassed normal Senate
procedures to move Schumer's request to a vote without floor debate.) "
This surpasses the GOP's reputation of being the stupid party and shows them as the ally
of their "loyal opposition", doesn't it? Shouldn't republicans also try to keep their own
team members from handing the democrats whatever they want for their impeachment scam?
Thank you for this article. I hope to God the Senate does exactly as you say they should,
which is to quickly and unceremoniously toss any such single-issue impeachment article back
over the fence to the House. And I hope to God Trump wins re-election decisively and the
House crazies are tossed out on their ears. Is it too much to hope and pray that there are
still enough sane voters in the country? You don't have to love Trump to see that putting him
back in office and flipping the House to Republican would be a well-deserved rebuke to the
likes of Schiff, Pelosi, the Squabs, Never-Trumpers, and the Deep State intent on deposing
the duly-elected President against the will of the people.
@Realist
"Old and addled, a real dumbass?" That perfectly describes the focus of Trump's infamous
phone call – Joe Biden. I can't believe that that senile old man is still in the race,
or was allowed to run in the first place.
"... As The Times reports, "The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer's concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint ," adding "the original accusation was vague," and "The aide did not share the whistle-blower's identity with Mr. Schiff or anyone else." ..."
"... GOP spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington, meanwhile, responded to the Times ' article - calling the whistleblower saga 'COLLUSION' and a 'CON JOB' in a Wednesday afternoon tweet. ..."
"... Finally, if this process seems vaguely familiar, it's because it should be: as the Federalist's Sean Davis writes, this is a carbon copy of what happened with Christine Blasey Ford's accusations aimed at sabotaging Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation. ..."
While President Trump is now accusing Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) of 'helping to write' a CIA
whistleblower's complaint at the heart of an impeachment inquiry, the New York Times is out
with a Wednesday article designed to put distance between the House Intelligence Committee
Chairman and the accusation - suggesting Schiff had no more than a vague sneak peek .
As The Times
reports, "The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B.
Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer's concerns that President
Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed
a whistle-blower complaint ," adding "the original accusation was vague," and "The aide did
not share the whistle-blower's identity with Mr. Schiff or anyone else."
So - according to the Times, Schiff kinda sorta knew what the whistleblower said, and a
House Intel Committee aide told him (or her) to get an attorney - Andrew Bakaj - who "interned
for Schumer in the spring of 2001 and for Clinton in the fall of the same year," per
The Federalist .
The Times goes to great lengths to explain that nothing was untwoard.
"Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and
Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on
how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community," said
Schiff spokesman Patrick Boland.
Trump, meanwhile, is gunning for Schiff.
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of
the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.
"We don't call him shifty Schiff for nothing," said Mr. Trump. "He's a shifty dishonest
guy."
Mr. Schiff's aides followed procedures involving the C.I.A. officer's accusations, Mr.
Boland said. They referred the C.I.A. officer to the inspector general for the intelligence
community, Michael Atkinson, and advised him to seek legal counsel.
Mr. Schiff never saw the full complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would
deliver to Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Boland said. -NYT
GOP spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington, meanwhile, responded to the Times ' article - calling
the whistleblower saga 'COLLUSION' and a 'CON JOB' in a Wednesday afternoon tweet.
Finally, if this process seems vaguely familiar, it's because it should be: as the
Federalist's Sean Davis writes, this is a carbon copy of what happened with Christine Blasey
Ford's accusations aimed at sabotaging Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation.
"The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff
of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer's concerns that President
Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed
a whistle-blower complaint ," adding "the original accusation was vague," and "The aide
did not share the whistle-blower's identity with Mr. Schiff or anyone else."
Of course Schiff would say that? What? Does the NYT think Schiff and the democrats would
actually admit it?
The Federalist: Federal law doesn't provide any whistleblower protections to intel
operatives who refuse to first provide their allegations to the ICIG and instead go outside
the statutory process to leak their allegations to partisan activists.
...Even Truman was lamenting the CIA after creating it! a D.N.I? really? a top *****?
almost as powerful as the Attorney General?! Let them draw swords on one another......
Question - What is the purpose of this facade, this FAKE wrestling match between Trump and
the Elites?
Answer - To get conservatives invested in a false left-right political paradigm, to co-opt
and fracture the liberty movement, and ultimately to chain us to Trump so that the
credibility of conservatism goes down with him and the economic collapse that will be falsely
blamed on him.
To those out there who have awoken to the FRAUD that is Trump, your time to speak loudly,
clearly, and consistently is NOW. Fight for the truth like your life depends upon it -
because it does. If enough of us turn the tables and successfully detach ourselves from Trump
- the Elite will be at a severe disadvantage.
Yes- you will be attacked. You will be downvoted. But what's more important to you -
popularity or knowing that you stood up for what was right? Remember, courage is contagious
and silence is acquiescence. I know there are more of you out there - please get off the
fence and come join us. NOW.
BREAKING: Judicial Watch: DOJ Docs Show Rosenstein Advising Mueller 'the Boss' Doesn't
Know About Their Communications. Shows massive collusion and plotting by Rosenstein and
Muller, behind administrations back, and collusion with democrats and press.
"These astonishing emails further confirm the dishonest corruption behind Rosenstein's
appointment of Robert Mueller," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The emails also
show a shockingly cozy relationship between Mr. Rosenstein and anti-Trump media
reporters."
The whistleblower protection law (which Obama never let get in the way of his reprisals) law
says the spook must have "reasonably believed" Trump did wrong. How do you get there with a
trained swamp creature of the CIA?
Wow! Please expound on "the Unitary Executive 'theory'.
Is it treason or an impeachable theory?
Send links that are no main stream DNC printing presses.
Why don't the House start with putting the spook hiding behind hearsay protections on the
stand?
That would clear up the issue without spending 40 months with a deep state left over
trying to get people to 'breech process' and go to jail.
Why don't the House bring the spook's hearsay sources on the stand?
Since Nov 2016 the DNC tools have been Sherlock Holmesing Trump and anyone near him to
attempt a coup. Impeachment is not an end it is the coup conspirators process.
The spook rumor blower deserves no privacy, until he is proven separate from the DNC coup
conspirators.
The only protectable "referral" from a swamp creature is a referral against the swamp!
(The only control that Congress has over
the President is its power to impeach him.)
The unitary executive theory is a theory of US constitutional law holding that the US
president possesses the power to control the entire executive branch. The doctrine is rooted
in Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests "the executive power" of the
United States in the President. ... (Wikipedia)
Attorney General William Barr has been criticized for his capacious view of executive
power. It's a view that some other conservatives also hold, and also that some progressives
hold, generally dependent upon which party occupies theWhite House.
But Barr's performance last week as he released the Mueller report betrayed a view of the
presidency that goes well beyond mainstream constitutional theories. If his influence is
allowed to become a legitimate position, the damage to the rule of law in America could far
out-last the drama of the Mueller report itself.
Since at least the 1980s, many conservatives have adhered to a unitary executive theory of
executive power. The theory is based on Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution: "The
executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That means
just the president, and the executive power can't be fractured and reassigned to various
commissions and committees as Congress was fond of doing through most of the 20th century.
Under unitary executive theory, all executive officers have to be, in some way or another,
accountable to the president. ...
IMO, the explanation offered above
is the 'weak form' of the theory.
The strong form, as I noted, is
that Congress' only recourse for an
over-stepping president is impeachment.
Let's begin with ISIS. In many different ways, I documented, on the CSS, beyond a a shadow
of a doubt that Hillary and McCain started ISIS. Hillary made the first move, as I previously
documented, by paying "blood money" to a small band of terrorists when she was on the board at
LaFarge. This gave birth to the financial backing that ISIS needed to get started. Their money
was used to entice other impoverished Muslims to join ISIS just like how American teens join
street gangs. This is not a secret and has been widely reported. McCain, while he was the head
of the Senate Intelligence Committee, blocked the destruction of American military equipment
left behind in Iraq. This was deliberate and illegal, as by law, when the American military
abandons a theater of war, the weapons are destroyed so our enemies, or potential enemies
cannot procure needed muscle. McCain's actions led to the small ISIS remnant suddenly appearing
out of seemingly nowhere, to become armed to the teeth. Previously and with the help of former
PSYOPS officer, Scott Bennett, I was able to piece together this scenario. However, many other
outlets reached the same conclusion.
Why was ISIS created? ISIS was a transportation arm and a protection arm of drug trafficking
coming out of Afghanistan. They protected some of the distribution points while carrying out
terrorist activities which serves as an effect cover for their drug operation which is their
main duty. They have also evolved into an effective and well-armed militia, thanks to the CIA,
John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
The only thing that has changed since the war in Afghanistan began is that the heroin
traffic has grown to the world's biggest supply. Our US troops serve the purpose of protecting
various drug lords drug distribution centers. How does this operation escape the scrutiny of
Congress? It doesn't, to be perfectly blunt. The reason that we are still in Afghanistan is
because the Epstein/CIA/Mossad operation has compromised key American politicians. In a sense,
Epstein's Island was the center of the new (1984 style) Ministry of Truth. Entice key
politicians like Adam Schiff, photograph him with underage girls, and you have a powerful ally
in Congress. Multiple this strategy several times over and there is no danger that the war in
Afghanistan will ever end. For George W. Bush, his complicity covered up his cocaine habit. For
"Bathhouse Barry" as he was called, his seedy underworld Chicago lifestyle remains hidden as
long as he leaves the war alone. At the center of all of this complicity is Jeffrey Epstein and
spin off operations which exist to exact compliance through the blackmailing process. Hillary's
connection to ISIS and ultimately the Epstein empire keeps her out of prison. These forces
extracted Epstein from prison and this explains why the guards were not in position when the
extraction occurred. It is explains why the video footage, which was required in a suicide
watch situation, are "not available". It explains why Hillary has never stood trial.
Now, here comes Donald Trump. In two recent occasions he has threatened to withdraw troops
from Afghanistan. The infighting that would occur between the existing Afghan drug lords would
collapse the system and cut into the might profits of the heroin empire. Hence, we have yet
another attempt to remove Trump from power because he is not fully on board with these types of
CIA led operations. And make no mistake about it, according to long-term sources, when we are
talking Afghanistan, we are talking about world domination with many key politicians. This is a
Deep State operation.
Why not just kill Trump? The answer is simple. In 1963, there was no Independent Media (IM)
except for the likes of people like Josiah Thompson and the late Jim Marrs. These men never let
go of the assassination. Jim taught the first class on JFK assassination of the University of
Texas. It took 30 years and a major movie to fully awaken the American people, that on behalf
of David Rockefeller, Alan Dulles, LBJ, J Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon orchestrated the plot
to kill JFK because of the threat he posed to the Federal Reserve, the nuclear arms race and of
course JFK was opposed to the heroin cash cow known as Vietnam. The South Vietnamese President
was assassinated three weeks before JFK because both men were not on board with sending troops
into Southeast Asia to protect the drug trafficking of the Golden Triangle run by covert
operations of the CIA. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia was Afghanistan, before the Afghan war. If
there was an IM in 1963, this crime would have been solved by Christmas of the same year (30
days after the assassination). If Trump were to be assassinated, the IM would be all over this
and the American people would more than likely rise up and the Deep State cannot afford this.
So, covert operations must be employed by the CIA. This President must go before the election.
This was the same exact thinking when JFK was assassinated. If JFK were to get a second term,
he could irreparable harm to the Deep State of the day. The same is true for Trump. His border
policies alone, could cost the globalists drug-trafficking trade, run by the CIA and the
Mossad, billions of dollars. Since the Russian collusion did not result in impeachment, the
Ukraine plot was hatched. The plot is being led by Adam Schiff. Why Schiff? Because he is
compromised, deeply compromised as in Deep State compromised. He is implicated in Epstein
Island according to my best source. Because Trump is not fully on board and never has been with
the Afghan War, he has faced the Russian collusion and now the nothing burger of Ukraine-gate
and Schiff is leading the charge. The complicity of every American politician is being brought
to bear. If you have noticed that until the past few days, Pelosi was dragging her feet on
impeachment because she knows if it fails, her party is dead. Pelosi is implicated in border
drug trafficking and stealing water out of Northern California and sending it to Communist
China. Even Bill Maher is opposed to this course of action by the Democrats with regard to
impeachment. He sees the end of the Democratic Party if impeachment fails. Clearly, Maher did
not get the memo. It is impeachment at all costs. The Deep State is reeling, and this is their
Kamikaze attack. It is all or nothing.
These facts, listed above, have been fully communicated. However, what follows is not as
well-known and is serving to fuel the Ukrainian frame up of Trump. I have information that
comes out of the intel community that has shed light on this situation. In fact, this
information is reverberating in the intel community. It is suppressed as I write these words
and CNN and the rest of the MSM are scrambling to create a diversion that will take eyes off of
what you are going to read right here.
My insider source, and the info was partially confirmed by another source, implicates
Congressman Adam Schiff in a plot to overthrow the US government beginning with Donald Trump.
Schiff is part of group, fronting for CIA/Mossad interests in drug trafficking.
Schiff is a compromised man. He is deeply implicated in the shenanigans of the Epstein
child-sex-trafficking empire according to the source. As many world-wide politicians are,
Schiff is being blackmailed by Epstein-related interests with a political agenda.
Schiff has another issue that he needs to cover up and it has to do with Ukraine. I have
been told by this inside source that Adam Schiff was in league with Hunter Biden and corrupt
Ukrainian officials and that Schiff received hundreds of thousands of dollars to steer
Congressional oversight away from Ukraine. Why? Because the Ukrainian revolution was CIA
inspired. Why? Because the CIA and the Mossad wanted their drug trafficking to extend to the
Silk Road and Putin told the CIA where to go and what to do when they got there. Subsequently,
the CIA initiated a coup in Ukraine and installed wholly corrupt EU figures in the power base
of the country. This was something that the CSS reported on extensively when this was
occurring. Ukraine is one of Russia's main source for natural gas and the loss of Russian
revenue related to this revolution in Ukraine. And what did Putin do, he retaliated and
occupied Crimea. The previously identified Democrats moved into the vacuum and began to profit
from the criminal enterprises that sprang up as a result of what was happening in Ukraine. Some
of these figures includes Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake and Hunter/Joe Biden.
The readers may have noticed that Mitt Romney has seemingly come out of nowhere to enter
this controversy and go after Trump. If that seemed out of place to you, as it did to me, there
was a very good reason for this. Mitt Romney has been after Trump since day one. Additionally,
Jeff Flake who mysteriously resigned from the Senate and did not seek re-election has
periodically surfaced to attack Trump and he has done so again over the Ukrainian issue. Why?
Why are Flake, Romney and Schiff all on the attack? Why were 500 words deleted from the
transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky in order to create the illusion that Trump
was obstructing justice? The answer is that Flake and Romney were involved in Hunter Biden's
criminal enterprise in Ukraine. They are all at risk. That is why these people are taking front
and center against Trump.
My insider source did not give me the following information, but it must be related. It was
announced, or should I say, purposely leaked, that Barr and Trump are looking for an
international conspiracy with regard to American Deep State interests. This goes back to an
Epstein international blackmailing operation. Trump is playing chicken with the Deep State. I
recently scoffed when it was suggested to me that the Deep State was in a near-collapsed state.
I am no longer skeptical. I am certain that Joe Biden, former President Obama, the late John
McCain, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation and many others are deeply compromised and
it is on the verge of coming out and the Epstein blackmail enterprise may not be able to stop
the disclosures.
And what about Schiff? Why is he leading the charge? Because he is willing to commit treason
than risk going to jail for the rest of his life.
I will conclude these revelations with tweets from Trump that clearly shows he is in
agreement with what is reported here.
"Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be
mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to
Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest
for Treason?" tweeted Trump.
Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be
mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to
Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest
for Treason?
The Fake Whistleblower complaint is not holding up. It is mostly about the call to the
Ukrainian President which, in the name of transparency, I immediately released to Congress
& the public. The Whistleblower knew almost nothing, its 2ND HAND description of the call
is a fraud!
Twice, the President mentioned arresting Schiff for treason. He knows of what I have written
about in this report.
Also, Joe Biden is done. As these facts surface and his complicity in covering up for his
son, Hunter, further surfaces, Elizabeth Warren will emerge as the candidate for the Democratic
Party. What a joke! She cannot win! That is why Hillary, as I have said 22 prior times in print
and in podcasts, will emerge as the candidate. If she cannot win, civil war will follow. We are
in the middle of a Bolshevik Revolution.
Oh, and one more thing. The CIA changed its whistleblower forms in late August to allow
so-called whistleblowers to use hearsay statements. Wouldn't we all agree that this is a little
bit too coincidental? And in the musical words of the late Tom Petty, which fully applies to
the CIA's complicity here "Let's get to the point and roll another joint". These CIA demons are
killing our children with their drug operations.
"I never expect rationality from the Swamp, I will always be suspicious."
I agree. Some kind of strange Circus with sad clowns like Schiff. Just look at the holes
in the impeachment case (and info about possible links to Brennan CIA faction that became
stronger each days) using which any serious attorney can easily make Schiff to regret him
zeal:
In other words, Pelosi Dems implicated themselves more then they implicated Trump. Clearly
Team Blue elites need #RESISTANCE happy because now it's their [only] base. Wall Street will
prefer Trump to the current top Dem Candidate (Biden and Sanders are history now)
I think it's a colossal mistake, and Pelosi all-in game will blow in her face. They want
to take Trump out of the race but in reality they just increased chances of his re-election
dramatically.
What you are seeing is the neoliberal Democrats are finally discovering that they actually
need the voters that they've been dissing for decades.
And they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch.
In a very real sense, this impeachment gambit (Biden was pawn sacrificed) is a partisan
war between faction of the US elite where there are real penalties for losing.
The war which so far Trump is winning unless Senate acts in Pelosi way.
According to a spokesperson for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, the
whistleblower contacted the committee before raising concerns about alleged wrongdoing with
the intelligence community inspector general.
"Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican and
Democratic-controlled Committees, the whistleblower contacted the Committee for guidance on
how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Community,"
Patrick Boland, the spokesman, wrote in a statement.
"Consistent with the Committee's longstanding procedures, Committee staff appropriately
advised the whistleblower to contact an Inspector General and to seek legal counsel."
The New York Times first reported that Schiff "learned about the outlines" of the
whistleblower's concerns before the complaint was filed, after the soon-to-be whistleblower
approached a committee aide with vague allegations of wrongdoing by Trump. The aide then
shared some of that message with Schiff, according to the Times.
... ... ...
"Well, I think it's a scandal that he knew before. I'd go a step further: I think he
probably helped write it. Okay? That's what the word is. And I think it's -- I give a lot of
respect for the New York Times for putting it out," Trump said.
"At no point did the Committee review or receive the complaint in advance," Boland wrote
in the statement. He declined to elaborate when asked what exactly Schiff knew about the
account before the complaint was filed.
According to a spokesperson for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, the
whistleblower contacted the committee before raising concerns about alleged wrongdoing with the
intelligence community inspector general.
"Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican and
Democratic-controlled Committees, the whistleblower contacted the Committee for guidance on how
to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Community," Patrick
Boland, the spokesman, wrote in a statement. "Consistent with the Committee's longstanding
procedures, Committee staff appropriately advised the whistleblower to contact an Inspector
General and to seek legal counsel."
The New York Times first reported
that Schiff "learned about the outlines" of the whistleblower's concerns before the complaint
was filed, after the soon-to-be whistleblower approached a committee aide with vague
allegations of wrongdoing by Trump. The aide then shared some of that message with Schiff,
according to the Times.
... ... ...
"Well, I think it's a scandal that he knew before. I'd go a step further: I think he
probably helped write it. Okay? That's what the word is. And I think it's -- I give a lot of
respect for the New York Times for putting it out," Trump said.
"At no point did the Committee review or receive the complaint in advance," Boland wrote in
the statement. He declined to elaborate when asked what exactly Schiff knew about the account
before the complaint was filed.
"... If Biden is innocent of corruption, why does it look like he's not? What does that say about the nature of corruption itself in the entire DC establishment? ..."
"... One scenario that Neuburger hasn't considered: perhaps the Democrats are trying impeachment now because they are out of ammo and getting scared about 2020. Rather than lose the election, they are attempting a pre-emptive strike. ..."
"... Or is it a pre-emptive defensive strike by the CIA/Blob? With Trump seeming to ask Ukraine about Crowdstrike, and Barr asking for help from Australia on the Mueller investigation origins (as well as investigating the way the dossier was used), Trump and Barr might be trying to turn TrumpRussia into a counterattack on their establishment enemies, just in time for the election. Buckle up, indeed. ..."
"... The CIA credentials of the "whistleblower" are somehow too convenient, too familiar. The Dems are already more or less in bed with the CIA/Blob, so it is as if they are acting more to aid a "messenger" ..."
"... The intelligence community is rife with dissension and conflict; not over their need to service the multi-national firms and their congressional sycophants they really represent, but rather the speed at which they need to react to challenges coming from our limited free flow of information that contradicts their "stories" and propaganda. ..."
"... Yup, but this is still mislabeled "whistleblowing", which would be such if he/she were ratting on the CIA. ..."
"... I assumed that the much delayed Mueller report finally came out when it did and with the conclusion it did because the CIA was finally convinced that it had Trump sufficiently cowed. The July 27 phone call made it clear to them that it didn't. ..."
"... And Pelosi, when asked by the CIA to jump, immediately responded, "How high?" ..."
"... There are several plausible explanations. If you consider Pelosi's motivations, you have to look no further than her constituency, the donor class. ..."
"... Indeed, we might as well argue that Obama should have been impeached for turning the Espionage Act against reporters. I see that as more damaging to the US than most of Trump's harmful acts to date. ..."
"... Obama successfully convinced people that he WANTED to do the right things but was prevented from doing them by the evil Republicans. Despite the insurance/drug company friendly implementation of ObamaCare, assertion of the most transparent administration, ever, brutally coming down on government whistleblowers, killing overseas citizens via drone, not prosecuting financial misdeeds, and destroying Libya, Obama is seen as righteous. ..."
"... In my view, a truly great con man remains unacknowledged/undetected. ..."
"... Once is the intra-elite competition between the intelligence community and Trump. ..."
"... Trump is more acceptable to Wall Street than the left agenda. These attacks serve to consolidate Trumps base; I've seen more Trump 2020 bumper stickers in my very-blue town than any other candidates. ..."
"... I'm not sure that the Democrats yelling "impeachment!" will register loud enough to overcome the substance of the election campaign. Not enough people care about it. ..."
"... The public discourse is presently in the hands of partisan hacks, of mainly one ideology; Rentier Capitalism. One main American political faction will characterize the obscurantist process as "White Noise. The other main faction will characterize it as "Rainbow Noise." Both will be correct about the "Noise" part. ..."
"... The current equation of Warren and Sanders is the point problem of that coherence. Sanders is weak on foreign policy particulars (Middle East, Venezuela, Ukraine are waffled responses, more afraid to alienate rather than state), Warren is totally absent because she has supported those policies in the past. ..."
"... Both committed to regulation, Warren wanting existing govt. style while Sanders wants the beginning of a bottom-up approach. Details are left on the "debate-stage floor", as what we have had so far is a Sideshow Bob presentation of policy, a Q&A for the media, which leads us nowhere unless you are fanatically political, which most of the nation has been educated/innoculated against. ..."
"... And not a word about Clinton approving arms sales while Secretary of State and accepting gifts to their foundation? ..."
"... What you are seeing is called "hypocrisy", writ large. The Democrats are finally discovering that they actually need the voters that they've been dissing for decades, and they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch. ..."
"... That she has shoved the bankeresque Schiff to the fore in place of the more irascible and prosecutorial Nadler suggests she does not want to give the public a clear narrative, so much as to keep them calm, as if the Trump administration were in charge instead of being in office. ..."
"... Yes, Pelosi put the Intelligence Committee (Schiff) in charge, as opposed to the Judiciary Committee (Nadler). Odd. ..."
"... Don't forget too that Pelosi is related by marriage to Governor Gavin Newsom (his aunt was married to Ron Pelosi, brother-in-law to Nancy). It's one big happy Resistance family! Corruption is okay as long as they do it. Their hypocrisy has no limits. ..."
"... Just imagine if corrupt California elites could rule the United States! ..."
"... Nor was it in 2006, when, after recapturing the House, Pelosi took impeachment "off the table," even though the Bush Administration committed multiple felonies in its warrantless surveillance program, in addition to completely destroying the Fourth Amendment. (Obama later normalized and rationalized all this, of course.) ..."
"... In a very real sense, it is a partisan war where there are penalties for losing. ..."
"... Pelosi has clearly seen the dangers of democrat complicity and corruption before; what's changed? If she was acutely (off the table) aware of the dirty utterly filthy linen danger before, then why not now when it's, if anything, more obvious than ever? ..."
"... It's the ill conceived nature of this, the mess the democrats are creating for themselves, that suggests to me that shifting the focus away from popular programs such as medicare for all is unintended even if successful. It's like stabbing yourself in the arm to divert attention from robbing the church collection. Not a good analogy but anyway ..."
"... a world in which it's perfectly acceptable for the children of elites to trail around after their parents and help smooth the wider asset-grabbing through personal enrichment. ..."
"... Pelosi wants the scope very narrow. That's quite telling. Even more telling, and offensive, when you think about it, is her decision to have this inquiry be led by the House Intelligence Committee. This pretty much guarantees that at least some of the proceedings will happen behind closed doors. ..."
"... Revenge, like any addiction, doesn't brook common sense. The author of the article is spot on when he points out that it's just too late to impeach on the high road even if the democrat party did have something, anything, to distinguish them ethically from the republicans or Trump (other than bombast). ..."
"... Team Blue elites need #resistance happy because it's their base. ..."
"... As far as the primary is concerned, it reaffirms support for Biden by party leadership. His campaign requires "electability in the general", so not clear how that's helping the cause. ..."
"... Perhaps they figured Biden was gonna get hit anyway for making Poroshenko fire the guy running the office prosecuting Biden's son (whereupon the investigation was, by coincidence, halted). Thus get everything together hit back in the month or so before the details emerged in US media? ..."
"... I think it's a colossal mistake, and now Pelosi is all-in (together with a bunch of Representatives in deep purple congressional districts roped into going on record supporting the impeachment investigation), so all this ain't going nowhere. ..."
"... Maybe I missed it, and so I (as a veteran) must make sure it is said: if the Congress will not list, as the first Article of Impeachment, the slaughter of innocent people in wars not declared by Congress, then I don't see how any other possible Article would matter ..."
"... Here, Trump has aided and abetted the slaughter and unending misery for hundreds of thousands of Yemenis, in a country against which the U.S. never declared war, by keeping the House of Saud armed. And this reasoning would include the killing of innocent people outside any consideration of war and peace, a crime which can be incontrovertibly attributed to decisions emanating from the Oval Office regarding people who come to our borders to seek economic or political refuge. ..."
"... The problem, of course, is that the war in Yemen started under O'Bomber. One of those rare achievements of the Trump administration, in fact, is that he hasn't actually started any brand-spanking new wars at all–just continued the old ones started by Bushbama. ..."
"... Well, bush got congress to approve Iraq, so impeaching him would have been on account of the lies. Libya is on Obama Hillary. It wasn't 'we came, we saw, he died', cackle, it was 'a peaceful, prosperous country died', one with equal Ed for women, a rarity in ME. ..."
"... I have been hoping and praying that disgraced former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe has gone "John Dean" (of Watergate infamy) and the National Security State knows it. If that dream is a reality then maybe, just maybe, I'll have to buy a television set to watch that theater live on a 60 inch screen. ..."
"We've got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden," said Biden's
brother James according to
this Politico story about how the Biden family cashes in on their well-placed relative.
... ... ...
If Biden is innocent of corruption, why does it look like he's not? What does that
say about the nature of corruption itself in the entire DC establishment?
Two traps for a party that much of the nation depends on to rid them of the man the last
election elevated to power. Two reasons for independent voters -- those not Party loyalists,
not blue-no-matter-who, not Never-Trumpers, voters who never turn out for elections or rarely
do -- to not turn out for this one, when their voice and vote is needed most in this greatest
of watershed years
.
What's decided now, in this year and the next, will set the course of the nation and the
world for a dozen years to come -- or a dozen millennia if the chaos predicted by the most
pessimistic among us takes root and grows. After all, social and political chaos is a breeding
ground for authoritarian "solutions." We don't need any of those, and this may be the last
electoral chance to avoid them.
To reiterate a comment in the recent Water Cooler (this article is a better forum):
One scenario that Neuburger hasn't considered: perhaps the Democrats are trying
impeachment now because they are out of ammo and getting scared about 2020. Rather than lose
the election, they are attempting a pre-emptive strike.
Or is it a pre-emptive defensive strike by the CIA/Blob? With Trump seeming to ask Ukraine
about Crowdstrike, and Barr asking for help from Australia on the Mueller investigation
origins (as well as investigating the way the dossier was used), Trump and Barr might be
trying to turn TrumpRussia into a counterattack on their establishment enemies, just in time
for the election. Buckle up, indeed.
Yes, I've been wondering this also. The CIA credentials of the "whistleblower" are somehow
too convenient, too familiar. The Dems are already more or less in bed with the CIA/Blob, so
it is as if they are acting more to aid a "messenger", as @InquiringMind
put it during the latest Water Cooler.
A recent decision was made by the intelligence organs to allow reporting of second-hand
information and be titled a whistleblower for your efforts. it is acceptable to spy (which
this is an example of, since it is not whistleblowing) and listen to conversations saying
they heard this or that was happening, report that through legal channels, and have it
accepted BECAUSE IT APPEALS POLITICALLY to the agency or the particular representative.
The intelligence community is rife with dissension and conflict; not over their need to
service the multi-national firms and their congressional sycophants they really represent,
but rather the speed at which they need to react to challenges coming from our limited free
flow of information that contradicts their "stories" and propaganda. We're getting wise
– not completely, not with any assuredness that our info is complete, but enough to
cause tremendous doubt and distrust of the messaging coming from government and media
propagandists.
To me, the danger of this period is exactly the lack of organized opposition, politically
at home and among the nations of the globe, to this onslaught and flooding of the ears with
lies that become real due to that repetition. We are not united, and the convenient and quick
answers are flawed. The Communist Party was deeply flawed, and the International a craven
defender of Stalin, but we could certainly use some organization similar to fight this neocon
cancer now, before it metastisizes into worse, if that is possible. That being said,
impatience drives tribal thinking, already invading academia and the few public intellectuals
existing. I await the working classes hitting their limit. Buckle up, indeed
Hey, I'm not posing an answer, and see fear of one everywhere, so don't thank me. There is
a inchoate and diffuse anger brewing "out there", but it does not reflect our measured,
rather moderate knowledge of crime and abuse of power we observe daily. It will, given the
money and influence of the right wing, push over to such violent reaction it will make the
1930s seem like a birthday party. The left, or what is loosely left of it, badly needs
discipline and structure, but its traditional organs have been rent asunder and are not
trustworthy.
A thinktank? New party? Dunno it has to have room to grow, and our secret-sauce parties
and intel outfits have "six ways from Sunday" to mess with any of it. Clarity of political
thought seems to come from crisis and being cornered, but that clarity is not guaranteed to
be "healthy", babies going with the bath water-wise. Bernie is a short-term stopgap to the
bleeding IF he can wrap his mind around the movement and an understanding of the immediate
threats to its existence- i.e., the DNC.
Regarding the first sentence of your comment: The requirements of the law never changed,
the whistleblower used an old form anyway, and the recently changed form has been
replaced.
In any case, the IG's process for handling whistleblower allegations is determined not
by a form but by the law and related policy documents. The key document, ICD 120, has been
virtually unchanged since 2014. Contrary to the speculation, the whistleblower used the
2018 form, not the new online form. The IG then investigated and found that his allegations
were credible and that Congress should be notified.
Yup, but this is still mislabeled "whistleblowing", which would be such if he/she were
ratting on the CIA. This hearsay would be laughed out of a court of law absent other proof.
Further, I think we can dismiss the IG investigation as being anything not pressured by
establishment types threatened by Trump's vendetta against Obama and his wing of the neo-lib
global corporation, as it promises to open the can of worms that both parties are united in
foreign policy and who we deal with, and that unity spills over into McCarthy-like reaction
to any unpredictability and unreliability such as Trump's. We can't "get him" on his real
crimes, as that would leave all "them guys" exposed.
I assumed that the much delayed Mueller report finally came out when it did and with the
conclusion it did because the CIA was finally convinced that it had Trump sufficiently cowed.
The July 27 phone call made it clear to them that it didn't.
And Pelosi, when asked by the
CIA to jump, immediately responded, "How high?" It will be extremely interesting to see how
much influence the CIA has over Republican Senators who will be casting decisive votes.
Thirty-three Republicans Senators will be excused and given cover. Is there a thirty-fourth
with the cojones to vote against removal and against the CIA's efforts to impose a color
revolution on American soil?
If this is really about 2020 then Democrats are even more stupid than I'm inclined to
believe. Krystal Ball said this morning that only 35% of the public supports impeachment. All
this effort will do is rile up Trump supporters. I recall what happened in the 1998 midterms
after the Clinton impeachment. There's every reason to believe this will turn around and bite
the Democrats in 2020.
Pelosi and Schumer are fine with that. If Democrats were to actually win, they'd have to
govern, and they can't do that.
There are several plausible explanations. If you consider Pelosi's motivations, you have
to look no further than her constituency, the donor class.
From their perspective there has been too many uncomfortable policy debates, including
climate change, occurring on the campaign trail. As with Russiagate all of these discussions
will vanish from the corporate media.
Also, some of the donors have stated they will not donate to the Dems, and may in fact
donate to Trump, if Warren gets nominated.
Finally, purely for display of party unity, protecting Joe Biden, even if it brings him
down will have value. Also, this specific charge will not bring up any of other former "suits" illegal
actions.
Inasmuch as polling showing the combined popularity of Sanders and Warren exceed 30% while
Biden is down to 19%, if you can end with a inconclusive first round of voting at the
Democratic Convention, you can bring in the Supers and name the person of your choice.
As to the question of 'why now?', my guess is because the 'resistance' types see the
writing on the wall that they are going to lose with anybody but Sanders as the candidate,
and they aren't about to allow Sanders to win. RussiaRussiaRussia, porn stars, and everything
else they tried didn't work and they've got nothing else that would give the public at large
something to vote for .
As to that writing on the wall, I will offer some very anecdotal evidence, but I found it
telling. A few days ago I went to a rural county fair. Now granted these fairs likely attract
a more conservative crowd, however this particular fair was in the most liberal county in the
state. Took a look at the exhibition hall at the fair, full of quilts, 4th grade artwork,
canned tomatoes, etc. as well as booths for both the Republican and Democrat parties.
At the Democrat party booth, they had put out poster boards with a list of issues and you
were supposed to put a little round sticker next to the issue you felt was most important.
Boring policy wonk stuff. I don't even remember if anyone was manning the booth when we
stopped by, but if they were they made no attempt whatsoever to speak with us. My wife put
one sticker on a poster and walked away and we were the only people there at the time. In
fairness, clearly there had been people there earlier since there were a lot of stickers
stuck to posters.
At the Republican booth, there were a number of people in line engaging with those manning
the booth. And rather than just pining little stickers on a poster, the Republicans were
handing out Trump 2020 swag and letting people get photos with a big Trump cutout. IDoing fun
stuff. Walking around the fair later I saw one of the few Hispanics in attendance (this is a
very white county in an extremely white state) sporting a Trump 2020 tote bag as he and his
wife walked through the fair.
If I were to base a prediction on the evidence alone, I would say Trump and the Elephants
are going to hand the Asses their asses in 2020 and they can feel it coming.
I really don't see how this doesn't blow up in their faces, but they've got nothing
else.
This is my feeling on it. It's the Democrats' Benghazi, a string of congressional hearings
designed to produce dirt on Trump to sink him in the election. Actual impeachment and removal
is nahgunnahappen, as that requires 67 senators, which would require all Democrats in the
Senate, both independents, and 20 Republicans . It would be a minor miracle if five
Republicans signed onto impeachment.
However, with dirt slinging as the only useful outcome possible, it shows how incompetent
Pelosi is by limiting the inquiry to just the Ukraine business. The damning dirt could come
in any form out of any corner of Trump's ongoings, so why would you limit the dirt digging to
something that, on the face of it, doesn't scream it went any deeper than Trump's
implication. Especially as it didn't happen that long ago.
God, this is so stupid. Look, perhaps it is because I live in a different continent or I
have a twisted turn of mind but I am seeing something completely different at work here. Is
Trump Corrupt? Of course he is but in a completely ham-fisted way that makes it blatantly
obvious. With Trump you always have low expectations. But Thomas Neuburger talks about ICE
deaths, Puerto Rico, the Muslim ban but so what? Obama was guilty of far worse but no
Democrats will criticize him for any of it. An example? If you cover up an international war
crime such as torture, that is an international crime too and Obama definitely covered up for
the CIA tortures and "looked forward". And one ramification for that was the US now having a
ex-torturer as head of the CIA.
So here is my take. The past few months Americans were finally having subjects like
healthcare and college debt forgiveness getting some air time and some serious traction. The
Democrat candidates were being forced to give answers on their positions on such ideas. But
now? The Democrats have introduced impeachment which has all the success prospects of
Russiagate. Expect copious amounts of verbal diarrhea in the next few months which will allow
for no time for discussion of subjects like healthcare anymore. The DNC will shout down
anyone trying to do so by shouting "Impeachment!". And when the elections rock around in a
year's time and there is finally some minor space to start talking about such subjects, the
DNC will tell progressives "You know, you should have really brought this up in 2019 while
there was time to talk about it. Your bad."
Indeed, we might as well argue that Obama should have been impeached for turning the
Espionage Act against reporters. I see that as more damaging to the US than most of Trump's
harmful acts to date.
I tell people that Trump is a minor league con man because so many people assert that he
is a con man
Obama successfully convinced people that he WANTED to do the right things but was
prevented from doing them by the evil Republicans. Despite the insurance/drug company
friendly implementation of ObamaCare, assertion of the most transparent administration, ever,
brutally coming down on government whistleblowers, killing overseas citizens via drone, not
prosecuting financial misdeeds, and destroying Libya, Obama is seen as righteous.
In my view, a truly great con man remains unacknowledged/undetected.
Obama is in a con man league of his own, as he benefits from the left's form of Obama
Derangement Syndrome.
Interesting that attacking trump on this is attacking Biden did dem elites give up on him?
don't see how he can survive, which seems to open the field for Warren sanders if so, not
what donors want, pelosi musta been forced by blue dogs cia.
Maybe good for sanders he needs rest, the stents will require recovery msm can't focus away
from impeach to celebrate his health problems
How long? Say one month?
Hopefully the dems great white hope Biden will be down and out by primaries Bernie might find
help in the south this time where it was a wall last time
Ca dem elites don't want Bernie, but electorate doesn't want Kamala
And Tulsi back on stage with her useful to focus on wars.
I think this vectors the right direction, Rev Kev. White noise to drown out clearly
articulated messages. If any of this were about actual evidence, Binney would've been called
to undercut the Crowdstrike assertions.
There are a couple of things that seem real. Once is the intra-elite competition between
the intelligence community and Trump. Epstein cracked a door and some light got through.
Trump seems to have taken the standard operating procedures personally.
Despite this, Trump is more acceptable to Wall Street than the left agenda. These attacks
serve to consolidate Trumps base; I've seen more Trump 2020 bumper stickers in my very-blue
town than any other candidates.
The endgame comes with the primaries. Sander's campaign income has a verisimilitude with
greater weight than the polls. Even polls which aren't specifically rigged can't cope with
modern communications. The problem is, with electronic vote-flipping on top of old-school
methods, unless the paper ballots get in (which is against status quo interests), how can it
be made clear the vote is being rigged? Could public gatherings outside the polling places be
enough to offer an alternative count?
Plus, Sanders has set himself up as TINA. He has not spread his wealth of four decades of
credibility to anyone else. No Hindu is getting the Oval, so Gabbard is a gadfly, not an
option. Trump and the top three Democratic candidates could all actually die of old age.
The only thing I'd actually put a bet on in all this is that Trump will not be removed
from office via impeachment.
I'm not sure that the Democrats yelling "impeachment!" will register loud enough to
overcome the substance of the election campaign. Not enough people care about it.
The real determinate is which people 'care' about it. The public discourse is presently in the hands of partisan hacks,
of mainly one ideology; Rentier Capitalism.
One main American political faction will characterize the obscurantist process as "White
Noise. The other main faction will characterize it as "Rainbow Noise." Both will be correct
about the "Noise" part.
According to Ball in the "Rising" video, the percentage of people who support impeachment
is 35%. That pretty much covers all the "partisan hacks" you refer to.
To the average voter? This is just noise and nonsense. Regardless of how impeachment ends
(and one doesn't have to be a genius to figure out that it will go nowhere), the concerns and
the anger of average voters are not going away.
Ditto, Ambrit- a rational response bestride the not caring noise.
The current equation of Warren and Sanders is the point problem of that coherence. Sanders
is weak on foreign policy particulars (Middle East, Venezuela, Ukraine are waffled responses,
more afraid to alienate rather than state), Warren is totally absent because she has
supported those policies in the past.
Both committed to regulation, Warren wanting existing
govt. style while Sanders wants the beginning of a bottom-up approach. Details are left on
the "debate-stage floor", as what we have had so far is a Sideshow Bob presentation of
policy, a Q&A for the media, which leads us nowhere unless you are fanatically political,
which most of the nation has been educated/innoculated against.
Right now, probably true. However, we've been victim to propaganda many times before
– WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc.etc. We have an apparatus that has honed its abilities
to reach millions immediately through TV, press, video, websites, that puts former agit-prop
to shame. We have been swarmed with the same message, basically allowing those caught in lies
previously to suddenly be believed today, "because"
The truth of any proposition comes down to its provenance and our ability to get tired of
the repetition and cacophony surrounding us, thus surrendering the ground. If enough believe
the initial message, if enough see their bread buttered by it, then the rest of us are prone
to that surrender unless an outside agency we CAN rely on exists.
It is sad to say that "not caring" becomes a positive. 50% of the voting public does not
vote, and most who vote do not care if their vote is even counted properly. Do not care
equals no democracy at all.
What you are seeing is called "hypocrisy", writ large. The Democrats are finally
discovering that they actually need the voters that they've been dissing for decades, and
they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch.
Perhaps Ms. Pelosi's caucus finally made her do what she despises doing. That it should
benefit her party leadership's choice to replace Donald Trump is, of course,
coincidental.
There's still the nit that there's been no congressional vote authorizing her impeachment
inquiry, which will keep the process in the courts and delay proceedings longer than
necessary.
Ms. Pelosi's actions bring to mind the contradictory naval order, proceed with all
deliberate speed. It is a sign that the admirals acknowledge the necessity of doing
something, but tell their commanders it's on them if it goes South.
That she has shoved the bankeresque Schiff to the fore in place of the more irascible and
prosecutorial Nadler suggests she does not want to give the public a clear narrative, so much
as to keep them calm, as if the Trump administration were in charge instead of being in
office.
California is the vanguard of the "Resistance" to Trump. Pelosi is from California, as is
Schiff. Two of the Intelligence Committee members are also from California (Jackie Speier and
Eric Swalwell) as the LA Times pointed out a few days ago ("
California to play an outsize role in impeachment inquiry of Trump "). This is probably
why the whole impeachment inquiry is centered in the Intelligence committee and not the
Judiciary.
Various Obama officials live or work in California. For example, Eric Holder was hired by
the California Legislature to fight Trump. David Plouffe, who works with the Chan Zuckerberg
Initiative among other Silicon Valley groups, is helping a liberal group called ACRONYM with
anti-Trump digital messaging.
Don't forget too that Pelosi is related by marriage to Governor Gavin Newsom (his aunt was
married to Ron Pelosi, brother-in-law to Nancy). It's one big happy Resistance family!
Corruption is okay as long as they do it. Their hypocrisy has no limits.
Just imagine if corrupt California elites could rule the United States! The Wash Post even
had a fantasy piece about "President Pelosi" just a few days ago.
Thanks for that, saved me a bit of rushed commenting because I was going to quickly
comment on it before I noticed you had already.
California has 6 of the 24 members of the House Intelligence Committee: 4 of those 6
members hold 100% of Democratic (Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff) and Republican (Kevin McCarthy
and Devin Nunes) leadership roles; there are 4 out of 14 in the total Democratic membership,
and 2 out of 10 in the Republican membership.
Also, Californian members make up 100% of the House membership of the Gang of Eight, , 2
Democratic and 2 Republican: respectively, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff; and Kevin McCarthy
and Devin Nunes.
And lastly, both California Senators Dianne Feinstein, and Kamala Harris (despite her
newbiness), are on the Senate Intelligence Committee, the only State to have both Senators as
members.
As a decades long California resident, what sickens me the most about this is California
legislators (overwhelmingly Democratic Party, but may as well be Republican given the
stunning inequality/austerity imposed in California) preside over the highest numbers of
unsheltered homeless in the country. A full third of California residents have been forced
onto Medi-Cal (where millions can't find a treating doctor for the life of them), or don't
qualify (despite not being able to afford their rents), yet can't afford any insurance.
Concurrently, State Legislators and that duplicitous, slimy creep Newsom just signed off on
an Obama inspired California
Healthcare Mandate Penalty , although there were crickets at California's Franchise Tax
Board when it came to following the IRS in going after Facebook's stunning and blatant 2010
Ireland Asset transfers Tax evasion (to the tune of billions now, and next to impossible to
determine what the current status of it is), they would much rather go after their
increasingly impoverished populace who can't afford a CPA, let alone an attorney.
> In other words, the rightness of impeachment was never a consideration for Democratic
Party leaders.
Nor was it in 2006, when, after recapturing the House, Pelosi took impeachment "off the
table," even though the Bush Administration committed multiple felonies in its warrantless
surveillance program, in addition to completely destroying the Fourth Amendment. (Obama later
normalized and rationalized all this, of course.)
So one would not have expected principle or the "rule of law" or any of those other
shibboleths to enter into the liberal Democrat decision-making process. It never does.
This person starts out with an establishing remark that convicts Trump, and goes on from
there. Unlike a true impeachment process, no 'real' groundwork is laid down. Furthermore, by
half-heartedly mentioning "issues" with the Pelosi formulation, in effect, that Biden is just
as bad as Trump, the author lays the groundwork for the 'impeachment' of both Party's "main"
candidates. The piece reminds me of the logic of the Alice in Wonderland trial: "Sentence
first – verdict afterwards." All this, my cynical sensibility reminds me, sotto voice,
for an insane Queen.
Impeachment has always been a political process. After all, it is a function of the Congress,
the prototype of politics. To take the authors buttressing point, that the 'essence' of
impeachment should be the pure logic of the deeds in question casts the entire process of
impeachment in the light of virtue signalling. How else would a disinterested observer
characterize a process where the process itself is not initiated with the anticipation of a
useful outcome? In a very real sense, it is a partisan war where there are penalties for
losing.
This piece, if any, shows plainly the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the American
political process today. The two "leading" candidates of the "rival" Partys are both
delineated to be frauds, figuratively and literally. Turning the mentioning of the earlier
English Parliamentary 'version' of impeachment on, as it were, it's head, one is lead to
consider that only something as all encompassing and determinative as an actual bloodletting
will be of any use to the Nation.
Be very careful what you ask for. You might get it.
"Impeachment is the Constitution's version of the English Civil War, minus the war."
It could be argued that getting rid of a Prime Minister via a vote of no confidence is
orders of magnitude simpler than impeachment. In fact, it seems to happen about every ten or
twenty years on average in the UK. And no civil war required either.
The best analogue of today with then is that the English Civil War did not just remove the
Royalist leadership of the time, but an entire generation of Royalists. Does America really
want a twenty year interregnum?
We are already in the Interregnum. Trump was 'none of the above'. People talked about a
'clown car' and then Trump showed that a clown could actually accede to power, insofar as a
clown can manage the role. The Democrats responded with a clown show of their own. It's a
circus, although the clowns are pretty malign. Maybe people like that. Meanwhile, serious
people with serious political proposals, like Sanders, are on the outside looking in.
Someone's going to have to break a window.
Pelosi has clearly seen the dangers of democrat complicity and corruption before; what's
changed? If she was acutely (off the table) aware of the dirty utterly
filthy linen danger before, then why not now when it's, if anything, more obvious than
ever?
All I can think of is that the Clinton derangement syndrome – the bitterness and
perceived injustice that the anointed one didn't get anointed – still has an iron grip
on the psyche of the DC Daristocrats. They're stone drunk on hatred, spite, and lust for
revenge and are hallucinating in broad daylight that they've got the hook to sell it.
I like the idea that this is all a clever ruse to keep the focus away from sanity in
health care etc., but it just doesn't look like they have that much sense. From the UK to the
the US, everyone's going nuts.
I bet it's good for fund raising, those I know who are most embarrassed by trump have a
fair amount of money and currently they are very excited. Whatever it is, it's not bernie (or
should I say &@cking bernie), it's not M4A, and it's not student loans, as commented on
above this line
It's the ill conceived nature of this, the mess the democrats are creating for themselves,
that suggests to me that shifting the focus away from popular programs such as medicare for
all is unintended even if successful. It's like stabbing yourself in the arm to divert
attention from robbing the church collection. Not a good analogy but anyway
There is a huge amount of pressure from the public to get rid of Trump any way possible
and a lot of that, ironically, has been manufactured by the democrats themselves. That, I
suspect, combined with Hillary syndrome, is more what's behind this than the criminal, but
lucid, plan to obscure the popularity of programs benefiting the public.
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the last 5 years of commentary then -- there's been
plenty of substance offered by those who are just as powerless as you.
Imagine Trump were to overthrow Maduro in a coup. He installs his puppet Guido who
immediately gives Ivanka a seat on the board of a Venezuelan oil company at 50K a month, or
more. Would the Democrats be screaming 'nothing to see here' in that scenario?
It's not clear the Democrats would notice any impropriety. What would be tearing them
apart is that they didn't get a seat at the trough (on the board) as well.
I would say 'Joe Biden's son's integrity' and 'the dubious right-wing Democratic Party
CIA-led arms sales-drive policy in the Ukraine.'
I don't think that Biden himself is particularly corrupt; the guy really is a terrible
hack. And I don't think legal corruption is necessarily what's at issue, but a world in which
it's perfectly acceptable for the children of elites to trail around after their parents and
help smooth the wider asset-grabbing through personal enrichment.
The wider context–villifying Russia, cleaning up Ukraine enough to justify
consorting with fascists and the far-right to keep all the balls in the air, needs to be
exposed.
There is a right way to do impeachment, and this ain't it. They could investigate the
Trump administrator for its rampant corruption – it's a very target-rich environment.
Instead, Pelosi wants the scope very narrow. That's quite telling. Even more telling, and
offensive, when you think about it, is her decision to have this inquiry be led by the House
Intelligence Committee. This pretty much guarantees that at least some of the proceedings
will happen behind closed doors.
So, they think that they're going to remove the duly elected
President behind closed doors, and they think the population will be okay with this? Do they
really live in such a bubble that they think people trust their judgment enough to do this?
It boggles the mind.
Revenge, like any addiction, doesn't brook common sense. The author of the article is spot
on when he points out that it's just too late to impeach on the high road even if the
democrat party did have something, anything, to distinguish them ethically from the
republicans or Trump (other than bombast).
Also, just a thought, having this discussion behind closed doors makes sense if Pelosi is
hoping they will come to their senses.
As to the right or wrong way to do impeachment, I think the democrats like the republicans
are simply beyond that or any notion of it other than the residue of dim memory that ends up
entirely as the decorative part in public speeches. I suspect they are quite simply oblivious
to such niceties as anything being wrong with using impeachment as a weapon rather than as a
means for justice.
I'm pretty sure Pelosi doesn't want it and wanted to repeat her 2007 play, but she doesn't
have 2008 certainty to offer (keep the powder dry I know but this was what that was about).
Team Blue elites need #resistance happy because it's their base. The people who missed brunch
aren't exactly rationale or going to have this explained to them behind closed doors. Pelosi
has been slowly losing with the caucus, but most of the members are terrible and vulnerable
to an AOC-esque challenge especially in safe seats which most of the seats are. Again without
theven #resistance, safe seat Team Blue types are very vulnerable.
Adding that, imo, the rank and file voters did the work of electing Democrats to a House
majority, motivated partly by Clinton revenge, but also by policy issues. There's been
noticeable dismay in the corners of twitter where I wander at Pelosi's taking so long to act,
the inept performances of the few hearings so far, and now the proposed narrow focus.
my take is they're never actually going to pass articles of impeachment, which would hand
the process over to McConnell in the Senate. It will stay in the House and they will attempt
to nab Trump or perhaps one of his sidekicks like Giuliani on obstruction of the House
investigation. This is by now a fairly transparent strategy, and we will find out what the
elusive PA swing voter thinks of it soon enough.
As far as the primary is concerned, it reaffirms support for Biden by party leadership.
His campaign requires "electability in the general", so not clear how that's helping the
cause.
Perhaps they figured Biden was gonna get hit anyway for making Poroshenko fire the guy
running the office prosecuting Biden's son (whereupon the investigation was, by coincidence,
halted). Thus get everything together hit back in the month or so before the details emerged
in US media?
I think it's a colossal mistake, and now Pelosi is all-in (together with a bunch of
Representatives in deep purple congressional districts roped into going on record supporting
the impeachment investigation), so all this ain't going nowhere.
Maybe I missed it, and so I (as a veteran) must make sure it is said: if the Congress will
not list, as the first Article of Impeachment, the slaughter of innocent people in wars not
declared by Congress, then I don't see how any other possible Article would matter.
Here,
Trump has aided and abetted the slaughter and unending misery for hundreds of thousands of
Yemenis, in a country against which the U.S. never declared war, by keeping the House of Saud
armed. And this reasoning would include the killing of innocent people outside any
consideration of war and peace, a crime which can be incontrovertibly attributed to decisions
emanating from the Oval Office regarding people who come to our borders to seek economic or
political refuge.
Wasn't the power to go to war exclusively reserved for Congress, to try to make sure that
the country wouldn't go to war on a lark? And wasn't the Bill of Rights enshrined to make
sure that the U.S. Government could not put people to death, at least without due
process?
I realize that this might mean that Congress would have had to impeach presidents left and
right. So be it; enlisted women and men can be severely punished for killing innocent people
(and for far less, such as disobeying orders). Why should presidents and vice-presidents
escape responsibility for high crimes of unjustifiable homicide (and, I must add,
countenancing torture)?
The problem, of course, is that the war in Yemen started under O'Bomber. One of those rare
achievements of the Trump administration, in fact, is that he hasn't actually started any
brand-spanking new wars at all–just continued the old ones started by Bushbama.
Well, bush got congress to approve Iraq, so impeaching him would have been on account of
the lies.
Libya is on Obama Hillary. It wasn't 'we came, we saw, he died', cackle, it was 'a peaceful,
prosperous country died', one with equal Ed for women, a rarity in ME.
Is this the last desperation Hail Mary by the Democratic Party and the National Security
State to save themselves?
Has it already happened?
I have been hoping and praying that disgraced former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew
McCabe
has gone "John Dean" (of Watergate infamy) and the National Security State knows it. If that dream is a reality then maybe, just maybe, I'll have to buy a television set to
watch that theater live
on a 60 inch screen.
Imagine Trump were to overthrow Maduro in a coup. He installs his puppet Guido who
immediately gives Ivanka a seat on the board of a Venezuelan oil company at 50K a month, or
more. Would the Democrats be screaming 'nothing to see here' in that scenario?
So we have three elements of the CIA operation Russiagate II: Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi and unknown person who authorized the
change in the form.
Notable quotes:
"... House Intelligence Committee head Adam Schiff supposedly sat on the 'whistleblower' complaint for over a month. ..."
"... By the way, the term whistleblower is a terrible misnomer, but everyone's using it, can't undo that anymore. Still, you can't be a CIA agent, be planted somewhere, leak on what goes on there and then be labeled a whistleblower. That works only if you share CIA secrets. ..."
"... Niceties aside, it appears that Schiff sat on the complaint since August 12 . First question is: why? But there are other questions as well. Two weeks ago, Schiff complained that acting DNI chief Joseph Maguire refused to share the contents of the complaint with Congress. But Maguire did that only after consulting with his legal counsel: ..."
"... Note the date. Also note the term 'urgent'. Which didn't keep Schiff from sitting on it for 5-6 weeks. And note that Schiff knew what was in the complaint, despite Politico reporting that "the confluence of factors led him to believe the complaint involved Trump or other senior executive branch officials." ..."
"... Okay, so why did he sit on the letter? Is it possible this has been a set-up all along? Snippet no. 2 became known on September 24 ..."
"... Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting. ..."
"... The internal properties of the newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. ..."
"... Why were the changes made? Who authorized them? Can anyone who hears something from their gossipy aunt now become a whistleblower? Can the aunt? ..."
"... Back in December 2018 CTH noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi for the 116th congress [..] With the House going into a scheduled calendar recess, those rules are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct the articles of impeachment. A formal vote to initiate an "impeachment inquiry" is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now. ..."
"... "Pelosi called for impeachment without having seen the transcript or the complaint. That will forever be weird." ..."
"... PS: I don't get the attention for the whistleblower. The only interesting parties involved are the people who fed him/her their info. Are they also CIA by any chance? Let's ask them. ..."
Over the past few days, a series of snippets have appeared that each make me think: can this be true? The first such snippet is
that House Intelligence Committee head Adam Schiff supposedly sat on the 'whistleblower' complaint for over a month.
By the way, the term whistleblower is a terrible misnomer, but everyone's using it, can't undo that anymore. Still, you can't
be a CIA agent, be planted somewhere, leak on what goes on there and then be labeled a whistleblower. That works only if you share
CIA secrets.
Niceties aside, it appears that
Schiff sat on the complaint since August 12 . First question is: why? But there are other questions as well. Two weeks ago, Schiff
complained that acting DNI chief Joseph Maguire refused to share the contents of the complaint with Congress. But Maguire did that
only after consulting with his legal counsel:
Schiff ripped Maguire for breaching a law that requires him to share with Congress any whistleblower complaint deemed urgent
by the intelligence community's inspector general. He said the confluence of factors led him to believe the complaint involved
Trump or other senior executive branch officials.
But DNI general counsel Jason Klitenic insisted in a letter to Schiff on Tuesday that Maguire had followed the letter of
the law in blocking the transmission of the complaint to Congress. The whistleblower statute governing his agency, he said, only
applies when the complaint involves a member of the intelligence community. Because it was aimed at a person outside the intelligence
community, he said, the whistleblower statute does not apply to this scenario.
Under the statute, Klitenic stated, deeming a whistleblower complaint "urgent" is only valid when it applies to conduct
by someone "within the responsibility and authority" of the DNI. Therefore, he said, after consulting with the Justice Department,
he determined the complaint did not qualify as an "urgent" concern requiring transmittal to Congress.
Note the date. Also note the term 'urgent'. Which didn't keep Schiff from sitting on it for 5-6 weeks. And note that Schiff knew
what was in the complaint, despite Politico reporting that "the confluence of factors led him to believe the complaint involved
Trump or other senior executive branch officials."
Okay, so why did he sit on the letter? Is it possible this has been a set-up all along? Snippet no. 2 became known on September
24:
Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide
direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding
the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires
potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged
wrongdoing that they are reporting.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump's
July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates
the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge
of underlying evidence and only "heard about [wrongdoing] from others."
The internal properties of the newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form, which the intelligence community inspector
general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document
was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the
public.
Here's what the requirements looked like before the changes:
Why were the changes made? Who authorized them? Can anyone who hears something from their gossipy aunt now become a whistleblower?
Can the aunt?
And then a few days ago there was this little tid-bit, snippet no. 3, which seems to fit right into a pattern:
Back in December 2018 CTH noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi for the 116th congress [..]
With the House going into a scheduled calendar recess, those rules are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct
the articles of impeachment. A formal vote to initiate an "impeachment inquiry" is not technically required; however, there has
always been a full house vote until now.
The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if the formal process was followed the minority (republicans) would have
enforceable rights within it. Without a vote to initiate, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up without any participation
by the minority; and without any input from the executive. This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi's changed House
rules.
Anyone can be a whistleblower, all it takes is for the intelligence community to express an interest in your aunt's gossip. And
then anything anyone says can be used to draw up an article of impeachment. Which can then be voted on by the Democrat majority in
Congress, and accepted.
Which has no practical meaning, obviously, because there will be no Senate majority to actually impeach Trump. It's pure theater.
And anyway, impeached for what? For asking Ukraine assistance in investigating 2016 election meddling? Sure, you can rephrase that
as "digging up dirt", but isn't that phrasing by now a purely partisan thing and hence worthless?
I see two options. A few days ago I wrote: "Pelosi called for impeachment without having seen the transcript or the complaint.
That will forever be weird." If that is true, as we've been led to believe by both the protagonists and the press, it is weird
indeed. But now there is another option on the table.
Namely, that Pelosi has known the contents of the complaint since August 12, when the 'whistleblower' wrote to Adam Schiff, or
soon thereafter. And that she, too, sat on it. Urgent or not. And then a few days ago went all-in for impeachment. No matter what
the exact details here are, it very much looks like a well-prepared operation, step by step.
I started out with the term Twisted Pair for the US and UK, because both countries raise the question: how are they going to remain
governable? Leave or Remain, GOP or Democrat, the trenches are being dug deeper fast. The only way forward appears to be even deeper
divides. GOP and Democrats are a Twisted Pair all by themselves.
PS: I don't get the attention for the whistleblower. The only interesting parties involved are the people who fed him/her
their info. Are they also CIA by any chance? Let's ask them.
"... With so much deceit and shenanigans, it is best politicians let the voters decide in the next election rather than continue this circus. The article below argues the average American doesn't care if Trump isn't perfect and if the Democrats want him out they should offer up a better alternative. ..."
"... Globalist SES Infiltration, Subversion, De Facto Police State Coup D'Etat https://aim4truth.org/2018/01/03/deep-state-shadow-government-revealed-senior-executive-service/ ..."
"... I would call it a coup except I think it happened several decades ago. What is left is a shell. ..."
"... If that feels rotten, then you may start to understand why the world does like the USA not so much. ..."
"... This is clearly an attempted coup, i.e., removal of a duly elected President by force instead of by any legitimate political process. The leftists and RINOs have been trying by the most subversive of means to get rid of Trump even before he took office. ..."
"... Isn't it a matter of record who created and ordered the implementation of the revised whistleblower form? I know it was secretly uploaded two days before the blower blew (9/24), but why now and who said to? ..."
You don't need to be a supporter of President Trump to be concerned about the efforts to remove him from office. Last week House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced impeachment proceedings against the President over a phone call made to the President of Ukraine.
According to the White House record of the call, the President asked his Ukrainian counterpart to look into whether there is any
evidence of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election and then mentioned that a lot of people were talking about how former US Vice
President Joe Biden stopped the prosecution of his son who was under investigation for corruption in Ukraine.
Democrats, who spent more than two years convinced that "Russiagate" would enable them to remove Trump from office only to have
their hopes dashed by the Mueller Report, now believe they have their smoking gun in this phone call.
It this about politics? Yes. But there may be more to it than that.
It may appear that the Democratic Party, furious over Hillary Clinton's 2016 loss, is the driving force behind this ongoing attempt
to remove Donald Trump from office, but at every turn we see the fingerprints of the CIA and its allies in the US deep state.
In August 2016, a former acting director of the CIA, Mike Morell, wrote an extraordinary article in the New York Times accusing
Donald Trump of being an "agent of the Russian Federation." Morell was clearly using his intelligence career as a way of bolstering
his claim that Trump was a Russian spy – after all, the CIA should know such a thing! But the claim was a lie.
Former CIA director John Brennan accused President Trump of "treason" and of "being in the pocket of Putin" for meeting with the
Russian president in Helsinki and accepting his word that Russia did not meddle in the US election. To this day there has yet to
be any evidence presented that the Russian government did interfere. Brennan openly called on "patriotic" Republicans to act against
this "traitor."
Brennan and his deep state counterparts James Comey at the FBI and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper launched
an operation, using what we now know is the fake Steele dossier, to spy on the Trump presidential campaign and even attempt to entrap
Trump campaign employees.
Notice a pattern here?
Now we hear that the latest trigger for impeachment is a CIA officer assigned to the White House who filed a "whistleblower" complaint
against the president over something he heard from someone else that the president said in the Ukraine phone call.
Shockingly, according to multiple press reports the rules for CIA whistleblowing were recently changed, dropping the requirement
that the whistleblower have direct, first-hand knowledge of the wrongdoing. Just before this complaint was filed, the rule-change
allowed hearsay or second-hand information to be accepted. That seems strange.
As it turns out, the CIA "whistleblower" lurking around the White House got the important things wrong, as there was no quid pro
quo discussed and there was no actual request to investigate Biden or his son.
The Democrats have suddenly come out in praise of whistleblowers – well not exactly. Pelosi still wants to prosecute actual whistleblower
Ed Snowden. But she's singing the praises of this fake CIA "whistleblower."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer once warned Trump that if "you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from
Sunday at getting back at you." It's hard not to ask whether this is a genuine impeachment effort or a CIA coup!
The WhatDoesItMean has earned a bad reputation over the years and I've avoided it as dis-info. But in recent months it seems
to had done a turn around and is providing good info.
both of whom are becoming increasingly alarmed over the grave military implications of what is now occurring -- the evidence
of which is being kept hidden from the American people by their socialist Democrat Party leaders and their leftist mainstream
media lapdogs
If the CIA is this brazen on so many attempts...and with no accountability yet, you could argue the coup already happened.
This is what a country run by a bunch of intelligence ppl looks like.
Epstein is not the top. Above Epstein are Soros, the Queen of England, and the Rockefeller/Rothschild's crime families. They
are the head of the Satanic (NOT JEWISH) "New World Order". Hey artisant when in hell are you going to actually get way down in
the rabbit hole and find out who is really behind globalism? You spout off the most stupid crap that takes you into mindless racism.
We as a corporate fascist socialist nation are much higher than Israel on the globalist hierarchy. They own our monetary system,
our corporate government with 22 trillion national debt, the military, and the intelligence alphabet agencies who are their right
enforcement arm.
Currently, a full-scale propaganda war rages with many Americans hell-bent on convincing the rest of us what is really going
on. I think it is clear we have reached the point where people are either outraged, simply concerned or take the attitude this
is all a big nothing burger or much ado about nothing.
With so much deceit and shenanigans, it is best politicians let the voters decide in the next election rather than continue
this circus. The article below argues the average American doesn't care if Trump isn't perfect and if the Democrats want him out
they should offer up a better alternative.
CIA finally coming home to roost. Never known to respect law or human rights outside the US now CIA applying "regime change"
inside the US. If that feels rotten, then you may start to understand why the world does like the USA not so much.
This is why the CIA is going to die under Haspel. I just read 3 dozen tweets on Sebastian Gorka's trip to Italy with Barr...None
of these liberals have a clue on what is going on in Italy...Which means they haven't a clue about the real Russia hoax and the
setup with Papadopolous. This says everything about our division in America.
The media has kept these people in the dark and this is why I keep saying the media companies need to be investigated and charged
with crimes.
The CIA and NSA are rogue foreign invaded and occupied) enemies of the State and should be surrounded by the military and seized
as a national security threat and a dangerous enemy. Everyone should be thrown out of the buildings controlled and occupied by
them and filled with military police until those who are true traitors can be identified and and arrested, including former employees
who still have highest level security access.
This is clearly an attempted coup, i.e., removal of a duly elected President by force instead of by any legitimate political
process. The leftists and RINOs have been trying by the most subversive of means to get rid of Trump even before he took office.
They have abandoned the peaceful political process and that leaves only force as a means to settle differences of opinion.
My hope is that the impeachment effort will backfire on the leftists in the House. Not only will they energize Trump's base,
but they will look bad to the rest of the non-communist public. And a bonus will be that Trump will be able to blame any pre-election
decline in the stock market and/or economy on the uncertainty created by their reckless and unjustified impeachment actions. (My
take is that the stock market is teetering on the edge of a cliff.)
This should be an interesting year between now and the elections with this impeachment **** show and what might come out of
the Justice Department relating to spygate and who was involved in it.
I almost fell like I am watching a new Game of Thrones episode.
Worst case is that Trump is actually removed from office and Civil War II breaks out. Best case is Trump wins by a landslide
in 2020 and Trump supporters take the House and improve their position in the Senate followed by a huge swamp drain during Trump's
second term.
They are not Judeo. They hide behind that term but have absolutely no bloodline connection to the Tribe of Judah from the Middle
East, they do not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Moses. They worship Satan.
That you use that term shows your vast ignorance of the real enemies behind the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. It was funded
and orchestrated by the Rothschild/Rockefeller Satanic bankers. The Rothschild's are Khazarian Satanist who funded Marx and Engels
communist socialist creators!
This is how CIA toppled a duly elected Iranian government in 1953 and now we refuse to understand, why Iranians don´t like
us and don´t want our "democracy".
Sometimes you have to wonder if the CIA learned its lessons from the Kennedy Assassination, and decided this would be a more
humane way. As much as John Brennan hates Trump, I am sure he would disagree with me on that. Brennan is out for blood.
Time for Trump to declare martial law and have the military arrest all these treasonous cowards and pussies in the CIA, FBI,
and Demoncratic party. We'll just see how 'deep' their state is. Btw, Soros and Obama will be part of those arrests along with
Shillary and Billy Bob Clinton.
Its easy to find the guilty individuals as they protest the loudest.
99% of all Americans already recognize this as a coup. You just have to know which half is rooting for the coup to be successful,
and the ones who are rooting for failure.
'Impeachment Inquiry' is just a fancy schmancy label for it all, that third world countries can't be bothered with, when they
overthrow their President or dictator. At least those banana republics are honest about what they are actually doing when performing
their version of the overthrow.
The entire US Beast of Gog&Babylon Roman Catholic Church/Synagogue of Satan Vatican FedScam Rothschild/Rockefeller Pyramid's
Satanic Fifth Column must, with precision, be 'tagged and bagged,' fully expropriated, its principals hanged for Treason, the
remainder banished from Our Holy Land.
CIA/FBI/NSA is just an 'action branch' of mechanics and operatives, who too must hang.
Need to cut the head off the snake,ie the deep deep state, the ones who's names are not even uttered in fear of reprisal, the
rest are just actors in this theater of the absurd.
Damn good point. Trump praised Wikileaks all through his campaign. A great investigation into Epstein and his connections to
Clinton, Mossad, Orwellian crime detection software and 9/11.
More than half of the country realizes this is a Deep State coup, led by Brennan's CIA traitors. If they get away with this,
our country is all but finished, we have to bring all hands on deck to defeat these treasonous scum. We will support President
Trump 110% and pray that the white hats in Washington will have the goods on all the traitors.
Isn't it a matter of record who created and ordered the implementation of the revised whistleblower form? I know it was
secretly uploaded two days before the blower blew (9/24), but why now and who said to? That name should be at least on Fox
from 8:00-11:00 for the next 3 weeks, while Lindsey is sending out subpoenas like barf at a sat night frat party. Let em flow
Senator.
President Trump took to Twitter Sunday night to continue to air his grievances surrounding
the impeachment inquiry, amplifying the remarks of his allies, who have made delivered
various warnings and denouncements about the impacts of impeachment, including the
possibility of a "Civil War-like fracture in this nation."
He used a series of tweets to quote Fox News contributor Robert Jeffress, a pastor who
invoked the Civil War in his comments on the cable network Sunday night.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
....Election, and negate the votes of millions of Evangelicals in the process. They know
the only Impeachable offense that President Trump has committed was beating Hillary Clinton
in 2016. That's the unpardonable sin for which the Democrats will never forgive him.....
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will
never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will
never heal." Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews
Jeffress suggested he had never seen Evangelical Christians more upset over any issue
than the impeachment of Trump.
A fellow GOP lawmaker tweeted last night that Trump's use of the quote was "beyond
repugnant." Representative Adam Kinzinger said Sunday that he could have "never imagined such
a quote to be repeated by a President."
Nixon would have been okay if he used the FBI and CIA like Obama did.
Nixon did not enjoy the watering down of the Bill of Right from the Patriot Act, who use
was perfected by Obama's deep state and the permanent war/spying swamp.
"... After the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet Communism, where one would expect a reduction if not elimination of such a global secret warfare organization, the CIA only ramped up its operations overseas. Today the CIA is merely one arm in a multi-faceted US "regime change" apparatus that includes the US State Department, USAID, and, very importantly, US government-funded "non-governmental" organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and its sub-grantees. This "regime change apparatus" uses CIA methods developed during the Cold War (by "experts" like Gene Sharp and others) such as mobilization, training, subterfuge, agitation, and propaganda. We saw this apparatus at work in events like the "Arab Spring" and before it in the overthrow of the Milosevic government in Yugoslavia. We saw it in the Ukraine coup of 2014 and we see it in Venezuela and in Hong Kong today. ..."
"... There is plenty of evidence of US government involvement in the Hong Kong protests. That does not mean that every single body out in the street is in the pay of the CIA. That is the red herring argument of those who are determined that we never see the US government hand in unrest overseas. Or to ridicule as "conspiracy theorists" those who point out obvious US government involvement. ..."
"... It is undeniable that the US government has been involved in grooming, training, and funding the anti-Beijing movement in Hong Kong for years. ..."
"... Imagine a movement dedicated to overthrowing the US political order that was funded by the Chinese, whose activists regularly went to Beijing for training in organization and mobilization, and whose leaders met with leading members of the Chinese Communist Party. How would such a movement in the United States be viewed by the US government? How would it be portrayed by the US mainstream media? ..."
"... The US has ceased being a republic and has become a national security state. The US national security state enriches its elites – be they in the military-industrial complex, the think tanks, or the media – at the expense of middle class and working-class America. It does this by promoting an "enemy scenario" whereby the American people are made to believe that if they ever challenge the US military budget – larger than the next seven military budgets combined – they are not only putting themselves and their families at risk, but they are deeply unpatriotic and anti-American. The US national security state fought an 18-year "war on terror" which only seemed to generate more terrorists! Intervention in Iraq and Libya and Syria to "fight terrorism" resulted in more, not less, al-Qaeda and ISIS. It was not until Russia and Iran stood up in 2015 and began fighting these US-backed groups that there was a reduction in their power. ..."
"... The Trump Presidency thus far has been an enormous disappointment. The president had the opportunity to name a top-notch foreign policy and national security team that would reflect and carry out his stated policies as a candidate – getting along with Russia, NATO skepticism, opposition to endless war, etc – but once in power he has again and again drawn from that same neoconservative cesspool that no matter who is elected always find its way to positions of power and influence. ..."
Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Your Twitter account has just been closed. Why?
Daniel McAdams: In August I was watching a segment of the Sean Hannity program while at a friend's house and noticed that despite
an hour of Hannity ranting against the "deep state" in the US, he was wearing a lapel pin bearing the seal of the US Central Intelligence
agency, which most would agree is either the center or at least an important hub of the US "deep state" itself. I tweeted about
this strange anomaly and as a comment to my own Tweet on it I happened to say that Hannity is "retarded." Twitter informed me
that I had committed "hateful conduct" for "promoting violence against or directly attacking or threatening other people on the
basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability,
or disease." It is clear on its face that I did none of these. I used a non-politically correct term to ridicule Hannity for attacking
the "deep state" while wearing the symbols of the deep state on his very lapel.
It is clear that Twitter is deeply biased against any voices outside the mainstream, pro-empire perspective. As a leading Tweeter
in opposition to interventionist US foreign policy, I had long been targeted by those who enable and enforce Twitter's political
biases. Look at who Twitter partners with and you will understand why I was banned for a transparently false reason: the US government-funded
Atlantic Council and other similar organizations are working with Twitter to eliminate any voices challenging US global military
empire.
In your opinion, what exactly is the role of the CIA in the regime changes of some countries around the world?
From its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency carried the dual role of analyzing
intelligence for its customers in the Executive Branch of the US government and conducting covert actions and operations in pursuit
of (claimed) US foreign policy goals. The history of CIA action in post-war Europe is extensive and includes founding front organizations
to prop up socialist and far-left publications and institutions as a challenge to Soviet communism as well as backing far-right
groups and political parties and even violent terror organizations to directly confront communism and overturn elections where
communists made gains.
After the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet Communism, where one would expect a reduction if not elimination of such a
global secret warfare organization, the CIA only ramped up its operations overseas. Today the CIA is merely one arm in a multi-faceted
US "regime change" apparatus that includes the US State Department, USAID, and, very importantly, US government-funded "non-governmental"
organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and its sub-grantees. This "regime change apparatus" uses CIA methods
developed during the Cold War (by "experts" like Gene Sharp and others) such as mobilization, training, subterfuge, agitation,
and propaganda. We saw this apparatus at work in events like the "Arab Spring" and before it in the overthrow of the Milosevic
government in Yugoslavia. We saw it in the Ukraine coup of 2014 and we see it in Venezuela and in Hong Kong today.
The practical value to the United States of such operations is less than zero, the costs to the American taxpayer are enormous,
and the immorality of manipulating the globe toward an outcome preferred by Washington's elites is self-evident.
When we see the generalized NSA surveillance, do you think we live in a democracy or a tenebrous fascist regime?
Americans have been manipulated by the elites in government and its allies in state propaganda (otherwise known as the "mainstream
media") to accept, particularly post-9/11, the deeply anti-American proposition that we must yield our privacy and Constitutionally-guaranteed
civil liberties to a government that promises it will not abuse its increased power over us but will only use it to keep us safe.
These promises have been over and over again proven to be lies. Government is not targeting terrorism or terrorists: they are
targeting average American citizens.
Americans were told that only terrorists' phone calls would be intercepted, but then Edward Snowden revealed that all of our
phone calls are intercepted. Americans were mad for a few weeks but then Washington promised "reform" of the PATRIOT Act in the
form of the FREEDOM Act and everybody calmed down. Even though the FREEDOM Act is actually worse than the PATRIOT Act because
it legalized all of the illegal activities that were taking place under the PATRIOT Act. "Reform" in Washington means obfuscation
and perception manipulation.
Likewise, Americans seeking to travel within their own country have been forced to allow strangers to invade and touch the
most private areas of their bodies – and their children's bodies! American sheep just bow to the authorities and keep watching
their freedoms stolen from them, murmuring to themselves as they are raped by the authorities, "well I have nothing to hide "
You mentioned one time Operation Mockingbird, where the CIA manipulated journalists in the 1950s. In your opinion, does the CIA
continue to use these same practices today?
I have no doubt that the CIA continues to maintain a close relationship with both mainstream and independent journalists. This
is critical to establishing and controlling the narrative in each foreign "crisis." It is no accident that each mainstream media
outlet – regardless whether left-wing or right-wing or any wing - has the exact same perspective on events like the Ukraine coup
or the Venezuela attempted coup, or Hong Kong protests. Part of this is the US "deep state" or "national security state" and part
of it is the increasing integration of US corporate entities into the US government. Major media outlets are owned by US corporations
that also own weapons manufacturing companies and cannot be trusted to report on events objectively. Similarly, virtually every
US mainstream media outlet employs "former" members of the US intelligence community to "explain" foreign events to their viewers.
When is the last time a credible non-interventionist or pro-peace analyst has been featured in any mainstream media outlet?
As in Soviet times, any view at odds with Washington's "party line" is simply disappeared. When independent media outlets begin
gaining traction and challenging the narrative, they are "de-platformed" on social media and even from their Internet service
providers under the recommendations of US government-funded NGOs like the Atlantic Council or the German Marshal Fund.
Is not what is currently happening in Hong Kong a CIA manipulation targeting China in the context of the Trump administration's
economic war?
There is plenty of evidence of US government involvement in the Hong Kong protests. That does not mean that every single
body out in the street is in the pay of the CIA. That is the red herring argument of those who are determined that we never see
the US government hand in unrest overseas. Or to ridicule as "conspiracy theorists" those who point out obvious US government
involvement.
It is undeniable that the US government has been involved in grooming, training, and funding the anti-Beijing movement
in Hong Kong for years. They don't even hide it: you can easily find on USAID and National Endowment for Democracy website
the level of funding the US government provides these organizations and political parties. And when these party leaders come to
Washington, they are received by the US Vice President, Secretary of State, Speaker of the House, and other high-ranking US government
officials. Which foreign opposition movements that Washington does not support are given such treatment?
Imagine a movement dedicated to overthrowing the US political order that was funded by the Chinese, whose activists regularly
went to Beijing for training in organization and mobilization, and whose leaders met with leading members of the Chinese Communist
Party. How would such a movement in the United States be viewed by the US government? How would it be portrayed by the US mainstream
media?
You mentioned a US-supported coup when you talked about Venezuela. In your opinion, does the US administration continue the same
interventionist policy to destabilize Latin American countries?
Any Latin American government not in Washington's constellation has been and is targeted for destabilization and overthrow.
We saw this with the 2009 coup in Honduras, whose architect was then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We see it in Cuba. We
see it in Venezuela. We saw it with Ecuador, where a government wary of US persecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was
"changed" in favor of a regime that handed Assange over to the authorities in exchange for a few billion dollars from the IMF.
Do what Washington says and get paid; oppose Washington and get overthrown. That is the foreign policy of the US empire. And like
the Soviet empire that preceded it, it is a policy doomed to failure.
Why in your opinion does the United States always need an enemy? Is not there a danger of world war when we see the multitude
of US imperialist interventions around the world?
The US has ceased being a republic and has become a national security state. The US national security state enriches its
elites – be they in the military-industrial complex, the think tanks, or the media – at the expense of middle class and working-class
America. It does this by promoting an "enemy scenario" whereby the American people are made to believe that if they ever challenge
the US military budget – larger than the next seven military budgets combined – they are not only putting themselves and their
families at risk, but they are deeply unpatriotic and anti-American. The US national security state fought an 18-year "war on
terror" which only seemed to generate more terrorists! Intervention in Iraq and Libya and Syria to "fight terrorism" resulted
in more, not less, al-Qaeda and ISIS. It was not until Russia and Iran stood up in 2015 and began fighting these US-backed groups
that there was a reduction in their power.
After the Russian and Iranian success in beating back the jihadist threat in Syria, the 2017 US national security strategy
did an Orwellian about-face and abandoned the "war on terror" in favor of a declaration that our new enemies were again our old
enemies: China and Russia. It is literally Orwell's 1984: "we are at war with Eastasia. We had always been at war with Eastasia."
What do you think about the North Korean and Iranian case, where the Trump administration lacks a clear vision and where some
neoconservatives are pushing for a war?
There are few consistencies in President Trump's foreign policy. One emerging consistency, however, is that he seems genuinely
reluctant to take the country into a bona fide war. He's happy with sending a few dozen Tomahawk missiles into the Syrian countryside,
but when faced with an actual robust response to any US strike, he to this point has chosen de-escalation. This may be a function
of his keen eye for politics rather than any philosophical or moral concerns, but it to this point seems thematic. The problem
is that by surrounding himself with neoconservatives – and make no mistake his replacement for Bolton is at least as much a neocon
as the Mustached One himself – the president is isolating himself from any inputs advising military constraint when facing crises
overseas. That is why many of us were so much hoping that Bolton would be replaced with a Realist like Col. Douglas Macgregor.
There is a big danger that the president will be cornered by a lack of non-war options to the next crisis simply because he gives
no quarter to non-war voices in his administration.
When we consider the plight of activists and whistleblowers, such as Assange, Snowden, etc. can we still talk about freedom of
speech and human rights? Shouldn't we mobilize more to support these activists and others around the world?
The plight of Snowden and Assange and all of the persecuted whistleblowers and truth-tellers is the plight of what is life
of our liberty, freedom, and even Western civilization. When all dissent is quashed, imprisoned, tortured, we are left with only
the Total State. The Total State, as we know from history, brooks no dissent because it can only maintain power by continuing
the illusion that it alone is the source of truth. Thus any voice challenging the Total State, as the embodiment of truth, must
on its face be a lie. Why would truth allow lies to undermine it? Why would any sane person oppose "the people" as represented
in their Soviet government? Surely such a person would be insane and need of treatment rather than a citizen raising a legitimate
question or differing opinion.
This is what we are facing in the US today. A Total State, where opposing views are de-platformed and disappeared. Where truth-tellers
are jailed and tortured – pour servir d'avertissement aux autres (to serve as a warning to others).
What is your assessment of the Trump Presidency and what do you think of its foreign policy?
The Trump Presidency thus far has been an enormous disappointment. The president had the opportunity to name a top-notch
foreign policy and national security team that would reflect and carry out his stated policies as a candidate – getting along
with Russia, NATO skepticism, opposition to endless war, etc – but once in power he has again and again drawn from that same neoconservative
cesspool that no matter who is elected always find its way to positions of power and influence. He did not chart a wise course
in building a solid administration of professionals who agree with him – and there are plenty to choose from – and instead he
actually hired an entire team of people who not only disagree with his stated positions, but they actually publicly ridicule them
and work against them. It is unprecedented in my memory to see those who serve the president publicly undermining his stated positions,
yet Bolton and Pompeo never hesitated or hesitate to do just that. This is an enormous missed opportunity for President Trump
and for the United States.
You have been an advisor to Congressman Ron Paul and you are doing an excellent job as Director of the Ron Paul Institute for
Peace and Prosperity. Can you explain to our readers what the missions of this institute are?
Our mission as a non-profit educational institution is to make the case for a non-interventionist foreign policy and the restoration
of our civil liberties at home. We are the continuation of the Ron Paul liberty movement. To that end, we publish thousands of
articles making the case for non-interventionism on our website, we broadcast a daily Ron Paul Liberty Report, and we hold conferences
throughout the country bringing together a broad coalition of Americans – and non-Americans – to learn and promote peace and prosperity!
* * *
Daniel McAdams is executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-host of the "Ron Paul Liberty
Report," a daily live broadcast. He served for 12 years on Capitol Hill as foreign affairs and national security advisor to former
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former
communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer.
Seems that the opposition press wants us to display mob outrage to make Trump foreign
policy for him.
The democrats are painting a picture aimed at handcuffing any attempt to determine if the
regime in Kyiv [Saudi ARAMCO, UAE,....]is worth tilting world war over.
A novel approach while Trump at odds with the neocon currents in State, CIA and
FBI.
It takes a lot more than some good at grammar NYTimes writer to substantiate claims that
allegations against the former VP and his son's cushy Ukraine oligarch job are
unsubstantiated. That is work for prosecutors and defense attorneys.
The Biden oligarch links go back to before the Obama neocon [Nuland] coup in 2014 when
Biden was VP. Out of context is no reason to make a conclusion.
Why I support impeachment. The evidence will be put out and the solicitors will argue on
complete evidentiary lines. It is getting to be anything Trump wants to do they find some
phony reason to be outraged.
I did a 20 minute telephone poll today. They called me! You can count on one respondent
"strongly opposed" to impeachment for trying to get to the bottom of Biden family
corruption.
"A novel approach while Trump at odds with the neocon currents in State, CIA and
FBI."
No. Nothing new here. This is just Russiagate II. Same actors, same methods.
But it is unclear to me why they even bothered? Trump folded long ago, In April 2017 to be
exact. And before impeachment, his chances in 2020 were far from certain. Especially against
Warren.
Also Biden should not even be discussed anymore. At this point he is history.
Warren now is the official frontrunner. Which is probably the only good thing emerging out
of this CIA-inspired mess.
The democrats are in the midst (started when Obama ignored the source of the fallacious
dossier which started the FISA spying on a campaign) of a strategic blunder. The polling on
Ukrainegate show it is libelously political. Democrat respondents largely see it serious,
independents are about 40% and GOP about 30%. This nugatory+, political ambush is not playing
well to independents!
No one is asking if this nugatory, political ambush the CIA/democrats are using to run a
circus in congress is troubling about Biden. As you say Biden is history, as are the
democrats' chances in 2020 for every national office.
Ukraine's most recent popularity among cold warriors started when Bill Clinton decided that
NATO should surround Russia. Coincidental with breaking and continuity of certain oligarchs'
fortunes. up Serbia.
Then the pro West coup in 2014....
Maybe as part of the impeachment the house could go in to what US was doing in Kyiv up to
and through the coup.
Note in the article Javelin systems are a foreign military sales case, run by the DoD,
"approved" by Depts of Commerce and State.
Javelin, guided anti tank missile system, is not solely a defensive weapon unless you look
at U S Grant on Richmond as a defensive campaign...... Reply Monday, September 30, 2019 at 06:50 AM ilsm said in reply to
Fred C. Dobbs... "Deductive reasoning" within the media message is mob control.
"It ain't what you know... it's what you know that ain't so"#. Keep reading the mainstream
media!
Given enough time [and strategy wrt 2020 election] we will get to the bottom of Obama's
"criminal influence" on 2016 election.
It takes a lot more to debunk the Biden, Clinton, Nuland, Obama Ukraine drama. To my mind,
Ukraine needs to be clean as driven snow* to "earn" javelins to kill Russian speaking
rebels.
Why do US from Obama+ fund rebels in Syria (Sunni radicals mainly) and want to send tank
killers to suppress rebels where we might get in to the real deal?
# conservatives have been saying that about the 'outrage' started by the MSM for
decades.
"No one is above the law," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
as she announced the Democratic effort to impeach President Trump over the Ukraine matter. The
phrase has become a Democratic mantra in the new impeachment push. But it could, in the end,
serve to highlight the weakness of the Democratic strategy.
The reason is, by stressing that Trump is not "above the law," Democrats are basing their
case against the president on the argument that he broke the law and must be held accountable.
But it's not at all clear that Trump broke any laws in the Ukraine matter. In the face of a
vigorous Republican defense, any argument on that question is likely to end inconclusively.
Democrats might better say, "No president is above impeachment," which lacks punch but is
more accurate. Doing so, however, would emphasize the political nature of the battle and could
make it more difficult for Democrats to win broad support for removing Trump. So they say "No
one is above the law." But what, exactly, does that mean?
In his analysis of the case, the intelligence community's inspector general, Michael
Atkinson, wrote that Trump might have violated campaign finance laws. "U.S. laws and
regulations prohibit a foreign national, directly or indirectly, from making a contribution or
donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a
contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," Atkinson
wrote. "Similarly, U.S. laws and regulations prohibit a person from soliciting, accepting, or
receiving such a contribution or donation from a foreign national, directly or indirectly, in
connection with a Federal, State, or local election."
That is, it appears, the strongest legal case against the president. Remember, in an
impeachment, no one is talking about criminal charges, so Justice Department guidelines that
the president cannot be indicted are irrelevant. The issue is whether Democrats will seek to
show that Trump violated the law, in order to strengthen their case that he must be impeached
and removed from office.
The problem is that the campaign finance question is highly debatable. The Democratic case
is this: Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate allegations that Joe
Biden and son Hunter Biden were involved in corruption in Ukraine. Any information Zelensky
provided to Trump would be a "thing of value" and thus an illegal foreign campaign
contribution.
"I think it's absurd," Bradley Smith, a former Federal Election Commission chair and a
frequent critic of campaign finance laws, said in an email exchange. "If 'anything of value'
were interpreted so broadly, it would mean that foreign governments are consistently violating
the ban in foreign spending, whenever they take official actions that may benefit one candidate
or another. Similarly, Americans would have to report such activity to the FEC. That is clearly
not the law."
"Absent the partisan juices that Trump sets off," Smith concluded, "no election law attorney
would ever say otherwise."
Smith's view of current campaign finance law reflects the attitudes of many Republicans and
conservatives. They see the laws as an infringement on political speech and see attempts to
broadly interpret those laws as a way to tighten limits on speech. (By the way, they have felt
that way for decades; it has nothing to do with Trump.)
A more practical analysis of what is wrong with applying the "things of value" standard in
the Trump-Ukraine case came from, of all places, the Mueller report. The special counsel's
prosecutors considered charging Trump campaign officials, including Donald Trump, Jr., with a
campaign finance violation in relation to the infamous June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting. The
Mueller report contained a detailed analysis of the issues involved and the reasons why the
special counsel's prosecutors concluded they could not make a winning case.
The issue involved Russians offering allegedly incriminating information on Hillary Clinton
to the Trump campaign. Even if Mueller believed he could convince a jury that the information
was a "thing of value" -- in effect, an illegal campaign contribution -- he had to concede that
"no judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research
or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under
campaign-finance law."
Mueller was also unable to show that the Trump campaign officials knew the law enough to
know that accepting information might violate campaign finance statutes. Finally, Mueller had
no confidence that he could prove the offered information was actually worth anything. (The law
requires prosecutors to prove the information was worth at least $2,000 for a misdemeanor
charge and at least $25,000 for a felony charge.)
Discussing the Mueller Trump Tower issue, the former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy
wrote : "So, while there might be some conceivable scenario in which acquiring information
from a foreign source for use in a campaign could be a federal crime, it is highly unlikely --
so unlikely that some Type A prosecutors wisely decided that the huzzahs they'd have gotten for
indicting the president's son were outweighed by the humiliation they'd endure when the case
inevitably got thrown out of court."
Weak as it is, the campaign finance violation case appears to be the Democrats' best chance
of showing Trump broke the law. But there are other possible cases. Some suggest Trump might
have solicited a bribe by offering foreign aid to Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Biden. That
would be an extraordinarily difficult argument to make.
Others suggest Trump obstructed justice -- another long shot. And still others suggest Trump
was involved in a conspiracy, which would require a showing not only that the president
committed crime but that he conspired with others to do it. Yet another long shot.
The bottom line is, it will be very, very hard for House Democrats to show that Trump
committed a crime in the Ukraine affair. Which is why some Democrats seem to be moving toward
accusing Trump of engaging in misconduct that is more difficult to define, like violating his
oath of office or betraying his country. Those are charges that seem solemn and weighty, but
are also fuzzy enough to use without getting into any detailed -- and losing -- legal
argument.
The Constitution says a president "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." There has been a very
long debate on what that means. To lay ears, it sounds like the president must be shown to have
committed a crime to be impeached and removed from office. But the framers did not define "high
crimes and misdemeanors," and it is up to Congress to decide whether a president should be
impeached, and, if so, on what grounds.
So far, Democrats have not helped their cause by accusing Trump of criminal behavior. "No
man is above the law" sounds good, but it requires the impeachers to make a case that the
president did, indeed, break the law. In coming days, look for Democrats to seek an easier
route.
Thank you for your courage and skills in defensing your views while being a minority in a
somewhat hostile to your views blog community.
In Trump impeachment, Pelosi "no one is above the law" stance could backfire on
hypocritical Democrats in such way that Warren, unfortunately, might lose the election. Her
own stupidity of jumpling on impelachment bandwagon does not help either. She would be better
off pretending being neutral. That just proved again that she is a mediocre politician. I
still like her due to her
"The two income trap" book(2004) and anti-Wall-Street stance. In a sense, she is better Trump
then Trump ;-).
People living in a glass house should not throw stones: most senior members of Obama
administration (including Obama himself) belong to jail. As war criminals (Hillary, Obama,
Nuland, Kerry, etc), pay for play fraudster and violator of rules for handing classified
information(Hillary). For forming a criminal gang with explicit goal to reverse the results
of the election and conduct snooping of Trump inner cycle (Brennan, Clapper, Mueller, Comey,
McCabe, Samantha Power, etc). Protection of other members of administration criminality
(Loretta Lynch, Bruce Ohr, etc) And that's only a tip of the iceberg.
Nobody here can even imagine the amount of dirt and criminal actions Obama administration
accumulated by their actions in Ukraine. Which might soon surface, if Trump is really as
vindictive as opponents are trying to present him.
Look at amazing interview of Stephen Miller at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXUWHk7sqe0
for possibilities. Stephen Miller proved again that he is really sharp guy far superior to
this old neoliberal hen Wallace... And a very dangerous opponent for this overconfident
jerk.
The truth is that Obama administration supported a neo-fascist party and cooperated with
and financed and later armed neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine to achieve geopolitical victory over
Russia (other important players in this dirty game were Germany, Poland and Sweden).
"Ukraine is the place where US politicians, like the bear in Winne the Pooh, get their heads
caught in the honey jar. "
Of course, one would only welcome that Pelosi just dived head on into Ukrainian mud
(Michelle Obama might not happy, though).
Trump is serious opponent in mud wrestling for Pelosi (5'5, 131 pound) and not only
because he is 6'2, 236 pounds.
The truth is that establishment democrats re-opened a tremendous can of worm starting from
Nulandgate (after Victoria Nuland famous "F*ck EU" phone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o
).
And there is not a single doubt that actions of Obama administration in Nulandgate
(including Biden's and Brennan's) and later were simply criminal. As in Nuremberg definition
of war crimes.
If Trump wants, not a single member of Obama administration can emerge unscathed from
this. He can tarnish Obama legacy forever in a way Iraq war and Abu Ghraib tarnished forever
Bush II administration.
He also can sink Brennan by asking Zelensky to open archives with protocols of talks with
Ukrainian officials during Brennan visits to Kiev.
Crime-wise Trump in Ukraine like a clueless amateur pocket picker. Previous members of
Obama administration were real Mafiosi with a lot of blood on their hands.
I think Team Pelosi at the behest of the intelligence services freaked out when they saw
Trump going to Ukraine to get to the bottom of the allegations against him. They have created
their narrative Russiagate being conveniently replaced by Ukrainegate. They will aggressively
push their narrative through the mainstream media.
Trump, if he gets organized, will push his narrative through Fox and the conservative echo
chamber.
So far, advantage Democrats/CIA. Pretty good for a hapless bunch of politicians
incapable of putting together a message coherent enough to win an election!
However, there is a lot of information out there to raise questions about what Biden was
really up to in Ukraine:
As I noted earlier, the plot is Byzantine. The winner will be the side with the most
superficially plausible story. But both Trump and Biden are likely to be damaged severely in
the process and for that we can be grateful.
As Schumer said "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have six
ways from Sunday at getting back at you," "So, even for a practical supposedly hard-nosed
businessman, he's being really dumb to do this," he added.
Trump Was Repeatedly Warned That Ukraine Conspiracy Theory
Was 'Completely Debunked' https://nyti.ms/2mUMP99
NYT - Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Maggie Haberman
and Peter Baker - September 29
WASHINGTON -- President Trump was repeatedly warned by his own staff that the Ukraine
conspiracy theory that he and his lawyer were pursuing was "completely debunked" long before
the president pressed Ukraine this summer to investigate his Democratic rivals, a former top
adviser said on Sunday.
Thomas P. Bossert, who served as Mr. Trump's first homeland security adviser, said he told
the president there was no basis to the theory that Ukraine, not Russia, intervened in the
2016 election and did so on behalf of the Democrats. Speaking out for the first time, Mr.
Bossert said he was "deeply disturbed" that Mr. Trump nonetheless tried to get Ukraine's
president to produce damaging information about Democrats.
Mr. Bossert's comments, on the ABC program "This Week" and in a subsequent telephone
interview, underscored the danger to the president as the House moves ahead with an inquiry
into whether he abused his power for political gain. Other former aides to Mr. Trump said on
Sunday that he refused to accept reassurances about Ukraine no matter how many times it was
explained to him, instead subscribing to an unsubstantiated narrative that has now brought
him to the brink of impeachment.
The latest revelations came as the impeachment inquiry rushed ahead at a brisk pace. The
House chairman taking the lead said that the whistle-blower who brought the matter to light
would testify soon and that a subpoena for documents would be issued early this week to
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer who spearheaded the effort to find dirt
on Democrats in Ukraine. In a letter to the acting director of national intelligence, lawyers
for the whistle-blower requested stepped-up efforts to ensure his safety, citing "serious
concerns we have regarding our client's personal safety."
As Democrats pressed forward, a new poll showed that a majority of Americans supported an
impeachment inquiry for the first time, a worrying development for a White House that until
now has been able to make the argument that the public opposed impeaching Mr. Trump. A senior
White House aide tried to turn the tables by arguing that Mr. Trump was the real
whistle-blower because he was uncovering Democratic corruption.
As Republicans struggled to defend the president on Sunday, Mr. Bossert's remarks offered
a hint of cracks in the Republicans' armor. While Mr. Bossert was forced out in 2018 when
John R. Bolton became national security adviser, he has remained publicly loyal until now to
a president who prizes fealty above all else.
"It is completely debunked," Mr. Bossert said of the Ukraine theory on ABC. Speaking with
George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Bossert blamed Mr. Giuliani for filling the president's head with
misinformation. "I am deeply frustrated with what he and the legal team is doing and
repeating that debunked theory to the president. It sticks in his mind when he hears it over
and over again, and for clarity here, George, let me just again repeat that it has no
validity."
He added that pressing Ukraine's president was disturbing, but noted that it remained
unproven whether Mr. Trump's decision to withhold aid to Ukraine was tied to the demand for
investigations into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats.
"It is a bad day and a bad week for this president and for this country if he is asking
for political dirt on an opponent," Mr. Bossert said. "But it looks to me like the other
matter that's far from proven is whether he was doing anything to abuse his power and
withhold aid in order to solicit such a thing." On Twitter on Sunday evening, he added that
he did "not see evidence of an impeachable offense."
Other former aides said separately on Sunday that the president had a particular weakness
for conspiracy theories involving Ukraine, which in the past three years has become the focus
of far-right media outlets and political figures. Mr. Trump was more willing to listen to
outside advisers like Mr. Giuliani than his own national security team.
Mr. Trump has known Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, for years and likes his
pugnacious approach and the fact that he never pushes back, said one former aide, who like
others asked not to be identified discussing internal matters. Mr. Giuliani would "feed Trump
all kinds of garbage" that created "a real problem for all of us," said the former aide.
House Democrats may try to explore that as they move expeditiously in their inquiry.
Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on
Sunday that the whistle-blower whose complaint rocked Washington last week would testify
"very soon" and that Mr. Giuliani would be ordered to turn over documents.
Mr. Schiff, a former prosecutor who is the de facto chief of the inquiry, also issued a
pointed warning to Mr. Trump and the White House, who have a history of blocking
congressional requests for witnesses and records. "If they're going to obstruct, then they
are going to increase the likelihood that Congress may feel it necessary to move forward with
an article of obstruction," he said on "This Week."
Mr. Trump continued his bellicose attacks on his accusers. "I want Schiff questioned at
the highest level for Fraud & Treason," he wrote on Twitter. And he threatened the
whistle-blower, who is protected by law from retribution. "Was this person SPYING on the U.S.
President? Big Consequences!"
Republicans have had a tough time defending Mr. Trump and have mostly tried to redirect
the conversation to suggest that Mr. Biden engaged in wrongdoing. Representative Steve
Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 Republican in the House, repeatedly changed the subject on
Sunday when Chuck Todd, the moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," pressed him on whether he
believed a summary transcript of the Ukraine call merited further investigation. ...
(Wikipedia: Tom Bossert was officially appointed to the post of Homeland Security Advisor
(officially titled the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism)
on January 20, 2017, the date of President Trump's entrance into office. ...
On April 10, 2018, Bossert resigned a day after John R. Bolton, the newly-appointed
National Security Advisor, started his tenure.)
This is deep state operation, Russiagate II, pure and simple
Stephen Miller proved to be formidable debater. His jeremiad against the Deep State at 12:55 was brilliant. Former South
Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy says people have stopped sharing information with the House Intelligence Committee because
Chair Adam Schiff is the most deeply partisan member who is "leaking like a sieve"
The problem with Pelosi bold move is that she does not have votes for impeachment, but the dirt uncovered might sink any
Democrat changes for 2020
Notable quotes:
"... Stephen Miller is amazing at wrestling and smacking down this Democratic Operative Chris Wallace ..."
"... Wallace is a minion of the globalists. ..."
"... Stephen Miller is CORRECT -- there is no more integrity and confidence in government affairs when it can be turned into ammunition against the President of the United States. Chris Wallace really ought to work for CNN. ..."
"... Chris Wallace Incorrect. We have the Docs that expose the corruption on the part of the Biden. We have his legal team basically threatening the new prosectutor saying in lawyer speak "Hey you saw how we got the last prosecutor fired? I'd suggest you cooperate with us or you will get fired next" .450 pages from Biden's son legal team at Burisma, Ukrainian Embassy Official Docs and State Department Docs. ..."
"... Also last time I checked Donald Trump is the head of the executive branch he can direct anyone to go find anything, and I haven't seen one person show me where he can't. ..."
Stephen Miller is CORRECT -- there is no more integrity and confidence in government
affairs when it can be turned into ammunition against the President of the United States.
Chris Wallace really ought to work for CNN.
Chris Wallace Incorrect. We have the Docs that expose the corruption on the part of the
Biden. We have his legal team basically threatening the new prosectutor saying in lawyer
speak "Hey you saw how we got the last prosecutor fired? I'd suggest you cooperate with us or
you will get fired next" .450 pages from Biden's son legal team at Burisma, Ukrainian Embassy
Official Docs and State Department Docs.
Wallace you sir you are a paritsan hack. Anyone can
read the docs too thats whats sad. I'm only 70 pages in and its bad for the Biden's jailtime
bad.
Also last time I checked Donald Trump is the head of the executive branch he can direct
anyone to go find anything, and I haven't seen one person show me where he can't.
Central to the charges made by Democrats is that Trump was "pressuring" Zelensky to
investigate Biden. The fact is that there is absolutely no need to investigate Biden. The
story he has told out of his own mouth is sufficient in itself. You don't need to know
anything about the Ukranian prosecutor or what he was doing. You don't need to know anything
about Biden's son or the son's business dealings. You just have to listen to Biden himself
tell the story.
Two facts are plain in the story as Biden tells it. That he coerced compliance as to
Ukraine's internal governance, and that he used $1 billion of US foreign aid money as an
instrument of extortion in order to do it. He himself says so.
President Trump says in that phone call that, "What Joe Biden did was shameful," a
statement with which I cannot help but agree. The media's comment in their followup was a
stunning, "There is no evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong."
That's accurate - 100%. I see this move of Pelosi's as furtherance of the "Ukraine coup"
movement, probably triggered more than by constitutional concerns by fears of cutting of
military aid to Ukraine and fears of Zelensky's potential for making peace with the Russians.
She comes across in this episode as a US intelligence stand-in. But I have grown cynical.
This Wednesday night article in the NY Times strengthened my outlook in such regard,
especially the passage I quote below:
Quote:
Long before she was speaker, Ms. Pelosi served as the top Democrat on the House
Intelligence Committee, overseeing the secretive workings of America's national security
apparatus and helping to draft the law that governs how intelligence officials file
whistle-blower complaints, and how that information is shared with Congress.
EndQuote.
Maybe we should have all the Obama & Biden conversations with Poroshenko also released
to the public? And while we're at it what about releasing all the conversations that Hillary,
Ms. Nuland, John McCain and all those involved with Ukraine had with various parties.
Are there any conflict of interest laws in DC? We don't know what the REAL deal between
Hunter and Burisma was. On paper what we've seen was he got paid for being a board member at
Burisma. That doesn't even pass the laugh test as Hunter's most recent experience was being
discharged from the Navy reserve for being a coke head. He had no experience in the natural
gas business or corporate strategy or even corporate governance in the US let alone in
Ukraine. What was the real quid pro quo here?
Then there is the deal with the Chinese who invested $1.5 billion in a private equity fund
launched by Hunter and John Kerry's stepson. That too smells since neither of them had any
experience running any pool of capital nor having worked at a PE firm before. I work in the
investment management business and I know the near impossibility for a first time manager to
raise $100 million let alone $1.5 billion and from all people the Chinese government. What
was the real quid pro quo here? Inquiring minds want to know.
TTG - apologies for butting in but this is still something that has not been put past doubt -
" I'm still convinced one of the ultimate goals of that fiasco was to make Sevastopol
into a NATO naval base."
The precise aims of the tragic Ukrainian venture are still unclear. They can be deduced
but not evidenced. That is as far as I know also the case with Sevastopol.
The only written evidence I've seen in that case is the US Navy project to upgrade a
school, which I doubt is one of the reasons for your view.
There was no evidence in the tender documents of adaptation of the school for military
purposes and similar renovations contracts had been put out to tender elsewhere. It's also
scarcely likely that had the school been intended for military purposes the US Navy would
have advertised the fact in 2013.
Nevertheless it's clear that had the venture in the Ukraine worked the Russians would
sooner or later have been deprived of the use of their Sevastopol base. It may be safely
assumed therefore that that was one object of the venture. Do you believe that as well as
that there was a plan to replace it with a US Navy base? It would surely have been a most
vulnerable one.
English Outsider, I don't think the Sevastopol school renovation was part of a desire to
remove the Russian fleet from the port or eventually replace than with NATO vessels. It was
just one of many little civil projects we sponsored as part of our overall Ukraine project.
But I assume the goal of Russia out and NATO in at Sevastopol was a major goal of our
Ukrainian venture. I think the Russians sensed this as well and this was a driving force in
their decision to seize the Crimea when they did.
Thanks, TTG. Decidedly an off-topic enquiry of mine in this complex and fascinating thread,
I'm afraid. But what happened in 13/14/15 is a subject that for me remains central.
You mentioned earlier the Nuland tape - perhaps the moment when it truly became impossible
for anyone to pretend that the Neocon narrative on the Ukraine was valid. But it didn't seem
to make a lot of odds in the long run. It's a sobering thought that that narrative still
holds for most.
I am really getting sick of these coup attempts. The Democrats must feel they have no chance
at the ballot box and that a majority of Americans will accept a coup. I don't think the
propaganda is working as well as they think it is. I'm not a fan of Trump overall except for
a couple of his policies but I am a fan of our Republic.
Have we really reached the stage where an American Praetorian guard picks our President
and the ballot box and electoral college become Imperial window dressing?
I'm a left leaning Independent but I hope that the Democrats get a tremendous whipping at
the ballot box in 2020. I plan to do my small part in that.
As part of the Trump administration's Sunday talk-show blitz trying to deescalate the
Ukraine whistle-blower crisis, White House adviser and senior xenophobe Stephen Miller spoke
with Fox News' Chris Wallace about how the president, once again, is not the bad guy in a
scandal in which he was caught doing bad things. This time around, as Trump faces an
impeachment inquiry for withholding aid to Ukraine while pressuring President Volodymyr
Zelenksy to investigate the business dealings of Hunter Biden (followed by the
administration's attempt to cover up the exchange), Miller went on Fox News Sunday to inform
the public that the president is the only option for real democracy in America.
"Do you want a democracy in this country or do you want a deep state?" Miller asked and
answered. "It's a binary choice for the American people." He may have forgotten the word
"false" in there before "binary."
Miller also attacked the intelligence officer who reported Trump's behavior, lamenting
that the term "whistle-blower" has been appointed to them. To Miller, it's an "honorific that
this individual most certainly does not deserve. A partisan hit job does not make you a
whistle-blower just because you go through the Whistle-blower Protection Act." Of course, by
protocol, that's exactly what this individual is, as confirmed in Thursday's testimony from
the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, who stated that the
whistle-blower acted "by the book and followed the law."
During the Fox News Sunday interview, Miller also offered a galaxy-brain take on Trump's
role in the developing scandal, claiming that the president is the real whistle-blower in
the crisis. "The president of the United States is the whistle-blower and this individual is
a saboteur trying to undermine a democratically elected government," Miller said.
It's a perspective that does contain some truth, although one might need to zoom out much
further than Miller intends for the comparison to be helpful. If Trump is a whistle-blower,
then he's telling on himself, revealing just how corrupt a presidency can get when all legal
and ethical concerns are dropped at the expense of personal gain.
Trump refuses to condemn Obama's coup against Ukraine, but if he cared about the truth, he
would, and the worst that could happen to him then would be that, for once in his life, he'd be
fighting for truth, and not just for himself.
Biden extorted a $2 million dollar payoff from the Ukraine laundered by putting his
totally unqualified coke head son on the Board of Directors of a the National Gas Company of
the Ukraine.
Then Biden took a $1.5 million dollar payment laundered through multiple off shore wire
transfers.
Military Tech was transferred to China
Then Biden sold his Office of VP to the Chinese for $1.5 Billion Dollars
the payment was laundered as an investment in a Hedge Fund created by his coke head son
and Kerry's step son. .
"Notably, the younger Biden sat on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma - collecting
$50,000 per month despite having no previous experience in the field, nor being an investor.
His only qualification appears to have been a very connected daddy - who happened to threaten
to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees unless Ukraine's top prosecutor, who was
investigating Burisma, was fired. "
By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president he ordered then-Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company
that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forgo a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee that
Kiev needed to stay current on its debts.
Today, I write to express concern about another Obama-era CFIUS-approved transaction which
gave control over Henniges, an American maker of anti-vibration technologies with military
applications, to a Chinese government-owned aviation company and China-based investment firm
with established ties to the Chinese government. As with the Uranium One transaction, there
is cause for concern that potential conflicts of interest could have influenced CFIUS
approval of the Henniges transaction...
The direct involvement of Mr. Hunter Biden and Mr. Heinz in the acquisition of Henniges by
the Chinese government creates a potential conflict of interest. Both are directly related to
high-ranking Obama administration officials. The Department of State, then under Mr. Kerry's
leadership, is also a CFIUS member and played a direct role in the decision to approve the
Henniges transaction. The appearance of potential conflicts in this case is particularly
troubling given Mr. Biden's and Mr. Heinz's history of investing in and collaborating with
Chinese companies, including at least one posing significant national security concerns. This
history with China pre and post-dates the 2015 Henniges transaction.
Former vice president Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden partnered with infamous mobster Whitey
Bulger's nephew and former secretary of state John Kerry's stepson for his lucrative business
deal with the Bank of China, according to reporter Peter Schweizer's latest book.
Schweizer points
to the business deal with state-owned Bank of China, a $1.5 billion private equity
investment, as a possible reason why the current presidential candidate has adopted a
conciliatory attitude toward China. The lucrative deal between the Bank of China and Hunter
Biden's company was inked in 2013 just weeks after Joe Biden brought his son along on an
official trip to China.
Schweizer also lays out the interesting cast of characters who partnered with Biden for
the deal, such as the Thornton Group consulting firm, which is headed by James Bulger. The
son of Massachusetts state senator Billy Bulger, James is named after his uncle James
"Whitey" Bulger, who was
killed in prison late last year after a decades-long career in the mob that landed him on
the FBI's Most Wanted list.
Also partnered with Biden is Chris Heinz, the stepson of John Kerry. Biden and Heinz
control Rosemont Seneca Partners, the private equity firm that received billions of
investment dollars from China.
A representative for Heinz says his involvement in the deal has been "misreported." He
says that neither he nor his firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, had any role in the deal. He
says an unaffiliated second firm, Rosemont Seneca Bohai, is the firm doing business with Bank
of China, and that Heinz is not involved. The representative also says Heinz has never been
to China.
Schweizer, whose latest book Secret
Empires examines the tactics used by political elites to accumulate wealth while in
power, calls the timeline of Hunter Biden's business dealings with China as his father shaped
foreign policy from the White House "shocking," but points out that nobody knew enough to
raise any questions.
"If it sounds shocking that a vice president would shape US-China policy as his son -- who
has scant experience in private equity -- clinched a coveted billion-dollar deal with an arm
of the Chinese government, that's because it is," Schweizer writes. "Until the publication of
my book no one knew the deal took place. Indeed, it took me and a team of seasoned
investigators nearly two years to unearth and report the facts."
CEO of the company is Taras Burdeinyi [1] and
chairman of the board is Alan Apter. [2] A number
of non-Ukrainian directors were appointed in 2014, including Aleksander Kwaśniewski ,
former President of the Republic
of Poland , appointed in January 2014. [12] In
February 2016, Joseph Cofer Black , the Director of
the American CIA's Counterterrorist Center (CTC)
(1999–2002) in the George W. Bush administration and
Ambassador at
Large for counter-terrorism (2002–2004)
joined Burisma's Board of Directors. [13] Also Karina
Zlochevska, daughter of Mykola Zlochevskiy, is a member of the board. [2]
Other members of the board are Christina Sofocleous, Riginos Charalampous, and Marina
Pericleous. [14]
On 18 April 2014, Hunter Biden , the son of then-US vice
president Joe Biden ,
was appointed to the board of Burisma Holdings. [15] He left the
company in April 2019. [4] At
the same time, one of the board members was Devon Archer, a former senior adviser to
John Kerry 2004
presidential campaign . [16]
In October 2011, Black was chosen by Romney to serve as "Special Adviser" on all foreign
policy issues. [32
AND today we also learn the Pencil Neck Schit's major campaign contributor is a Ukrainian
arms dealer. No wonder Schit was upset with Trump for messing with his sugar daddy.
It seems that perhaps only Trump did not have some sort of financial ties to the
Ukraine.
Surely, it's a complex article. But the U. S. intervention has created, participated in
mayhem during this past decade where mayhem need not have happened. The best thing to do is
withhold money from Ukraine as POTUS did (is Congress a body that presses money into foreign
governments' hands whether they need it or not--what about Americans? It's OUR MONEY!).
Then the Ukraine government can find a new way to deal with their internal problems. Maybe
it's working with Russia. Russia is much closer to the United States. We have our own
problems such as a modern "Opium War" waged against us at the Mexican border. We need a good
barrier there. We need to start taking care of OUR OWN!
AND you also know why certain rinos like Mitt are opposing Trump....they are just as deep
into this **** as any dem. I am surprised that Hitlery wasn't getting some sort of skim on
all this action in the Ukraine.....maybe a lot more to come out.
The Ukraine looks like a real tar baby.....turns out Schit's major donor is a Ukrainian
arms dealer.....
AND then there is our old friend the CIA up to its neck. No wonder they needed a spy on
Trump and a fabricated report. Obviously they have a lot to hide.
California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes on the whistleblower complaint against Trump, the IG
report on alleged FISA abuse and privacy concerns with big tech.
We already have Obama talking to Putin representative on a hot mic quote: "tell vladimir
that I will have more flexibility after the election." Flexibility for what?
"... The senior prosecutor Kostiantyn Kulyk never got an answer, and he says it's because the visas were blocked by the U.S. Ambassador. The Ambassador, Marie L. Yovanovitch is a career diplomat (since 1986) who served under both Democratic and Republicans and was appointed to her present position in August 2016 by former President Obama. ..."
The FBI knew the
Steele dossier was nonsense before they used it to get the FISA court to issue the warrant
to begin spying on Carter Page leading to the Russia collusion hoax. John Solomon of
The Hill found a second document that the FBI knew contained false information, but they
used it to get the search warrant against Paul Manafort anyway.
Per Solomon:
The second document, known as the "black cash ledger," remarkably has escaped the same
scrutiny, even though its emergence in Ukraine in the summer of 2016 forced Paul Manafort to resign as
Trump's campaign chairman and eventually face U.S. indictment.
In search warrant affidavits, the FBI portrayed the ledger as one reason it resurrected a
criminal case against Manafort that was dropped in 2014 and needed search warrants in 2017
for bank records to prove
he worked for the Russian-backed Party of Regions in Ukraine.
There's just one problem: The FBI's public reliance on the ledger came months after the
feds were warned repeatedly that the document couldn't be trusted and likely was a fake,
according to documents and more than a dozen interviews with knowledgeable sources.
When
the NY Times reported the news about the ledger, they positioned it as a big scandal as
they do with almost everything associated with Donald Trump:
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to
Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the
disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included
election officials.
( ) The papers, known in Ukraine as the "black ledger," are a chicken-scratch of Cyrillic
covering about 400 pages taken from books once kept in a third-floor room in the former Party
of Regions headquarters on Lipskaya Street in Kiev. The room held two safes stuffed with $100
bills, said Taras V. Chornovil, a former party leader who was also a recipient of the money
at times. He said in an interview that he had once received $10,000 in a "wad of cash" for a
trip to Europe.
Nazar Kholodnytsky, Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor, told John Solomon that he had
told his State Dept contacts and FBI agents that his colleagues who found the ledger thought it
was bogus around the same time the Times published the story late August 2916.
"It was not to be considered a document of Manafort. It was not authenticated. And at that
time it should not be used in any way to bring accusations against anybody," Kholodnytsky
said, recalling what he told FBI agents.
This is the second incident of Obama's State Department ignoring Ukraine evidence.
Two months ago we
learned that senior member of Ukraine's Prosecutor General's International Legal
Cooperation Dept. told John Solomon that since last year, he's been blocked from getting visas
for himself and a team to go to the U.S. to deliver evidence of Democratic party wrongdoing
during the 2016 election to the DOJ. The senior prosecutor Kostiantyn Kulyk never got an
answer, and he says it's because the visas were blocked by the U.S. Ambassador. The Ambassador,
Marie L. Yovanovitch is a career diplomat (since 1986) who served under both Democratic and
Republicans and was appointed to her present position in August 2016 by former President
Obama.
Solomon gives some more examples of the FBI being told the ledger was as real as a
three-dollar bill. But that's when it gets really dicey because according to three of Solomon's
sources, Mueller's team of political hitmen and the FBI were given copies of one of the
warnings.
Because they knew the ledger was false Mueller and the FBI couldn't use the ledger to
establish probable cause to investigate Manafort because it " would require agents to discuss
their assessment of the evidence -- and instead cited media reports about it." Even though the
feds assisted on one of those stories as sources
For example, agents mentioned the ledger in an affidavit
supporting a July 2017 search warrant for Manafort's house, citing it as one of the reasons
the FBI resurrected the criminal case against Manafort.
"On August 19, 2016, after public reports regarding connections between Manafort, Ukraine
and Russia -- including an alleged 'black ledger' of off-the-book payments from the Party of
Regions to Manafort -- Manafort left his post as chairman of the Trump Campaign," the July
25, 2017, FBI agent's affidavit stated.
Three months later, the FBI went further in
arguing probable cause for a search warrant for Manafort's bank records, citing a
specific article about the ledger as evidence Manafort was paid to perform U.S. lobbying work
for the Ukrainians.
"The April 12, 2017, Associated Press article
reported that DMI [Manafort's company] records showed at least two payments were made to DMI
that correspond to payments in the 'black ledger,' " an FBI agent
wrote in a footnote to the affidavit.
Guess who helped the AP with their story -- the DOJ's Andrew Weissmann who later moved to
the special prosecutor's office and became Mueller's chief hit-man.
So just as they had done in the anti-Trump investigation "the FBI cited a leak that the
government had facilitated and then used it to support the black ledger evidence, even though
it had been clearly warned about the document."
Whether or not Paul Manafort deserved to be jailed is irrelevant. Part of the search
warrants against him were lies that the prosecutors knew were false. The judgments against him
should be tossed out because they contain the fruit of the poisonous tree. Our justice system
promises equal justice for all, but the FBI and Special Prosecutor cheated in the case of
Manafort.
How a Shadow Foreign Policy in Ukraine Prompted
an Impeachment Inquiry https://nyti.ms/2m0n5aY
NYT - Kenneth P. Vogel, Andrew E. Kramer
and David E. Sanger - September 28
WASHINGTON -- Petro O. Poroshenko was still the president of Ukraine earlier this year
when his team sought a lifeline. With the polls showing him in clear danger of losing his
re-election campaign, some of his associates, eager to hold on to their own jobs and
influence, took steps that could have yielded a signal of public support from a vital ally:
President Trump.
Over several weeks in March, the office of Ukraine's top prosecutor moved ahead on two
investigations of intense interest to Mr. Trump. One was focused on an oligarch -- previously
cleared of wrongdoing by the same prosecutor -- whose company employed former Vice President
Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s son. The other dealt with the release by a separate Ukrainian law
enforcement agency to the media of information that hurt Mr. Trump's 2016 campaign.
The actions by the prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, did not come out of thin air. They were the
first visible results of a remarkable behind-the-scenes campaign to gather and disseminate
political dirt from a foreign country, encouraged by Mr. Trump and carried out by his
personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani. In the last week their engagement with Ukraine has
prompted a formal impeachment inquiry into whether the president courted foreign interference
to hurt a leading political rival.
The story of how Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani operated in Ukraine has emerged gradually in
recent months. It was laid out in further detail in the past week in a reconstructed
transcript of Mr. Trump's phone call this summer with a new Ukrainian president and in a
complaint filed by a whistle-blower inside the United States government.
Along with documents and interviews with a wide variety of people in Ukraine and the
United States, the latest revelations show that Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani ran what amounted
to a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine that unfolded against the backdrop of three elections
-- this year's vote in Ukraine and the 2016 and 2020 presidential races in the United
States.
Despite the findings of United States intelligence agencies and the Justice Department
that Russia was responsible for interfering in the 2016 election, Mr. Trump was driven to
seek proof that the meddling was linked to Ukraine and forces hostile to him, even fixating
on a fringe conspiracy theory suggesting that Hillary Clinton's missing emails might be found
there.
Backed by Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani, who once aspired to be secretary of state, sought to
tar Mr. Biden with unsubstantiated accusations of impropriety, while he and associates
working with him in Ukraine on the president's agenda pursued their own personal business
interests.
With the political landscape scrambled by Mr. Poroshenko's defeat in April and the arrival
of a new cast of Ukrainian officials, the approach pursued by Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump
undercut official United States diplomacy.
And the signals sent by Mr. Trump -- long skeptical of the strategic value of backing
Ukraine against Russia, its menacing neighbor to the east -- complicated efforts by the new
Ukrainian government to fortify itself against Moscow.
The intensifying overlap this summer between Mr. Trump's political agenda in Ukraine and
his official foreign policy apparatus is now at the center of an impeachment inquiry that
will examine whether the president of the United States directed or encouraged his
subordinates to lean on a vulnerable ally for personal political gain.
Among the subjects covered in a subpoena sent Friday by House Democrats to Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo and demands for depositions from American diplomats was Mr. Trump's
decision to freeze a $391 million military aid package to Ukraine this summer not long before
his July 25 call with Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who defeated Mr.
Poroshenko this spring.
Democrats are also looking into the recall in the spring of the United States ambassador
to Kiev, Marie L. Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer who was seen as
insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump by some of his conservative allies. On Friday evening, the
State Department's special envoy for Ukraine, Kurt Volker, abruptly resigned, not long after
receiving a summons from House Democrats to sit for a deposition in the coming week.
Mr. Trump has dismissed the impeachment investigation as another "witch hunt."
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Giuliani defended his efforts to push the Ukrainians to
investigate Mr. Biden, his son, Hunter Biden, and others. He asserted that he was not doing
it to try to influence the 2020 presidential election, though Mr. Biden is a leading
contender for the Democratic nomination to challenge Mr. Trump.
"I was doing it to dig out information that exculpates my client, which is the role of a
defense lawyer," he said.
Mixing Business and Politics
In the months before the steps taken in March on the politically explosive investigations
sought by Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani had met at least twice with the man who would become a
central figure in his efforts and a target of criticism in both countries: Mr. Lutsenko, 54,
Ukraine's top prosecutor.
First at a meeting in New York and later in Warsaw, Mr. Giuliani pushed Mr. Lutsenko for
information about -- and investigations into -- a pair of cases of keen interest to his
client.
They included the Bidens' activities in Ukraine and the release during the 2016 campaign
of incriminating records about Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's campaign chairman. Mr. Giuliani
said early this year he had become increasingly convinced that the Manafort records were
doctored and disseminated by critics of Mr. Trump to sabotage his campaign, and later used to
spur the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
No evidence supports this idea and Mr. Manafort's own retroactive filings under the
Foreign Agents Registration Act corroborated the Ukrainian documents, which also matched
financial records in the United States.
Still, it was not long before Mr. Trump, sensitive to any questions about the legitimacy
of his 2016 victory, began echoing Mr. Giuliani's language about what they viewed as the
Ukrainian origins of the Russia investigation.
But Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani had also taken a growing interest in the role played by Mr.
Biden, as vice president, in the dismissal of a previous Ukrainian prosecutor who had
oversight of investigations into an oligarch who had served in a previous Ukrainian
government and whose company had employed Hunter Biden. No evidence has surfaced that the
former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the dismissal of
that prosecutor, whose ouster was being sought by other Western governments and institutions
concerned about corruption in the Ukrainian government.
In their first meeting, in January, Mr. Lutsenko later told people, Mr. Giuliani called
Mr. Trump and excitedly briefed him on the discussions. And once Mr. Lutsenko's office took
procedural steps to advance investigations involving the Manafort records and the oligarch
linked to Hunter Biden, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Trump and their allies aggressively promoted
stories about the developments to conservative journalists at home, further turning a foreign
government's action to the president's advantage.
"As Russia Collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges," Mr. Trump wrote on
Twitter in March, echoing the headline of one of the first such pieces by a Trump-friendly
journalist.
Mr. Giuliani had seemed to slide eagerly into his new role. After his hopes of becoming
secretary of state were dashed -- in part, former administration officials said, because of
his extensive foreign business ties -- he became a personal lawyer for Mr. Trump when the
president came under scrutiny by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
Mr. Trump was publicly lobbying his own Justice Department for an investigation of Mrs.
Clinton and other Democrats. When he got no satisfaction on that score, Mr. Giuliani
volunteered to take on the role of independent investigator, empowered by nothing other than
Mr. Trump's blessing.
Mr. Giuliani rejected the suggestion that he was interfering in the execution of American
foreign policy, noting that Mr. Volker and the State Department eventually helped connect him
with a top aide to Mr. Zelensky.
"If they were concerned, I don't think they would ask me to handle a mission like this
that's sensitive," he said. "I feel perfectly comfortable with what we did in Ukraine."
Ukraine was familiar ground to Mr. Giuliani, a former New York City mayor and presidential
candidate who had built a thriving consulting and security business.
Mr. Giuliani's activity on behalf of Mr. Trump allowed him to maintain, and increase, his
marketability to prospective clients around the world. Hiring him came to be seen as a way to
curry favor with the Trump administration. ...
Kurt Volker, Trump's Envoy for Ukraine,
Resigns https://nyti.ms/2mex0tH
NYT - Peter Baker -September 27
WASHINGTON -- Kurt D. Volker, the State Department's special envoy for Ukraine who got
caught in the middle of the pressure campaign by President Trump and his lawyer, Rudolph W.
Giuliani, to find damaging information about Democrats, abruptly resigned his post on
Friday.
Mr. Volker, who told Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday that he was stepping down,
offered no public explanation, but a person informed about his decision said he concluded
that it was impossible to be effective in his assignment given the developments of recent
days.
His departure was the first resignation since revelations about Mr. Trump's efforts to
pressure Ukraine's president to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and
other Democrats. The disclosures have triggered a full-blown House impeachment inquiry, and
House leaders announced on Friday that they planned to interview Mr. Volker in a deposition
on Thursday.
Mr. Volker, a widely respected former ambassador to NATO, served in the part-time, unpaid
position of special envoy to help Ukraine resolve its armed confrontation with
Russia-sponsored separatists. He was among the government officials who found themselves in
an awkward position because of the search for dirt on Democrats, reluctant to cross the
president or Mr. Giuliani yet wary of getting drawn into politics outside their purview.
The unidentified intelligence official who filed the whistle-blower complaint that brought
the president's actions to light identified Mr. Volker as one of the officials trying to
"contain the damage" by advising Ukrainians how to navigate Mr. Giuliani's campaign.
Mr. Volker facilitated an entree for Mr. Giuliani with the newly elected government in
Ukraine, acting not at the instruction of Mr. Trump or Mr. Pompeo, but at the request of the
Ukrainians, who were worried because Mr. Giuliani was seeking information about Mr. Biden and
other Democrats and had denounced top Ukrainian officials as "enemies of the president."
...
(CNN) -- Former US Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker plans to appear at his deposition
next Thursday in front of the House Foreign Affairs committee, according to a source familiar
with his plans.
The source would not say if the White House is seeking to use executive privilege to
constrict Volker in terms of what he can say or provide.
Volker's appearance before the committee was announced just hours before the news broke
Friday evening that he had resigned.
Volker didn't offer a comment when contacted Saturday by CNN.
The former US special envoy is expected to face tough questioning after finding himself in
the middle of the controversy surrounding the intelligence whistleblower who had alleged a
coverup by the White House over a call made by President Donald Trump to Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky. That whistleblower also mentioned Volker's name in his complaint when
discussing interactions between himself and Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani,
concerning pushing Ukraine to look into activities of Joe Biden's son, Hunter.
There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden. ...
NYT: ... the United States Embassy in Kiev (Ukraine) is still without an ambassador after the
administration yanked home Marie L. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who was targeted by the
president and Mr. Giuliani for ostensibly being insufficiently loyal, a charge heatedly
disputed by her colleagues. ...
Ukraine is the place where US politicians, like the bear in Winne the Pooh, get their heads
caught in the honey jar.
As Andrew Higgins writes today: "Ukraine's allure for American carpetbaggers, political
consultants and adventurers has put it at the center of not just one but now two presidential
elections in the United States and a host of second-tier scandals...
Caught between the clashing geopolitical ambitions of Russia and the West, Ukraine has for
years had to balance competing outside interests and worked hard to cultivate all sides, and
also rival groups on the same side -- no matter how incompatible their agendas -- with offers
of money, favors and prospects for career advancement."
For Democrats and Republicans alike, Ukraine is a place where dirt on opponents can be
fabricated and distributed, free from the prying eyes of fact checkers. Biden swears that any
corruption on his part has been firmly debunked by Ukrainians who are part of a regime he
brought into existence and whose careers he helps determine. Right!
All we know for certain is, like Mark Twain once said, "An honest politician is somebody
who, when he is bought, stays bought." IMO, this is how we need to interpret any story that
is sourced from the Ukraine.
Trump is trying to get to the bottom of that story by making it clear that the success of
the regime now depends on him. He wants reliable source information to create a narrative
about how Democrats tried to delegitimize him. Good Luck!
Meanwhile, Democrats and top figures in the intelligence services are pushing back, trying
to preserve their original, Trump-Putin conspiracy narrative, created in part from dubious
Ukranian sources.
So now the world is going to be subjected to these dueling narratives, neither of which
can ever be verified or confirmed because they originated in the shadowy world of the
Ukraine.
Ulimately, it will be up to Congress and the American people to decide which narrative
they prefer: Trump's or the one pushed by Biden, Team Pelosi and their allies in the
intelligence services.
Personally, I hope they both embarrass themselves to the point where we can finally be rid
of both sides.
"... Keep in mind Speaker Pelosi selected former insider DOJ official Douglas Letter to be the Chief Legal Counsel for the House. That becomes important when we get to the part about the official full house impeachment vote. The Lawfare group and DNC far-left activists were ecstatic at the selection. Doug Letter was a deep political operative within the institution of the DOJ who worked diligently to promote the weaponized political values of former democrat administrations. ..."
"... Speaker Pelosi has authorized the House committees to work together under the umbrella of an "official impeachment inquiry." The House Intelligence (Schiff) and Judiciary Committees (Nadler) are currently working together leading this process. ..."
"... From recent events we can see the framework of Schiff compiling Trump-Ukraine articles and Nadler compiling Trump-Russia articles. Trump-Ukraine via Schiff will likely focus on a corruption angle; Trump-Russia via Nadler will likely focus on an obstruction angle ..."
"... Pelosi's earlier House Rule changes now appear intentionally designed to block republicans during the article assembly process. The minority will have no voice. This is quite a design. ..."
"... Once the articles are drawn up, Schiff and Nadler will vote to approve them out of committee. Democrats control the majority so the articles will easily pass out of committee. Then the articles must come before a full house vote. The current two-week recess is the period where Pelosi has instructed her team to return to their districts and sell the reasoning and purpose for the upcoming vote. Speaker Pelosi will hold that vote. ..."
"... It is more than likely the vote will pass through the House on party lines. Once Pelosi achieves a vote of passage on any single article President Trump is considered impeached. ..."
"... While the technical reason for the recess is to celebrate the Jewish holidays of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, it is now obvious the sequence of events has been constructed specifically toward these impeachment efforts. ..."
"... "The subpoenas are part of a two-pronged strategy by Democrats. Get the information to help tailor the articles of impeachment, or convert a refusal to comply into an impeachment article itself." ( more ) ..."
"... Schiff, Cummings and Engel will be more urgently assembling the Corruption articles based on the purposefully constructed Trump-Ukraine whistleblower leak and subsequent document production. Hence, the depositions during the break. ..."
"... When the 116th congress returns from their break on October 15th, 2019, the Articles of Impeachment will have already been assembled: [ House Calendar Link ] ..."
"... Democrats are keen optical strategists and narrative engineers; and as you know they coordinate all endeavors with their media allies. The narrative assembly and usefulness by media to drive a tactical national political message will hit heavily in this mid/late October time-frame. This will allow the executive suites (media) to capture/stir-up maximum public interest and make the most money therein. ..."
"... There will likely be more articles other than just " obstruction of justice " (Muh Russia) and " corruption of office " (Muh Ukraine), but those two are easily visible. Emoluments may also play a role. ..."
"... The articles of impeachment will then be voted out of each committee; and after a significant dramatic pause for maximum political value, Speaker Pelosi will present days of House debate on them. ..."
"... The media will construct television sets to broadcast the house impeachment debates, and the Democrat candidates will use this time to spotlight their angelic policies and anti-corruption agenda. Big Dollar Democrats will bring in their activist groups from around the nation to celebrate the impeachment of President Trump. ..."
"... The Dems seem to be outmaneuvering the repubs and Trump at this point. If things go anywhere near what this author proposes and I think much of it will, the truth won't matter all that much just trumped up charges on the grand stage of deceit. ..."
"... The Senate trial is going to be really bad for a lot of people including some Republicans. ..."
"... Clearly her purpose is to destroy the administration. That is, basically, and ACT of War. Who the hell are we engaged in fighting. Her actions must have sponsorship. Who is it attacking the United States of America.? ..."
"... Pelosi and her Democrat minions in Congress should be terminated for belligerence and incompetence. The American virtue of real work is a foreign concept to these professional phonies. They made up this power-play drama so they can play an evil game and be irresponsible thugs at the expense of real, hardworking Americans. ..."
Pelosi's House Rule Changes are Key Part of "Articles of Impeachment", Being Drafted Over Next
Two Weeks
Back in December 2018 CTH noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi
for the 116th congress seemed specifically geared toward impeachment. {
Go
Deep
} With the House going into a scheduled calendar recess,
those
rules
are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct the articles of
impeachment.
A formal vote to initiate an "impeachment inquiry" is not technically required; however, there
has always been a full house vote until now. The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if
the
formal process
was followed the minority (republicans) would have enforceable rights
within it. Without a vote
to initiate
, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up
without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive. This was
always the plan that was visible in Pelosi's changed House rules.
Keep in mind Speaker Pelosi selected former insider DOJ official
Douglas Letter
to
be the Chief Legal Counsel
for the House. That becomes important when we get to the part about
the official full house impeachment vote. The
Lawfare
group
and
DNC far-left activists
were ecstatic
at the selection. Doug Letter was a deep political operative within the
institution of the DOJ who
worked
diligently
to promote the weaponized political values of former democrat administrations.
Speaker Pelosi
has authorized
the
House committees to work together under the umbrella of an "official impeachment inquiry." The
House Intelligence (Schiff) and Judiciary Committees (Nadler) are currently working together
leading this process.
From recent events we can see the framework of Schiff compiling Trump-Ukraine articles
and Nadler compiling Trump-Russia articles. Trump-Ukraine via Schiff will likely focus on a
corruption
angle;
Trump-Russia via Nadler will likely focus on an
obstruction
angle.
How many articles of impeachment are finally assembled is unknown, but it is possible to see the
background construct as described above. Unlike historic examples of committee impeachment
assembly, and in combination with the lack of an initiation vote, Pelosi's
earlier
House Rule changes
now appear intentionally designed to block republicans during the article
assembly process. The minority will have no voice. This is quite a design.
Once the articles are drawn up, Schiff and Nadler will vote to approve them out of
committee. Democrats control the majority so the articles will easily pass out of committee. Then
the articles must come before a full house vote. The current two-week recess is the period where
Pelosi has instructed her team to return to their districts and sell the reasoning and purpose for
the upcoming vote. Speaker Pelosi will hold that vote.
It is more than likely the vote will pass through the House on party lines. Once Pelosi
achieves a vote of passage on any single article President Trump is considered impeached.
Back to this two-week break. While the technical reason for the recess is to celebrate the
Jewish holidays of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, it is now obvious the sequence of events has been
constructed specifically toward these impeachment efforts.
There are 31 House districts currently held by Democrats which President Trump won in 2016;
Pelosi is giving those members an opportunity to make their impeachment case to their constituents
now, but failure to support the effort is likely not optional for all except a few of the most
tenuously vulnerable. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip James Clyburn will
assemble enough votes for impeachment.
While those house members are explaining to their constituents, back in DC the committee work on
the articles will collate. On Friday afternoon, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff,
Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel,
issued a subpoena demanding a slew of Ukraine-related documents from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
by Oct. 4th. The committees also scheduled depositions with five State Department officials between
Oct. 2 and Oct. 10.
Notice that
with
the rule changes
the minority will not be participating in these depositions. The republicans
will likely have no idea what is happening therein.
As Chad Pergram notes:
"The subpoenas are part of a two-pronged strategy by Democrats. Get the information to help
tailor the articles of impeachment, or convert a refusal to comply into an impeachment article
itself." (
more
)
Chairman Nadler (Judiciary) almost certainly already has his
Obstruction
articles
assembled using prior testimony, depositions and relying heavily on the Mueller report.
However, Chairmen Schiff, Cummings and Engel will be more urgently assembling the
Corruption
articles
based on the purposefully constructed Trump-Ukraine whistleblower leak and subsequent document
production. Hence, the depositions during the break.
The Democrats are going to act fast. Remember, by design Speaker Pelosi has this set up so that
Republicans don't even participate in the impeachment process. There are no republicans
participating in the assembly of the articles of impeachment. Stunningly, and as an outcome of
those
earlier rule changes
, there is no minority voice in
this process.
When the 116th congress returns from their break on October 15th, 2019, the Articles of
Impeachment will have already been assembled:
[
House
Calendar Link
]
Speaker Pelosi has to give the media some reference point to say the republicans were included
in the process, so she will likely have mid to late October destined for the committee chairs to
have
committee debate
on their pre-assembled articles. This will give the impression of
minority participation, but it will be for optics only.
Democrats are keen optical strategists and narrative engineers; and as you know they
coordinate all endeavors with their media allies.
The narrative assembly and usefulness
by media to drive a tactical national political message will hit heavily in this mid/late October
time-frame. This will allow the executive suites (media) to capture/stir-up maximum public
interest and make the most money therein.
There will likely be more articles other than just "
obstruction of justice
" (Muh Russia)
and "
corruption of office
" (Muh Ukraine), but those two are easily visible. Emoluments
may also play a role.
The articles of impeachment will then be voted out of each committee; and after a significant
dramatic pause for maximum political value, Speaker Pelosi will present days of House debate on
them.
The media will construct television sets to broadcast the house impeachment debates, and
the Democrat candidates will use this time to spotlight their angelic policies and anti-corruption
agenda. Big Dollar Democrats will bring in their activist groups from around the nation to
celebrate the impeachment of President Trump.
Then, once Pelosi is certain the maximum political benefit has been achieved, she will announce
the date for the Full House Vote on Articles of Impeachment. We can be certain the date will be
filled with maximum drama and
made-for-tv
effect complete with Speaker Pelosi bringing
back the big gavel for a grand presentation and a full house vote.
[
Chad
Pergram
] As always, it's about math. The current House breakdown is 235 Democrats, 199
Republicans, and one independent: Rep. Justin Amash, I-Mich. To pass anything in the House, 218
yeas are needed.
That means Democrats can only lose 17 votes from their side and still have enough to pass an
article of impeachment. Amash has endorsed impeachment, so let's say the magic number is
actually 16. If the president is to be impeached, that means Democrats could have 15 of their
own voting for articles of impeachment while representing a district which Trump carried in
2016.
A House floor vote to impeach the President is kind of like an indictment, codified in
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. If the House votes to impeach, Article 1, Section 3 of
the Constitution sends the article(s) to the Senate for a trial presided over by Chief Justice
of the United States John Roberts. (Note Roberts' proper title. This is one of the reasons the
Chief Justice is "of the United States," and not just the "Supreme Court.") (
more
from Chad Pergram
)
The same people who will stand jaw-agape as this House Impeachment process is happening are the
same people who denied it was likely when CTH originally showed the rule changes, road-map, and
impeachment schedule
in
January
.
Now . having said all that, perhaps just perhaps .
Bill Barr is well aware of the
Machiavellian scheme
constructed and executed by Nancy Pelosi.
Perhaps, just perhaps, that is why the IG Horowitz report has been delayed . As
in, hold it back until Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Cummings fire their impeachment cannons.
Maybe
It seems awful
Trusty plan-like
for me; but it's possible.
Perhaps the ultimate counter to protect and defend the office of the presidency from this
pre-planned, Lawfare assisted, impeachment effort
is to wait until the Democrats
are going to launch their tactical impeachment nukes, and then
fire for effect
with the
declassification documents etc.!
Hey, I'm trying to provide an optimistic ending here.
The Dems seem to be outmaneuvering the repubs and Trump at this
point. If things go anywhere near what this author proposes and I
think much of it will, the truth won't matter all that much just
trumped up charges on the grand stage of deceit.
Hopefully the american people see through this utter ******** and waste of our
taxes and kick the dems out of office.
Trump wants a vote and this process Pelosi has to know this. Keep
digging idiots. The Senate trial is going to be really bad for a
lot of people including some Republicans.
My opinion as an American is that this woman is conducting
treason, right in the faces of all Americans. Clearly her purpose
is to destroy the administration. That is, basically, and ACT of War. Who the hell are we engaged in fighting. Her actions must have
sponsorship. Who is it attacking the United States of America.?
Pelosi and her Democrat minions in Congress should be terminated
for belligerence and incompetence. The American virtue of
real work is a foreign concept to these professional
phonies. They made up this power-play drama so they can play an
evil game and be irresponsible thugs at the expense of real,
hardworking Americans.
Pelosi is vile. Her minions are
the laziest and most worthless trash ever to be in
government. Remove them, take away their government benefits,
punish their incompetence.
"... The myth that our present moment is somehow more scandalous than any other is easily dispelled by reading John F. Kennedy's book Profiles in Courage , which details the political bravery of eight largely unsung individuals from congressional history. ..."
"... While previous impeachment efforts had been defeated, on February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment by a tremendous margin -- every single Republican voted in the affirmative. With that hurdle cleared, the charges moved to the Senate, where they were presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Ross was a Republican, and was naturally expected to support Johnson's impeachment. ..."
"... Yet there were two elements missing: "the actual cause for which the President was being tried was not fundamental to the welfare of the nation; and the defendant himself was at all times absent." ..."
"... as the trial progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the impatient Republicans did not intend to give the President a fair trial on the formal issues upon which the impeachment was drawn, but intended instead to depose him from the White House on any grounds, real or imagined, for refusing to accept their policies. ..."
"... The mood and tenor in Washington, according to David Miller DeWitt's The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson , was that of a city under siege. "The dominant part of the nation seemed to occupy the position of public prosecutor, and it was scarcely in the mood to brook delay for trial or to hear the defense." ..."
"... Ross and other doubters were "daily pestered, spied upon, and subjected to every form of pressure. Their residences were carefully watched, their social circles suspiciously scrutinized, and their every move and companions secretly marked in special notebooks. They were warned in the party press, harangued by their constituents, and sent dire warnings threatening political ostracism and even assassination." ..."
"... The morning of the fateful vote, spies followed Ross to breakfast, and 10 minutes before the vote, a colleague from Kansas warned him that support for "acquittal would mean trumped up charges and his political death." ..."
"... "I almost literally looked down into my open grave," writes Ross. "Friendships, position, fortune, everything that makes life desirable to an ambitious man were about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever. It is not strange that my answer was carried waveringly over the air and failed to reach the limits of the audience, or or that repetition was called for ." ..."
"... Neither Ross nor any of the other six Republicans who voted for Johnson's acquittal were ever reelected to the Senate. When they returned to Kansas, Ross and his family were ostracized, attacked, and impoverished. ..."
When the GOP madly went after President Andrew Johnson, Senator Edward G. Ross ruined his own career to thwart them.
•
March 11, 2019
Senator Edmund G. Ross As Robert Mueller's pending report looms heavily over Washington, many are darkly speculating about a new
era in our history. When have there been so many investigations, such rank partisanship, such indifference to justice and the rule
of law?
Actually we have been here before.
The myth that our present moment is somehow more scandalous than any other is easily dispelled by reading John F. Kennedy's
book Profiles in Courage , which details the political bravery of eight largely unsung individuals from congressional history.
One story in particular stands out as the perfect antidote for our time: that of Edmund G. Ross, senator from Kansas. In 1868,
the United States came perilously close to impeaching its seventeenth president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, because the Republican
majority in Congress was at odds with him over how to handle the defeated Southern states. Ross bucked his party, followed his conscience,
and cast a vote against articles of impeachment. He was vilified at the time; decades later, he would be hailed as having saved the
republic.
While previous impeachment efforts had been defeated, on February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives adopted articles
of impeachment by a tremendous margin -- every single Republican voted in the affirmative. With that hurdle cleared, the charges
moved to the Senate, where they were presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Ross was a Republican, and was naturally
expected to support Johnson's impeachment.
"Public opinion in the nation ran heavily against the President; he had intentionally broken the law and dictatorially thwarted
the will of Congress!" writes Kennedy.
After the president was effectively indicted by the House, the Senate trial proceeded and high drama riveted the nation. "It was
a trial to rank with all the great trials in history -- Charles I before the High Court of Justice, Louis XVI before the French Convention,
and Warren Hastings before the House of Lords," writes Kennedy. Yet there were two elements missing: "the actual cause for which
the President was being tried was not fundamental to the welfare of the nation; and the defendant himself was at all times absent."
The actual causes for impeachment sound somewhat obscure to today's ears, although the tenth article, which alleged that Johnson
had delivered "intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues against Congress [and] the laws of the United States," sounds
positively Trumpian. The first eight articles concerned the removal of Edwin M. Stanton as secretary of war in supposed violation
of the Tenure of Office Act. The ninth article alleged that Johnson's conversation with a general had violated an Army appropriations
act. The eleventh was something of a catch-all for the rest.
The counsel for the president argued convincingly that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional. And even if there had been
a violation of the law, Stanton would have needed to submit to being dismissed and then sued for his rights in the courts -- something
that had not happened.
From Profiles in Courage :
as the trial progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the impatient Republicans did not intend to give the President
a fair trial on the formal issues upon which the impeachment was drawn, but intended instead to depose him from the White House
on any grounds, real or imagined, for refusing to accept their policies.
Telling evidence in the President's favor was arbitrarily excluded. Prejudgment on the part of most Senators
was brazenly announced. Attempted bribery and other forms of pressure were rampant. The chief interest was not in the trial or
the evidence, but in the tallying of votes necessary for conviction.
At the time, there were 54 members of the Senate, which meant 36 votes were required to secure the two thirds necessary for Johnson's
conviction. There were 12 Democratic senators, so the 42 Republicans could afford only six defections.
The mood and tenor in Washington, according to David Miller DeWitt's The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson , was that
of a city under siege. "The dominant part of the nation seemed to occupy the position of public prosecutor, and it was scarcely in
the mood to brook delay for trial or to hear the defense."
The city was thronged by the "politically dissatisfied and swarmed with representatives of every state of the Union, demanding
in a practically united voice the deposition of the President," writes Kennedy. "The footsteps of anti-impeaching Republicans were
dogged from the day's beginning to its end and far into the night, with entreaties, considerations, and threats."
Ross and other doubters were "daily pestered, spied upon, and subjected to every form of pressure. Their residences were carefully
watched, their social circles suspiciously scrutinized, and their every move and companions secretly marked in special notebooks.
They were warned in the party press, harangued by their constituents, and sent dire warnings threatening political ostracism and
even assassination."
The New York Tribune reported that Ross in particular was "mercilessly dragged this way and that by both sides, hunted
like a fox night and day and badgered by his own colleagues ."
While both sides publicly claimed Ross as their own, the senator himself kept a careful silence. His brother received a letter
offering $20,000 if he would reveal Ross' mind. The morning of the fateful vote, spies followed Ross to breakfast, and 10 minutes
before the vote, a colleague from Kansas warned him that support for "acquittal would mean trumped up charges and his political death."
That day in the Senate, as Ross would later write, "the galleries were packed. Tickets of admission were at an enormous premium.
The House had adjourned and all of its members were in the Senate chamber. Every chair on the Senate floor was filled ."
The broad eleventh article of impeachment would command the first vote. By the time the call came to Ross, 24 "guilty" votes had
already been pronounced. As Kennedy writes, "Ten more were certain and one other practically certain. Only Ross's vote was needed
to obtain the thirty-six votes necessary to convict the President. But not a single person in the room knew how this young Kansan
would vote."
"I almost literally looked down into my open grave," writes Ross. "Friendships, position, fortune, everything that makes life
desirable to an ambitious man were about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever. It is not strange that my answer
was carried waveringly over the air and failed to reach the limits of the audience, or or that repetition was called for ."
"Then came the answer again in a voice that could not be misunderstood -- full, final, definite, unhesitating and unmistakeable:
'Not guilty.' The deed was done, the President saved, the trial as good as over and the conviction lost. The remainder of the roll
call was unimportant; conviction had failed by the margin of a single vote and a general rumbling filled the chamber ."
When the second and third articles of impeachment were read 10 days later, Ross also pronounced the president "not guilty."
Neither Ross nor any of the other six Republicans who voted for Johnson's acquittal were ever reelected to the Senate. When
they returned to Kansas, Ross and his family were ostracized, attacked, and impoverished.
Kennedy writes:
Who was Edmund G. Ross? Practically nobody. Not a single public law bears his name, not a single history book includes his
picture, not a single list of Senate "greats" mentions his service. His one heroic deed has been all but forgotten. Ross chose
to throw [his future in politics] away for one act of conscience.
Yet even if he fell into obscurity, history would vindicate Ross. Twenty years after the fateful vote, Congress repealed the Tenure
of Office Act, and the Supreme Court later held that "the extremes of that episode in our government" were unconstitutional.
Prior to Ross's death, the American public realized its errors too, and the same Kansas papers that had once denounced and defamed
Ross declared that his "courage" had "saved" the country "from calamity greater than war, while it consigned him to a political martyrdom,
the most cruel in our history ."
Kennedy does a wonderful job recounting this momentous episode, with the rich suspense and colorful imagery that it deserves.
Ross's words jump from the page as if they were written for our own age, and his bravery in the face of partisan political pressure
has withstood the test of time.
To end with Ross's own words:
In a large sense, the independence of the executive office as a coordinate branch of the government was on trial . If the President
was to step down a disgraced man and a political outcast upon insufficient proofs and from partisan considerations, the office
of President would be degraded, cease to be a coordinate branch of the government, and ever after be subordinated to the legislative
will. If Andrew Johnson were acquitted by a nonpartisan vote America would pass the danger point of partisan rule and that intolerance
which so often characterizes the sway of great majorities and makes them dangerous.
We should bear that in mind today.
Barbara Boland is the former weekend editor of the Washington Examiner . Her work has been featured on Fox News, the
Drudge Report, HotAir.com, RealClearDefense, RealClearPolitics, and elsewhere. She's the author of Patton Uncovered , a book
about General Patton in World War II. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC
.
Opening the Thursday's hearing to question acting DNI Joseph Maguire, Rep. Adam Schiff
(D-CA), put on an act to
make people watching believe he was reading directly from the transcript of the President Trump
call with the Ukraine President. But Schiff made up fictional dialog in an apparent effort make
a benign phone conversation into something it wasn't, and convince the viewing public that the
President did something wrong. Andy Biggs
To many including Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) this was unacceptable. The day after the hearing,
he
introduced a motion to censure and condemn Adam Schiff's latest lies.
"During yesterday's hearing, Chairman Schiff's opening statement included a blatantly
false retelling of President Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president. Democrats
previously initiated an impeachment inquiry, which leads to one of the most serious,
constitutional duties of Members of Congress: removal of the President of the United States.
Through this process, if the President has committed high crimes or misdemeanors, Congress
may overturn the election of the President and the will of the American people. It is
therefore inexcusable to toy with the process and mislead the American public with such a
statement."
Here is the test of the resolution
Condemning and censuring Adam Schiff, Representative of California's 28th Congressional
District
Whereas, President Trump released the transcript of a call between him and the
President of Ukraine;
Whereas, President Trump subsequently released the whistleblower complaint of August 12,
2019;
Whereas, in a September 26, 2019, hearing on the whistleblower complaint, House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Adam Schiff purported to relay the content of the phone call to the American
people;
Whereas, instead of quoting directly from the available transcript, Chairman Schiff
manufactured a false retelling of the conversation between President Trump and President
Zelensky;
Whereas, this egregiously false and fabricated retelling had no relationship to the call
itself;
Whereas, these actions of Chairman Schiff misled the American people, bring disrepute upon
the House of Representatives, and make a mockery of the impeachment process, one of this
chamber's most solemn constitutional duties;
Whereas, for more than two years, Chairman Schiff has spread false accusations that the
Trump Campaign colluded with Russia;
Whereas on March 20, 2017, then Ranking Member Schiff read out false allegations from the
Steele dossier accusing numerous Trump associates of colluding with Russia;
Whereas, then-Ranking Member Schiff falsely claimed in a March 2017 interview to have "more
than circumstantial evidence of collusion with Russia;
Whereas, then-Ranking Member Schiff negotiated with Russian comedians who he believed to be
Ukrainian officials to obtain materials to damage the President of the United States
politically;
Whereas, members of the Intelligence Committee have lost faith in his objectivity and
capabilities as Chairman, with every Republican member on the Committee having signed a letter
calling for his immediate resignation as Chairman;
Whereas, Chairman Schiff has gravely hindered the ability of the Intelligence Committee to
fulfill its oversight responsibilities of the Intelligence Community, an indispensable pillar
of our national security.
Resolved, That --
The House of Representatives censures and condemns Representative Adam Schiff for conduct
that misleads the American people in a way that is not befitting an elected Member of the
House of Representatives;
Representative Adam Schiff will forthwith present himself in the well of the House for
the pronouncement of censure; and
Representative Adam Schiff will be censured with the public reading of this resolution by
the Speaker.
Bravo Rep. Biggs. While I doubt Nancy Pelosi will ever allow this motion to be voted on,
it's worth the try.
I think Team Pelosi at the behest of the intelligence services freaked out when they saw
Trump going to Ukraine to get to the bottom of the allegations against him.
They have created their narrative Russiagate being conveniently replaced by Ukrainegate.
They will aggressively push their narrative through the mainstream media.
Trump, if he gets organized, will push his narrative through Fox and the conservative echo
chamber.
So far, advantage Democrats/CIA. Pretty good for a hapless bunch of politicians incapable
of putting together a message coherent enough to win an election!
As I noted earlier, the plot is Byzantine. The winner will be the side with the most
superficially plausible story. But both Trump and Biden are likely to be damaged severely
in the process and for that we can be grateful.
Concerns about Biden are all false narrative specifically injected to generate hysteria:
Biden is a dream opponent for Trump. The best he can expect.
Ukraine is a client state in which intelligence services are controlled by CIA, who has their
people on the floor. So the leaker invents the risks: "I am also concerned that these actions
pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. Government's efforts to deter and
counter foreign interference in U.S. elections."
The document also looks like an attempt of cover-up of Crowdstrike efforts and DNC (and the
make the the key to the document -- Brennan people smelled something) : "assist in purportedly
uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election
originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over
servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security
firm Crowdstrike,3 which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC's
networks in 2016; and"
The leaker also overplay the natural efforts of WH to hide Trump lack of diplomatic skills
and bulling of Zelensky: "In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S.
officials that senior White House officials had intervened to "lock down" all records of the
phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced -- as
is customary -- by the White House Situation Room"
The key new question is "did Crowdstrike transferred images of DNC servers to Ukraine for the
analysis? "
Also document dances around the fact that Poroshenko government in tandem in Us embassy was
trying to undermine Trump
Notable quotes:
"... that the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv -- specifically, U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who had criticized Mr. Lutsenko's organization for its poor record on fighting corruption -- had allegedly obstructed Ukrainian law enforcement agencies' pursuit of corruption cases, including by providing a "do not prosecute" list, and had blocked Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the United States expressly to prevent them from delivering their "evidence" about the 2016 U.S. election; ..."
I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute "a serious or flagrant
problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order" that "does not include differences of
opinions concerning public policy matters," consistent with the definition of an "urgent
concern" in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(G). I am therefore fulfilling my duty to report this
information, through proper legal channels, to the relevant authorities.
I am also concerned
that these actions pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine theU.S. Government's
efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S. elections.
... ... ...
Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an
initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his
personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help
the President's 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct
knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to, inter alia:
initiate or
continue an investigation 2 into the activities of former Vice President Joseph
Biden and his son, Hunter Biden; assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian
interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific
request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike,3 which initially
reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC's networks in 2016; and meet or speak with
two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani
and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.
The President also praised Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested
that Mr. Zelenskyy might want to keep him in his position. (Note: Starting in March 2019, Mr.
Lutsenko made a series of public allegations -- many of which he later walked back -- about the
Biden family's activities in Ukraine, Ukrainian officials' purported involvement in the 2016
U.S. election, and the activities of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. See Part IV for additional
context.)
The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had
transpired in the phone call. 2 They told me that there was already a "discussion
ongoing" with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the
officials' retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal
gain.
The Ukrainian side was the first to publicly acknowledge the phone call. On the evening of
25 July, a readout was posted on the website of the Ukrainian President that contained the
following line (translation from original Russian-language readout):
"Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to
quickly improve Ukraine's image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have
held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States."
Aside from the above-mentioned "cases" purportedly dealing with the Biden family and the
2016 U.S. election, I was told by White House officials that no other "cases" were
discussed.
Based on my understanding, there were approximately a dozen White House officials who
listened to the call -- a mixture of policy officials and duty officers in the White House
Situation Room, as is customary. The officials I spoke with told me that participation in the
call had not been restricted in advance because everyone expected it would be a "routine" call
with a foreign leader. I do not know whether anyone was physically present with the President
during the call.
In addition to White House personnel, I was told that a State Department
official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call. I was not the only non-White
House official to receive a readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State
Department and Intelligence Community officials were also briefed on the contents of the call
as outlined above. IV. Circumstances leading up to the 25 July Presidential phone call
Beginning in late March 2019, a series of articles appeared in an online publication called
The Hill. In these articles, several Ukrainian officials -- most notably, Prosecutor General
Yuriy Lutsenko -- made a series of allegations against other Ukrainian officials and current
and former U.S. officials. Mr. Lutsenko and his colleagues alleged, inter alia:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22
July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019, and met with Mr.
Bakanov and another close Zelenskyy adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
that they possessed evidence
that Ukrainian officials -- namely, Head of the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine Artem
Sytnyk and Member of Parliament Serhiy Leshchenko -- had "interfered" in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election, allegedly in collaboration with the DNC and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv
that the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv -- specifically, U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who
had criticized Mr. Lutsenko's organization for its poor record on fighting corruption -- had
allegedly obstructed Ukrainian law enforcement agencies' pursuit of corruption cases, including
by providing a "do not prosecute" list, and had blocked Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to
the United States expressly to prevent them from delivering their "evidence" about the 2016
U.S. election; and that former Vice President Biden had pressured former Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko in 2016 to fire then Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in
order to quash a purported criminal probe into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company on
whose board the former Vice President's son, Hunter, sat. In several public comments, Mr.
Lutsenko also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these
matters. The allegations by Mr. Lutsenko came on the eve of the first round of Ukraine's
presidential election on 31 March. By that time, Mr. Lutsenko's political patron, President
Poroshenko, was trailing Mr. Zelenskyy in the polls and appeared likely to be defeated. Mr.
Zelenskyy had made known his desire to replace Mr. Lutsenko as Prosecutor General.
On 21 April, Mr. Poroshenko lost the runoff to Mr. Zelenskyy by a landslide. See Enclosure
for additional information.
Mr. Sytnyk and Mr. Leshchenko are two of Mr. Lutsenko's main domestic rivals. Mr. Lutsenko
has no legal training and has been widely criticized in Ukraine for politicizing criminal
probes and using his tenure as Prosecutor General to protect corrupt Ukrainian officials. He
has publicly feuded with Mr. Sytnyk, who heads Ukraine's only competent anticorruption body,
and with Mr. Leshchenko, a former investigative journalist who has repeatedly criticized Mr.
Lutsenko's record. In December 2018, a Ukrainian court upheld a complaint by a Member of
Parliament, Mr. Boryslav Rozenblat, who alleged that Mr. Sytnyk and Mr. Leshchenko had
"interfered" in the 2016 U.S. election by publicizing a document detailing corrupt payments
made by former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych before his ouster in 2014. Mr. Rozenblat
had originally filed the motion in late 2017 after attempting to flee Ukraine amid an
investigation into his taking of a large bribe. On 16 July 2019, Mr. Leshchenko publicly stated
that a Ukrainian court had overturned the lower court's decision.
Mr. Lutsenko later told Ukrainian news outlet The Babel on 17 April that Ambassador
Yovanovitch had never provided such a list, and that he was, in fact, the one who requested
such a list.
Mr. Lutsenko later told Bloomberg on 16 May that former Vice President Biden and his son
were not subject to any current Ukrainian investigations, and that he had no evidence against
them. Other senior Ukrainian officials also contested his original allegations; one former
senior Ukrainian prosecutor told Bloomberg on 7 May that Mr. Shokin in fact was not
investigating Burisma at the time of his removal in 2016.
See, for example, Mr. Lutsenko's comments to The Hill on 1 and 7 April and his interview
with The Babel on 17 April, in which he stated that he had spoken with Mr. Giuliani about
arranging contact with Attorney General Barr.
In May, Attorney General Barr announced that he was initiating a probe into the "origins" of
the Russia investigation. According to the above-referenced OCCRP report (22 July), two
associates of Mr. Giuliani claimed to be working with Ukrainian officials to uncover
information that would become part of this inquiry. In an interview with Fox News on 8 August,
Mr. Giuliani claimed that Mr. John Durham, whom Attorney General Barr designated to lead this
probe, was "spending a lot of time in Europe" because he was "investigating Ukraine." I do not
know the extent to which, if at all, Mr. Giuliani is directly coordinating his efforts on
Ukraine with Attorney General Barr or Mr. Durham.
A widely criticized Ukrainian prosecutor
piqued Mr. Trump's and Mr. Giuliani's interest by floating allegations to The Hill -- but then
backtracked. In the July 25 phone call, Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Mr. Lutsenko when
he told the Ukrainian president that, "I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he
was shut down and that's really unfair." It was also publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had
met on at least two occasions with Mr. Lutsenko: once in New York in late January and again in
Warsaw in mid-February. In addition, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had spoken in
late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of
Mr. Giuliani. On 25 April in an interview with Fox News , the President called Mr.
Lutsenko's claims "big" and "incredible" and stated that the Attorney General "would want to
see this."
On or about 29 April, I learned from U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the situation
that Ambassador Yovanovitch had been suddenly recalled to Washington by senior State Department
officials for "consultations" and would most likely be removed from her position.
Around the
same time, I also learned from a U.S. official that "associates" of Mr. Giuliani were trying to
make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team. On 6 May, the State Department announced that
Ambassador Yovanovitch would be ending her assignment in Kyiv "as planned." However, several
U.S. officials told me that, in fact, her tour was curtailed because of pressure stemming from
Mr. Lutsenko's allegations. Mr. Giuliani subsequently stated in an interview with a Ukrainian
journalist published on 14 May that Ambassador Yovanovitch was "removed...because she was part
of the efforts against the President."
On 9 May, The New York Times reported that Mr. Giuliani planned to travel to
Ukraine to press the Ukrainian government to pursue investigations that would help the
President in his 2020 reelection bid.
In his multitude of public statements leading up to
and in the wake of the publication of this article, Mr. Giuliani confirmed that he was focused
on encouraging Ukrainian authorities to pursue investigations into alleged Ukrainian
interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged wrongdoing by the Biden family. On the
afternoon of 10 May, the President stated in an interview with Politico that he
planned to speak with Mr. Giuliani about the trip. A few hours later, Mr. Giuliani publicly
canceled his trip, claiming that Mr. Zelenskyy was "surrounded by enemies of the [U.S.]
President...and of the United States."
On 11 May, Mr. Lutsenko met for two hours with President-elect Zelenskyy, according to a
public account given several days later by Mr. Lutsenko. Mr. Lutsenko publicly stated that he
had told Mr. Zelenskyy that he wished to remain as Prosecutor General.
See, for example, the above-referenced articles in Bloomberg (16 May) and OCCRP (22
July).
I do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in
the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced above.
See, for example, Mr. Giuliani's appearance on Fox News on 6 April and his tweets
on 23 April and 10 May. In his interview with The New York Times , Mr. Giuliani stated
that the President "basically knows what I'm doing, sure, as his lawyer." Mr. Giuliani also
stated: "We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a
right to do... There's nothing illegal about it... Somebody could say it's improper. And this
isn't foreign policy -- I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and
that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they
shouldn't stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may
turn out to be helpful to my government."
Starting in mid-May, I heard from multiple U.S. officials that they were deeply concerned by
what they viewed as Mr. Giuliani's circumvention of national security decision making processes
to engage with Ukrainian officials and relay messages back and forth between Kyiv and the
President.
These officials also told me:
that State Department officials, including Ambassadors
Volker and Sondland, had spoken with Mr. Giuliani in an attempt to "contain the damage" to U.S.
national security; and that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland during this time period met with
members of the new Ukrainian administration and, in addition to discussing policy matters,
sought to help Ukrainian leaders understand and respond to the differing messages they were
receiving from official U.S. channels on the one hand, and from Mr. Giuliani on the other.
During this same timeframe, multiple U.S. officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership
was led to believe that a meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelenskyy
would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to "play ball" on the issues that had been
publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani. (Note: This was the general understanding of
the state of affairs as conveyed to me by U.S. officials from late May into early July. I do
not know who delivered this message to the Ukrainian leadership, or when.) See Enclosure for
additional information.
Shortly after President Zelenskyy's inauguration, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani
met with two other Ukrainian officials: Ukraine's Special Anticorruption Prosecutor, Mr. Nazar
Kholodnytskyy, and a former Ukrainian diplomat named Andriy Telizhenko. Both Mr. Kholodnytskyy
and Mr. Telizhenko are allies of Mr. Lutsenko and made similar allegations in the
above-mentioned series of articles in The Hill .
On 13 June, the President told ABC 's George Stephanopoulos that he would accept damaging
information on his political rivals from a foreign government.
On 21 June, Mr. Giuliani tweeted: "New Pres of Ukraine still silent on investigation of
Ukrainian interference in 2016 and alleged Biden bribery of Poroshenko. Time for leadership and
investigate both if you want to purge how Ukraine was abused by Hillary and Clinton
people."
In mid-July, I learned of a sudden change of policy with respect to U.S. assistance for
Ukraine. See Enclosure for additional information.
"... ...[it] is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: "I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials," "officials have informed me," "officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me," "the White House officials who told me this information," "I was told by White House officials," "the officials I spoke with," "I was told that a State Department official," "I learned from multiple U.S. officials," "One White House official described this act," "Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me," "I also learned from multiple U.S. officials," "The U.S. officials characterized this meeting," "multiple U.S. officials told me," "I learned from U.S. officials," "I also learned from a U.S. official," "several U.S. officials told me," "I heard from multiple U.S. officials," and "multiple U.S. officials told me. ..."
NYT: ... the United States Embassy in Kiev (Ukraine) is still without an ambassador after the
administration yanked home Marie L. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who was targeted by the
president and Mr. Giuliani for ostensibly being insufficiently loyal, a charge heatedly
disputed by her colleagues. ...
It points to several interesting facts (not rumors, facts).
One is that this "rumorblower complaint" is so similar in style to certain NYT/Wapo
articles pushed by Brennan faction of "intelligence community" that it does not pass the
smell test:
== quote== ...[it] is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated
references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: "I have received
information from multiple U.S. Government officials," "officials have informed me,"
"officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me," "the White House officials who
told me this information," "I was told by White House officials," "the officials I spoke
with," "I was told that a State Department official," "I learned from multiple U.S.
officials," "One White House official described this act," "Based on multiple readouts of
these meetings recounted to me," "I also learned from multiple U.S. officials," "The U.S.
officials characterized this meeting," "multiple U.S. officials told me," "I learned from
U.S. officials," "I also learned from a U.S. official," "several U.S. officials told me," "I
heard from multiple U.S. officials," and "multiple U.S. officials told me." ==end==
Also the fact the all major neoliberal MSM bought the "rumorblower" narrative "hook, line,
and sinker" suggests some alarming similarities between "rumorblower" opus and Steele dossier
as well as for the level of control on major neoliberal MSM by intelligence agencies. So
called "Udo Ulfkotte" effect (named in memory of
==quote==
Dr Udo Ulfkotte, the former German newspaper editor whose bestselling book exposed how the
CIA controls German media, has been found dead. He was 56. Ulfkotte was an editor at
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , one of the largest newspapers in Germany, when he published
Bought Journalists , the bestselling book that cost him his job ...
==end==
)
BTW Professor Tamotsu Shibutani defined rumor as "improvised news" and this is what is the
case here. And the purpose for which it was improvised is now more or less clear -- to
initiate the impeachment process in the house via Schiff subcommittee possibly with several
Schiff staffers involved in "polishing' the complaint.
"... Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. ..."
Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August
2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.
Between May
2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that
whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises
questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding the August submission of a
whistleblower
complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires
potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct,
first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until
after the transcript of Trump's July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr
Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand
knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have
zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only "heard about [wrongdoing] from
others."
The internal properties of the
newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form , which the intelligence community
inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community
Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24,
2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to
the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no
specific date of revision is disclosed.
The complaint alleges that President Donald Trump broke the law during a phone call with the
Ukrainian president. In his complaint, which was dated August 12, 2019, the complainant
acknowledged he was "not a direct witness" to the wrongdoing he claims Trump committed.
A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until
recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only
first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay,
rumor, or gossip would be rejected.
"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA
based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the
bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from
another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of
wrongdoing."
"If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or
unsubstantiated assertions, [the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able to
process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA," the form concluded.
Markings on the previous version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form show that it was
formally approved on May 24, 2018. Here is that original Disclosure of Urgent Concern form
prior to the August 2019 revision:
The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by
the complainant, but with
repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant : "I have
received information from multiple U.S. Government officials," "officials have informed me,"
"officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me," "the White House officials who told
me this information," "I was told by White House officials," "the officials I spoke with," "I
was told that a State Department official," "I learned from multiple U.S. officials," "One
White House official described this act," "Based on multiple readouts of these meetings
recounted to me," "I also learned from multiple U.S. officials," "The U.S. officials
characterized this meeting," "multiple U.S. officials told me," "I learned from U.S.
officials," "I also learned from a U.S. official," "several U.S. officials told me," "I heard
from multiple U.S. officials," and "multiple U.S. officials told me."
The repeated references to information the so-called whistleblower never witnessed clearly
run afoul of the original ICIG requirements for "urgent concern" submissions. The change to the
"urgent concern" submission form was first highlighted on Twitter by
researcher Stephen McIntyre .
The complainant also cites publicly available news articles as proof of many of the
allegations.
"I was not a direct witness to most of the events" characterized in the document, the
complainant confessed on the first page of his August 12 letter, which was addressed to Rep.
Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the respective chairmen of the House and
Senate intelligence committees. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in U.S. federal
and state courts since it violates the constitutional requirement that the accused be given the
opportunity to question his accusers.
The anti-Trump complaint also made several false claims that have been directly refuted and
debunked. While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return
multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the
2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that
such a request was never made .
The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the
current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country.
The transcript showed
that exchange also did not happen .
Additionally,
the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official,
was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.
"I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on
the call," the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported
that
Brechbuhl was not on the phone call .
In a legal opinion that was released to the public along with the phone call transcript, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the complainant's
submission was statutorily deficient and therefore was not required to be submitted to
Congress. The White House nonetheless declassified and released the document to Congress late
Wednesday evening.
"The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government
intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the
intelligence community," the September 3 OLC opinion
noted . "Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication
between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received
secondhand."
"The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of "urgent
concern" that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence committees," the OLC
opinion
continued . "We conclude that it does not."
It is not known precisely when the August 2019 revision to the whistleblower complaint form
was approved, nor is it known which, if any, version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form
the complainant completed prior to addressing his complaint to Congress.
The democrats are in the midst (started when Obama ignored the source of the fallacious
dossier which started the FISA spying on a campaign) of a strategic blunder.
The polling on Ukrainegate show it is libelously political. Democrat respondents
largely see it serious, independents are about 40% and GOP about 30%.
This nugatory+, political ambush is not playing well to independents!
No one is asking if this nugatory, political ambush the CIA/democrats are using to run a
circus in congress is troubling about Biden.
As you say Biden is history, as are the democrats' chances in 2020 for every national
office.
"... A US connection with Kolomoisky might play well in circles keen to counter Russian complaints that the interim Kiev regime is dominated by 'fascists'." Those quotations are from Mr. Smith's article, but the following is not. Examining the documents myself, I note especially that at their end is the conclusion: ..."
"... On 12 May 2014, Burisma Holdings announced, " Hunter Biden Joins the Team of Burisma Holdings," and reported that, "Burisma Holdings, Ukraine's largest private gas producer, has expanded its Board of Directors by bringing on Mr. R Hunter Biden as a new director. R. Hunter Biden will be in charge of the Holdings' legal unit and will provide support for the Company among international organizations." ..."
"... Promptly, Burisma's website started presenting Burisma as if if were a Ukrainian-American if not outright American corporation . Devon Archer, shown there, was a business-partner of Hunter Biden. As the Washington Examiner reported , on 27 August 2019: ..."
"... Subsequently, both Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were removed from Burisma's board and replaced by a four-person board , which mysteriously had included ever since May 2013 (which still was after Zlochevsky no longer controlled the company) Alan Apter , of Sullivan & Cromwell, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Renaissance Capital. ..."
"... However, none of that press says Kolomoysky owned the company and was its boss. The presumption there is always that Zlochevsky needed to be prosecuted -- not that Kolomoysky did. Kolomoysky is simply being written out of the picture altogether -- whited-out from it ..."
In order to understand why Ukraine's President Voldomyr Zelensky doesn't want the dirt about Joe
Biden to become public, one needs to know that
Hunter Biden's boss and benefactor at
Burisma Holdings was, at least partly, Zelensky's boss and benefactor until Zelensky became
Ukraine's President, and that revealing this would open up a can of worms which could place that
former boss and benefactor of both men into prison at lots of places.
First, the falsehoods in the press have to be documented here, since this article
will go up against virtually all U.S.-and-allied reporting on these events.
And, in
order to do such a thing, the bona fides of my main sources need to be presented:
Naked Capitalism is, as
the article
about it at Wikipedia
, says, the blog of Susan Webber, pen-named "Yves Smith," who "graduated
from
Harvard College
and
Harvard
Business School
. She had 20 years of experience in the financial services industry with
Goldman
Sachs
,
McKinsey & Co.
, and
Sumitomo
Bank
.
[3]
She
has written articles for the
New York Times
,
Bloomberg
,
and the
Roosevelt Institute
.
[4]
[5]
"
"The site has had over 60 million visitors since 2007, and was cited as among CNBC's 2012 top 25
'Best Alternative Financial Blogs', calling Smith 'a harsh critic of Wall Street who believes that
fraud was at the center of the financial crisis'.
[2]
"
"
The New York Times
financial reporter
Gretchen
Morgenson
cited Naked Capitalism as one of the 'must-read financial blogs' she reads regularly.
[9]
"
Her blog is widely respected amongst both scholars and experts in the field of finance,
and is among the top go-to sites for trustworthy investigative news reporting in their highly
complex field.
So as to be able to achieve this high degree of respect, day in and day
out, for decades, she carefully selects and relies upon the expertise of a small team of
investigators, one of whom is Richard Smith, who has done
around
200 articles for her site
.
One of these was dated 21 May 2014 and headlined
"R.
Hunter Biden Should Declare Who Really Owns His New Ukrainian Employer, Burisma Holdings"
, and
it reported that the U.S. Vice President's son had become
"a
new member of the board"
and that this "Ukrainian energy company has retained the counsel of
the vice president's son and the Secretary of State's close family friend and top campaign
bundler."
Since these men were being paid by the corporation's owner, Mr. Smith researched
extensively to find out who that was, or they were. He reported "what one careful Ukrainian
journalist
dug
up
in 2012":
"Burisma changed owners last year [in 2011]: instead of Zlochevsky and Lisin, the company was
taken over by a Cypriot off-shore enterprise called Brociti Investments Ltd. Pari and
Esko-Pivnich" and a "third company was already waiting for them in the same building – the
above-mentioned Ukrnaftoburinnya," and "The Privat Group is the immediate owner. This company
was founded by Mykola Zlochevsky some time ago, but he later sold his shares to the Privat
Group," which "is a conglomerate controlled by the ferocious Ukrainian oligarch Ihor
Kolomoisky," who "is one of the oligarchs
charged
with holding down the Eastern provinces of Ukraine
," and who "is far too ebulliently Jewish
to look like a neo-Nazi.
A US connection with Kolomoisky might play well in circles keen to counter Russian complaints
that the interim Kiev regime is dominated by 'fascists'." Those quotations are from Mr. Smith's
article, but the following is not. Examining the documents myself, I note especially that at their
end is the conclusion:
"Thus, Ihor Kolomoisky managed to seize the largest reserves of natural gas in
Ukraine."
This was the conclusion of the "careful Ukrainian journalist," which was actually not one but a
team of three, who were employed at a Ukrainian non-profit, the Anticorruption Action Centre, which
specialized in tracking down the actual persons who controlled corporations and which had a
particular focus on finding "Offshore fronts for Yanukovych." Yanukovych was the democratically
elected Ukrainian President, who took office on 25 February 2010. So: this non-profit was an
anti-Yanukovych organization, writing more than two years into his Presidency, on 28 August 2012.
A certain historical background is essential here; and this, too, goes up against
American 'news'-reporting and will therefore be linked to articles that, in turn, link to ultimate
sources that are of unquestioned reliability on each of the particulars that are in question
:
There was
a coup
in Ukraine in February 2014
, which is
portrayed
in the West as being a democratic revolution
(but was actually a
coup
hidden
behind anticorruption demonstrations, and that was entirely
illegal
),
and it replaced the democratically elected President by a ruler who was selected by Victoria
Nuland, whose boss was Secretary of State John Kerry, whose boss was Barack Obama. Nuland had been
originally a protégé of Vice President Dick Cheney, and then of Kerry's immediate predecessor
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Obama assigned Nuland to carry out his plan for Ukraine, which
plan was to turn its government away from being friendly toward its next-door neighbor Russia to
becoming instead a satellite of the United States against Ukraine's next-door neighbor.
Consequently, fascists, and even outright racist-fascists (nazis), people who came from the groups
that had supported Hitler against Stalin during World War II, were installed into this new
government, such as
the
co-founder of the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, Andriy Parubiy
. (The CIA instructed that
Party, which was Ukraine's main nazi party, to change its name to "Freedom Party" -- Svoboda -- so as
to become acceptable to Americans; and Paribuy and his colleagues did it, in order to help the U.S.
Government to fool the American people about what the U.S. was doing in Ukraine.)
At least until Zelensky was elected, Ukraine's Government
remained
fascist
.
And so is Kolomoysky himself, as I had reported about him on
18
May 2014
. As I reported there,
On 12 May 2014, Burisma Holdings announced,
"
Hunter
Biden Joins the Team of Burisma Holdings,"
and reported that, "Burisma Holdings,
Ukraine's largest private gas producer, has expanded its Board of Directors by bringing on Mr. R
Hunter Biden as a new director. R. Hunter Biden will be in charge of the Holdings' legal unit
and will provide support for the Company among international organizations."
At the time, Hunter Biden, now 49, and Christopher Heinz, the stepson of then-Secretary
of State John Kerry, co-owned Rosemont Seneca Partners, a $2.4 billion private equity firm.
Heinz's college roommate, Devon Archer, was managing partner in the firm. In the spring of 2014,
Biden and Archer joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company that was at the
center of a U.K. money laundering probe. Over the next year, Burisma reportedly paid Biden and
Archer's companies over $3 million.
Subsequently, both Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were removed from Burisma's board and
replaced by a four-person board
, which mysteriously had included ever since May 2013
(which still was
after
Zlochevsky no longer controlled the company)
Alan Apter
,
of Sullivan & Cromwell, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Renaissance Capital.
After now became
the
"Chairman of
the Board of Directors"
. Here are the other three Directors:
Aleksander Kwaśniewski
was
the President of the Republic of Poland from 1995 to 2005 when it was being taken over by America,
and when Kwaśniewski was also a member of the Atlantic Council (NATO's PR arm), and of the
Bilderberg Group.
Joseph Cofer Black
was the Director of the CIA's
Counterterrorist Center (1999-2002) and Ambassador at Large for counter-terrorism (2002-2004),
while President George W. Bush was
lying
America into invading Iraq
, and Black subsequently became the Vice Chairman at Blackwater
Worldwide (now Academi), which the Bush Government hired to train and arm mercenaries to help
conquer Iraq. (Blackwater/Academi is owned by Erik Prince, the brother of Betsy DeVos of the Amway
fortune, who is the Trump Secretary of Education, and Prince also is a personal friend of Trump.
Obama's Government also hired Blackwater/Academi to kill independence fighters in the
Dnieper
Donets Basin
, where Burisma owns the drilling rights for gas.) And the fourth Director is
Karina
Zlochevska
, whom the site identifies hardly at all, but is actually
the
daughter of Mykola Zlochevsky
. In other words: Zlochevsky probably does remain as a minority
owner of the company, and she represents his interests there.
Virtually all of the Western press simply alleges that Mykola Zlochevsky owns Burisma
Holdings and brought Biden on board and was his boss; however, I have never seen from any of those
'news'-reports any evidence or documentation that it's true -- nothing like the sources that Richard
Smith relied upon and linked to documenting that this was Kolomoysky's company. Nothing, at all.
Obama's Government constantly tried to get Zlochevsky
prosecuted for alleged corruption, but Zlochevsky had sold the company to Kolomoysky even before
Obama took over Ukraine. It's not at all clear that Hunter Biden had ever so much as just met
Zlochevsky.
Joseph Biden, as is well reported in the press, instructed the new Ukrainian Government to fire
and replace the General Prosecutor of Ukraine,
Viktor
Shokin
, who had failed to prosecute Zlochevsky, and this action by Joe is reported as
indicating that the senior Biden granted his son's employer no favor but instead the opposite --
that Joe insisted upon Hunter's boss's prosecution.
The then-vice president issued his demands for greater anti-corruption measures by the
Ukrainian government despite the possibility that those demands would actually increase – not
lessen -- the chances that Hunter Biden and Burisma would face legal trouble in Ukraine.
Risen reported there that V.P. Biden's "anti-corruption message might be undermined by
the association of his son Hunter with one of Ukraine's largest natural gas companies, Burisma
Holdings, and with its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky."
However, none of that press says Kolomoysky owned the company and was its boss. The presumption
there is always that Zlochevsky needed to be prosecuted -- not that Kolomoysky did. Kolomoysky is
simply being written out of the picture altogether -- whited-out from it
Also as is typical, the
New York Times
reported, on
1
May 2019
, that Mykola Zlochevsky is the "owner of Burisma Holdings" and that "Mr. Lutsenko
initially continued investigating Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within
10 months of taking office. The prosecutor general reversed himself and reopened an investigation
into Burisma this year. Some see his decision as an effort to curry favor with the Trump
administration." For some mysterious reason, that article not only says that the replacement
Prosecutor tried and failed and now tried again to prosecute Zlochevsky but that "Some see his
decision as an effort to curry favor with the Trump administration," though, actually, it was the
Obama
Administration
that had been pressing Ukraine's Government to prosecute Zlochevsky, who wasn't Hunter Biden's boss
and didn't control Burisma and was associated not with the 2014 Obama-installed Government of
Ukraine but instead with the Government that had preceded it and was the last of all Ukraine's
democratic Governments, having been democratically elected by all of Ukraine including the two
regions (Crimea and Donbass) that broke away from Ukraine when Obama in February 2014 overthrew the
Government that those two now-breakaway regions had voted for, by over 75% in that 2010 election.
And here is from Wikipedia's article on "Viktor Shokin":
Since 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general had been investigating oligarch
Mykola
Zlochevsky
, owner of the oil and natural gas company
Burisma
Holdings
, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption.
[15]
In
2014, then-U.S. Vice President
Joe
Biden
's son,
Hunter
Biden
, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings.
[16]
In
2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama
administration and other governments and
non-governmental
organizations
soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing
corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to
anti-corruption efforts".
[17]
Among
other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma – to the extent
that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the
company for possible money laundering.
[15]
In March 2016, Joe Biden threatened Ukrainian President
Petro
Poroshenko
that if he did not fire Shokin, that the US would hold back its $1
billion in loan guarantees. "I looked at them and said, "I'm leaving in six hours. If the
prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money." Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And
they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
[18]
Shokin
was dismissed by Parliament later that month.
Shokin claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings.
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
However,
Vitaliy Kasko, who had been Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation before
resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, provided documents to Bloomberg News
indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.
[23]
Hunter
Biden's ties to Burisma Holdings was criticized as a conflict of interest in a New York Times
editorial, though
Amos Hochstein
has
claimed to have never seen coordination between Joe Biden and his son on the matter.
[24]
[25]
And here is from Wikipedia's Article on "Burisma Holdings":
Burisma Group was founded in 2002 by Ukrainian businessman
Mykola
Zlochevsky
and
Nikolay
Lysin
[
uk
].
Now it is owned by
Mykola
Zlochevskyi
[
uk
],
who was minister of natural resources under
Viktor
Yanukovych
.
[2]
Zlochevsky
returned to Ukraine in February 2018 after the corruption investigations into his Burisma
Holdings had been completed in December 2017 with no charges filed against him.
[3]
So, the myth that Zlochevsky was Hunter Biden's boss and benefactor at Burisma isn't
only in the 'news'-media that are controlled by U.S. Deep State that controls
the
CIA, which controls America's major 'news'-media
, but it is also in the Web's main
encyclopedia, Wikipedia, which is not only
edited
by the CIA
, but also, to some extent,
written
by the CIA
.
Furthermore, the CIA was the 'whistleblower' that made the impeachment-charge to the Democratic
Party head of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Adam Schiff, who
is the lead proponent of impeaching Donald Trump so that Trump can then become tried in the U.S.
Senate, which then would possess the power to replace Trump and make President the current Vice
President, Mike Pence, which Democrats, for some unexplained reason, seem to hope will happen. As
Reuters
reported on September 26th
, "The whistleblower is a CIA officer and was assigned at one point
to work at the White House, two sources familiar with the probe into his complaint said. The New
York Times first identified the whistleblower as a CIA officer, which Reuters confirmed." That
report also asserted:
The call occurred after Trump had ordered a freeze of nearly $400 million in American aid
to Ukraine, which was only later released. Before the call, Ukraine's government was told that
interaction between Zelenskiy and Trump depended on whether the Ukrainian leader would "play
ball," the whistleblower said.
The report said Trump acted to advance his personal political interests, risking national
security.
"
I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute 'a serious or flagrant
problem, abuse, or violation of law or executive order,'" the whistleblower complaint, dated
Aug. 12, said.
The same CIA whose lies had 'justified' America's invading Iraq in 2003, and invading
Libya in 2011, and invading Syria starting in 2012 (and extending there up till at least 2018), is
now 'justifying' congressional Democrats to replace Trump by Pence if they possibly can.
And Kolomoysky might be one of the world's biggest thieves. On
19
April 2019, Graham Stack reported for OCCRP
, a U.S.-and-allied-funded nonprofit anti-corruption
investigatory organization that
"'
Large-scale coordinated fraudulent actions of the bank
[PrivatBank]
shareholders
and management caused a loss to the state of at least $5.5 billion,'
[Valeria]
Hontareva
[former
chair of Ukranie's central bank]
said in March 2018. 'This is 33 percent of the population's
deposits [and] 40 percent of our country's monetary base.' By the time regulators took over
PrivatBank, the $5.5 billion had already been transferred to banks in Austria, Luxembourg, and
Latvia. From there, the trail goes cold. This account is based on a forensic audit by Kroll,
the U.S.-based corporate investigation and risk consulting firm. The report is based on
PrivatBank's own records and was obtained exclusively by OCCRP. Ukraine nationalized
PrivatBank in December 2016, saddling taxpayers with a $5.9 billion bailout."
Furthermore, the estimable and reliably accurate Moscow investigative journalist John Helmer
reported
on 19 February 2015
that "In March 2014, days after the ouster of Yanukovich in Kiev and the
installation of a new regime, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) started investigating Zlochevsky.
According to the evidence it presented to the Central Criminal Court between March and December of
2014, and according to Justice Blake, who assessed the evidence, there is no mention of Lisin,
Deripon, Burrard or Kolomoisky." Obama's people (there via the U.S. regime's lap-dog UK) were
targeting Zlochevsky, certainly
not
Kolomoysky, who was instead on their team.
Zelensky, prior to becoming Ukraine's President, had been the star of a popular comedy
series on Ukrainian television that was telecast by Ihor Kolomoysky's 1+1 Media group.
On
19 May 2014,
Forbes
published a shockingly honest article, by Vladimir Golstein,
"Why
Everything You've Read About Ukraine Is Wrong"
, which mentioned, about Kolomoysky, that,
His business holdings include the largest Ukrainian media group, "1+1 Media," the news
agency "Unian," as well as various internet sites, which enable him to whip public opinion into
an anti-Putin frenzy. Andrew Higgins of The New York Times published a story with the headline,
"Among Ukraine's Jews, the Bigger Worry is Putin, Not Pogroms," which praises Kolomoisky for
adorning Dnepropetrovsk with "the world's biggest Jewish community center" along with "a high
tech Holocaust museum." Higgins notes, however, that the museum "skirts the delicate issue of
how some Ukrainian nationalists collaborated with Nazis.
Kolomoysky himself had become installed by the Obama Administration's Ukrainian agents as the
Governor of the
Dnipropetrovsk
region
of Ukraine where his approximately $5 billion financial empire was based, and which in its north
extends into the
Dnieper
Donets Basin
where Burisma owns the drilling rights for gas. As this last link indicates, that
Basin "is the major oil and gas producing region of Ukraine accounting for approximately 90 per
cent of Ukrainian production and
according
to EIA
may have 42 tcf of shale gas resources technically recoverable from 197 tcf of risked
shale gas in place." That article, from the investment-oriented website , sums up:
In a nutshell, Ukraine (or
rather
its puppetmasters
) has decided to let no crisis (staged or otherwise) or rather
civil war, go to waste, and while the fighting rages all around, Ukrainian troopers are helping
to install shale gas production equipment near the east Ukrainian town of Slavyansk, which was
bombed and shelled
[by the Obama-installed Government]
for the three preceding months,
according to local residents cited by
Itar
Tass
. The reason for the scramble? Under peacetime, the process was expected to
take many years, during which Europe would be under the energy dictatorship of Putin. But throw
in some civil war and few will notice let alone care that a process which was expected to take
nearly a decade if not longer while dealing with broad popular objections to fracking, may
instead be completed in months!
Ukraine's bombing of that region (for examples,
this
and
this
and
this
)
was in order to clear the land for a massive fracking operation.
However, it turned out
that not only Kolomoysky's operation with Shell in the Dnieper Donets Basin in Ukraine's far east,
but also the Ukrainian Government's own gas-exploration operation with Chevron in western Ukraine's
Olesska field, were uneconomic; or, as I headlined about them on 16 December 2014,
"Ukraine's
Two Big Gas Deals Are Now Both Dry"
. It seems that if Hunter Biden is to become a billionaire,
it won't come from Ukrainian gas. (Nor, of course will it have come from Zlochevsky, which the
news-media would have it to be.)
As was reported on 20 May 2014 by Israel Shamir at the website of Paul Craig Roberts, under the
headline
"The
Ukraine in Turmoil"
(and his article there was the first comprehensive and accurate summary of
what had recently happened to Ukraine):
These people had brought Ukraine to its present abject state. In 1991, the Ukraine was
richer than Russia, today it is three times poorer because of these people's mismanagement and
theft. Now they plan an old trick: to take loans in Ukraine's name, pocket the cash and leave
the country indebted. They sell state assets to Western companies and ask for NATO to come in
and protect the investment.
They play a hard game, brass knuckles and all. The Black Guard, a new SS-like armed force
of the neo-nazi Right Sector, prowls the land. They arrest or kill dissidents, activists,
journalists. Hundreds of American soldiers, belonging to the "private" company Academi (formerly
Blackwater) are spread out in Novorossia
[Donbass, the far-eastern region that became
independent after Obama's coup]
, the pro-Russian provinces in the East and South-East.
IMF–dictated reforms slashed pensions by half and doubled the housing rents. In the market, US
Army rations took the place of local food.
The new Kiev regime had dropped the last pretence of democracy by expelling the
Communists from the parliament. This should endear them to the US even more. Expel Communists,
apply for NATO, condemn Russia, arrange a gay parade and you may do anything at all, even fry
dozens of citizens alive. And so they did.
The harshest repressions were unleashed on industrial Novorossia, as its working class
loathes the whole lot of oligarchs and ultra-nationalists. After the blazing inferno of Odessa
and a wanton shooting on the streets of Melitopol the two rebellious provinces of Donetsk and
Lugansk took up arms and declared their independence from the Kiev regime.
And then, to top it off, there is the brilliant pewreport blogger, who, on 27 July 2014,
headlined
"USAID
to Help Young Biden: The Burisma File"
, and that anonymous person succinctly laid out the use
of the U.S. Government to enable the families of some of its top officials to join America's
aristocracy, the billionaire class.
It's something that Trump himself is intimately
involved with and exploits, but if America's national and international police-agencies such as the
FBI and CIA are trying (first with Russiagate, and now with Ukrainegate) to replace him by Pence in
order to enable another friend of Obama to become installed (like Hillary was supposed to have
been) as President and Commander-in-Chief, then this struggle between the agents of America's
Democratic Party billionaires versus those of its Republican Party billionaires could end up having
consequences that no one is predicting.
It's also important to point out here that Zelensky's predecessor, Poroshenko, was not
Obama's first choice to win the 25 May 2014 Ukrainian election that followed the February 2014 coup
and installation of Yatsenyuk to run the country on an interim basis.
Yatsenyuk was
supposed to run it until that election (after which Yatsenyuk still continued long in office, and
Obama pushed as hard as possible for President Poroshenko to continue Prime Minister Yatsenyuk's
policies). Obama's first choice -- and the planned winner -- in the 25 May 2014 election, was an
intense hater of Russia,
Yulia
Tymoshenko
. Yatsenyuk had actually been her agent.
Kolomoysky
was perhaps her main financial backer.
But she lost the election to Obama's second choice,
Poroshenko. Kolomoysky was enough of a supporter of Tymoshenko so that even after he returned to
Ukraine on 16 May 2019 just prior to the latest Presidential election,
he
backed her even above Zelensky
.
But above all, he opposed Poroshenko, because
Poroshenko had been forced by the main lenders to his Government to fire Kolomoysky as governor of
Dnipropetrovsk and to nationalize his bankrupt PrivatBank due to Kolomoysky's having been looting
from Ukraine's Government too much money via his bank and via his minority ownership of the
Government's gas company.
Obama had wanted that money to go toward the war against Donbass, not into Kolomoysky's pockets.
(However, America's Democratic-Party propaganda 'non-profit' Public Radio International gave
a positive spin to Obama-team-member Kolomoysky even at the time of his firing by Poroshenko on 28
March 2015,
saying
of him
, "He offered $10,000 bounties for captured pro-Russian insurgents. 'People understand
that this person came here to ensure stability,' said Stanislav Zholudev, a local political
analyst." The euphemism "captured pro-Russian insurgents" was actually referring to their corpses --
Kolomoysky was paying only for their corpses.
Maybe for Obama-ites that's "stability."
Kolomoysky was already paying the nazi
Azov
Battalion
more than that per pro-Russian corpse, and now the Trump Administration wants
Kolomoysky to be prosecuted for financial crimes instead of Zlochevsky to be prosecuted, and so
Zelensky is being pushed one way by Democrats, and the opposite way by Republicans.)
Kolomoysky has many enemies.
The main holders of Ukraine's debt are unknown,
but besides Russia which had lent to the pre-coup Government (and were thus trying to get their
senior money that's owing from Ukraine to be paid to Russia before the newer creditors get theirs),
they were said to be
the IMF, America's Franklin Templeton Fund
,
and
Blackstone
Group
, the
World
Bank
, and a group of mainly American billionaires "and private Eurobond holders" who are
represented by
the
law firm of Weil Gotshal & Manges
. The U.S. Government and EU countries were also
said
to be
indirectly such holders via their ownership shares in the IMF and World Bank, but also
perhaps more directly. (If Trump were a decent President, he'd be publicly pressing for the exact
numbers on all of this.) Kolomoysky's siphonings from Ukraine's Government were at the expense of
all of them. The pressures upon Poroshenko to halt it were mounting. And, so, Kolomoysky was fired;
and, now, to the extent that Zelensky has to satisfy Kolomoysky, Zelensky (who publicly said of
Kolomoysky
"He
is my business partner"
) needs to resist some of the demands of the U.S. regime and of many
other billionaires. Without their continued support, Ukraine's Government will collapse in the
short term instead of only (which is inevitable) in the long term. It's no longer just a question
of the Ukrainian regime's war against Donbass. The change that Obama wrought is permanent, and
Trump dithers back and forth about how to deal with it. He apparently has no strategy on that.
Zelensky might fear that if he complies with Trump's request, then his own major
benefactor, Kolomoysky, could end up in prison somewhere; and Trump might fear that if he presses
Zelensky on that (as he did not do but Democrats say he did), then the entire Deep State -- not only
Democratic Party billionaires, but also now Republican ones -- will become Trump's enemies, and his
2020 re-election chances will therefore go to zero.
Consequently: Trump will
probably abandon the matter, and the till-now-unsupported and maybe unsupportable mere assumption,
that Hunter Biden's Ukrainian benefactor was Zlochevsky instead of Kolomoysky, will continue to be
asserted virtually everywhere throughout the U.S. empire, for as long a time as the matter
continues to remain in the 'news'. Of course, if that turns out to be the case, then Joe Biden will
continue to be portrayed in this matter as having been a crusader against corruption in Ukraine,
instead of as having been the aspiring founder of yet another billionaire American dynasty.
Basically, the new Russiagate charges to replace Trump by Pence, Ukrainegate (as those charges
were
presented
by the CIA 'whistleblower' on August 12th
and published on September 26th), represent all of
the Democratic Party's billionaires, and many of the Republican Party's ones, as well. It's the
pinnacle of the Obama-versus-Trump feud, because it represents the Democratic Party's position on
what was Obama's top international achievement -- his conquest (via a coup) against Ukraine. Trump
refuses to condemn Obama's coup against Ukraine, but if he cared about the truth, he would, and the
worst that could happen to him then would be that, for once in his life, he'd be fighting for
truth, and not just for himself. Apparently, that's too big a leap for him to take.
What's especially pathetic in all of this is that whenever the U.S. Government
overthrows and destroys a country, it's trumpeted as reflecting America's standing-up for
rule-of-law and opposition to corruption, and for support of democracy and protection of human
rights; but whenever Russia or a nation that's friendly toward Russia resists control by the U.S.
and its allies, it's portrayed as being a dictatorship and an opponent of democracy and of human
rights. So, go figure.
Notwithstanding the principle of Occam's razor, if it
requires lengthy explanations and rabbit hole conspiracy
theory's, a defense attorney would do a disservice to
his client. The mind of a liberal is stuck between fantasy
and delusion and the jury won't take kindly to
it, Guaranteed.
Occam's razor
(also
Ockham's razor
or
Ocham's
razor
:
Latin
: novacula
Occami; or
law of parsimony
:
Latin
: lex
parsimoniae) is the problem-solving
principle
that
states "Entities should not be multiplied without
necessity."
[1]
[2]
The
idea is attributed to English
Franciscan
friar
William
of Ockham
(c. 1287–1347), a
scholastic
philosopher
and
theologian
.
It is sometimes paraphrased by a statement like "The
simplest solution is most likely the right one." but is
the same as the Razor only if results match. Occam's
razor says that when presented with competing
hypotheses
that
make the same predictions,
one should select the
solution with the fewest assumptions,
[3]
and
it is not meant to be a way of choosing between
hypotheses that make different predictions.
which "is a conglomerate controlled by the ferocious
Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky,"
I toadaso.
Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky
That part however is debatable as Ihor holds at least 3
citizenship's and at the time of the Nuland / McCain / Hillary
putsch, he lived in Switzerland most of the time, Israel when he
was in deep dodo and needed to go on the lam.
He
is the real story here, the Bidens are secondary like
the Ambassador in Libya who was running a BI PARTISAN approved gun
running scheme to terrorists in Syria.
The real story is about US manufactured regime change, the
skanks they lie down with to accomplish their goals and that no
travesty inflicted on the local population for Zogged America to
achieve it's goals is too much.
Now will ZH do the right thing and focus on the pea instead of
the ever moving walnut shells?
I'm neutral - neither like or dislike Trump - but feel like I'm in
the twilight zone because
1. What the left are accusing trump
of, is EXACTLY what Joe Biden admitted to doing to the same
country!! Why is Biden's corrupt actions never even mentioned in
this media beatup?
2. Nancy "another Scotch please" Pelosi said that Trump was
using American taxpayer money to shake down a foreign leader
instead of just handing them the money. I'd like ask who her
allegiance is to if she thinks that Ukraine has a god given right
to American taxpayer money. Is this how Democrats really think?
I don't like the Republicans, but the Democrats don't even
pretend anymore to actually care for this country or their fellow
Americans. As far as I can tell, they are no different from an
enemy foreign state.
In his phone call with Zelensky, President Trump mentioned two subjects in particular which
are Kryptonite to the Democrats: Crowdstrike and "the server," meaning the DNC server which
was never forensically examined by the FBI. Pulling on these two threads may be even more
interesting than the stuff about the big-bucks shakedowns of foreign governments by Joe Biden
& Son, Inc. Just for starters: what the fcuk is the DNC server doing in Ukraine?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday she believes President Trump is "goading" House
Democrats to impeach him because he thinks it could help him politically.
"Don't tell anybody I told you this: Trump is goading us to impeach him," Pelosi said
during an event sponsored by Cornell University in New York City. "That's what he's doing.
Every single day, he's just like, taunting and taunting and taunting."
Pelosi argued Trump is daring them to impeach him because he believes it would help him
"solidify his base" ahead of his 2020 re-election. Pelosi said that puts Democrats in a
dilemma.
Rep. Adam Schiff's full opening statement on whistleblower complaint including Schiff's
comedic version of Trump's phone call to Zelensky:
"We've been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we
have. But you know what? I don't see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a
favor I want from you, though. And I'm gonna say this only seven times, so you better listen
good. . .I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it. On this
and on that. I'm going to put you in touch with people...and by the way don't call me again.
I'll call you when you've done what I asked." . . . here
Schiff later admitted that he included words in his opening statement that the president
did not say, noting that his characterization was meant to be taken "at least, in part, in
parody." . .get the hook
"... In response, President Trump called for Schiff's resignation, tweeting on Friday " Rep. Adam Schiff fraudulently read to Congress, with millions of people watching, a version of my conversation with the President of Ukraine that doesn't exis t," adding "He was supposedly reading the exact transcribed version of the call, but he completely changed the words to make it sound horrible, and me sound guilty." ..."
President Trump on Friday called for the resignation of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) after the
House Intelligence Committee Chairman kicked off a Thursday hearing with a completely
fabricated version of a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainan President Volodomyr
Zelensky .
To recap on Schiff's alternate reality:
"The fact that that's not clear is a separate problem in and of itself. Of course, the
president never said, 'If you don't understand me, I'm going to say it seven more times.' My
point is that's the message that the Ukraine president was receiving, in not so many words,"
Schiff later clarified, adding "My summary of the president's call was meant to be at least
part in parody."
An unapologetic Schiff - who has made several mafia analogies regarding the situation -
later told CNN 's Wolf Blitzer that he was mocking President Trump and suggested that everyone
should have known that.
In response, President Trump called for Schiff's resignation, tweeting on Friday " Rep. Adam
Schiff fraudulently read to Congress, with millions of people watching, a version of my
conversation with the President of Ukraine that doesn't exis t," adding "He was supposedly
reading the exact transcribed version of the call, but he completely changed the words to make
it sound horrible, and me sound guilty."
"Adam Schiff therefore lied to Congress and attempted to defraud the American Public. He has
been doing this for two years. I am calling for him to immediately resign from Congress based
on this fraud! "
"... "The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," reads the prior version of the form, which contains the bolded heading: "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED," and "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing." ..."
"... 15/ bottom line: it appears almost certain that, subsequent to the CIA operative "WB" complaint, the DNI introduced a brand new Urgent Disclosure Form which offered a previously unavailable alternative to report allegations with no personal knowledge https://t.co/l8foAAj2sC pic.twitter.com/WXcNdJn84u ..."
"... "The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant ." ..."
"... Meanwhile, the complaint contains several false claims noted by Davis: ..."
"... While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made . ..."
"... The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen . ..."
"... "I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call," the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported that Brechbuhl was not on the phone call . - The Federalist ..."
"... Let's understand what we are up against. The illusion of control has been sold to the public and a significant portion of the population has swallowed the hype. Back up and look at this from a distance for a moment. The only nation that the United States has defeated by itself in the last 100 years is Japan. And we did that with nukes. ..."
"... The illusion of control is fading fast. The best thing we can do as a people is come to the realization that most of the government promises will not be kept. We must prepare ourselves and our local communities for the chaos that is unfolding. If nothing else, start a victory garden program in your home town. ..."
"... The CIA has had a domestic agenda for decades. They wrapped up the Clinton crime syndicate in Mena Arkansas when it became the center for drug smuggling in Latin America. Not long after CIA captured the Clintons, the first assault weapon's ban was signed into law. ..."
"... The controlled political class and the controlled media have been on board with this agenda for years. We will get a ban either through an executive order or a bill passed by the politcal class. ..."
"... Don't forget the Bushes and 'Poppy' Bush being the CIA head. The Bushes and the Clintons were besties... Bush sent no one less than Bob Barr to Mena to straighten some **** out. ..."
"... Chairman Schiff can now, unilaterally, demand and instruct depositions from anyone, at any time, for any reason; and the HPSCI does not need to consider any possible scheduling conflicts for any of the targets, or have any republican members present therein. ..."
"... The intellegence community of the former administration runs this country. They are the deep state ..."
In the months leading up to a CIA whistleblower's hearsay complaint about President Trump's July 25
phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the US intelligence community
quietly
eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers must provide
first-hand knowledge
of
alleged wrongdoings
, according to
The
Federalist
's Sean Davis.
Then, on September 24 -
days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and
released to the public
- a new version of the whistleblower complaint form revised in
August, 2019 - the Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form - was uploaded and used by the CIA employee
to file the complaint.
And while the public just learned about this a week ago, the whistleblower letter to House and
Senate Intelligence Committee chairs Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Richard Burr (R-NC)
was
dated August 12
, the same month the form was updated
.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until
after the transcript of Trump's July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr
Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public,
eliminates the
first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if
they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence
and
only "heard about
[wrongdoing] from others
."
The internal properties of
the
newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form
, which the intelligence community
inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower
Protection Act (ICWPA), show that
the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at
4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the
public.
The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no
specific date of revision is disclosed. -
The
Federalist
A previous version of the document provided by the ICIG and DNI until recently declared that
whistleblower complaints
must only contain first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing
-
and made clear that
hearsay, gossip or rumor would be rejected
.
"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based
on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," reads the prior version of the form, which
contains the
bolded heading: "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED,"
and "This includes
information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she
witnessed some type of wrongdoing."
"
If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand
or unsubstantiated assertions,
[the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able
to process the complaint
or information for submission as an ICWPA," the form
concludes.
15/ bottom line: it appears almost certain that,
subsequent to the CIA operative "WB" complaint, the DNI introduced a brand new Urgent Disclosure
Form which offered a previously unavailable alternative to report allegations with no personal
knowledge https://t.co/l8foAAj2sC
pic.twitter.com/WXcNdJn84u
"I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials," "officials have
informed me," "officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me," "the White House
officials who told me this information," "I was told by White House officials," "the officials I
spoke with," "I was told that a State Department official," "I learned from multiple U.S.
officials," "One White House official described this act," "Based on multiple readouts of these
meetings recounted to me," "I also learned from multiple U.S. officials," "The U.S. officials
characterized this meeting," "multiple U.S. officials told me," "I learned from U.S. officials,"
"I also learned from a U.S. official," "several U.S. officials told me," "I heard from multiple
U.S. officials," and "multiple U.S. officials told me." -
The
Federalist
And if any doubt remains, the CIA employee told Schiff Burr (R-NC) in their August 12 letter; "
I
was not a direct witness to most of the events
," which is repeated in the actual complaint
as: "
I
was not a witness to most of the events described...
"
Meanwhile, the complaint contains several false claims
noted by Davis:
While
the complaint alleged that Trump demanded
that Ukraine physically
return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in
the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that
such
a request was never made
.
The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current
prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country.
The transcript showed
that
exchange also did not happen
.
Additionally,
the
complaint falsely alleged
that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a
party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.
"I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on
the call," the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported
that
Brechbuhl
was not on the phone call
. -
The
Federalist
Following the complaint, the Justice Department (DOJ) and Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) deemed
the submission to be
statutorily deficient
and therefore free from reporting
requirements to Congress. Under mounting pressure, however, the White House declassified and
released the complaint to
Congress
on Wednesday evening, hours after they
released transcript of the underlying Trump-Zelensky phone call in question
which refuted
grandiose claims made in mainstream publications
such as Trump pressuring Zelensky "
about
eight times
."
Let's understand what we are up against. The illusion of
control has been sold to the public and a significant portion of
the population has swallowed the hype. Back up and look at this
from a distance for a moment. The only nation that the United
States has defeated by itself in the last 100 years is Japan. And
we did that with nukes. Nukes detonated on American soil will
be the end of the American government. The grid would go down and
absolute chaos would unfold.
In both WW I and WW II our allies
did most of the fighting. Korea was a stalemate. Vietnam was a
loss. The Middle Eastern wars are a shambles. We have been
fighting in Afghanistan for 18 years and still it cannot be
conquered. Chicago cannot be controlled. Bloated pension plans
are collapsing the big government strong holds in our mega
cities. The preliminary efforts to disarm the public through
registration have been dismal failures. The financial system is
unsustainable. The media has been discredited. The government
is perceived by millions to be illegitimate. The urban and rural
populations have been pitted against each other and the country is
devolving into irreconcilable factions.
The illusion of control is fading fast. The best thing we can
do as a people is come to the realization that most of the
government promises will not be kept. We must prepare ourselves
and our local communities for the chaos that is unfolding. If
nothing else, start a victory garden program in your home town.
Endless investigations. The biggest scandal since Watergate.
Coverups. An inability to govern. A possible constitutional crisis.
That is what Humpty Drumpfy said about Hillary in the 2016 campaign
election. Apparently Humpty looked in the mirror and saw Hillary:
Karma is a bitch Donniboi.
November 2 in Miami, FL
"If Hillary Clinton were to be elected, it would create an
unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis. Haven't we
just been through a lot with the Clintons, right?"
November 2 in Orlando, FL
"Hillary is likely to be under investigation for many years,
probably concluding in a criminal trial."
November 4 in Atkinson, NH
"She'll be under investigation for years. She'll be with trials.
Our country, we have to get back to work."
November 4 in Wilmington, OH
"Hillary has engaged in a criminal massive enterprise and
cover-ups like probably nobody ever seen before."
and it is more to their benefit to be the keepers of that
information and accrue the power from that knowledge than to
reveal it and bring people to justice.
You do not get it. There is NO WAY HRC was ever going to win.
First, the bible belt. They wouldn't vote for a lesbian husband
beater who took an intern, married, that made 9k a year and
promoted her to first consort at 6 figures. And she dissed them.
Then she didn't even BOTHER to visit, NOT EVEN VISIT michigan who
might have turned on denial regarding her lesbian affair with a
married woman/ mother but couldn't get over being completely
DISSED by those who pushed nafta and took their jobs..THIRD...she
left men to be murdered, she and obama et al, biden, TURNED HELP
TO THEM AROUND and left t hem after 600 emails from the
ambassador, a democrat btw, begging for help...left them to be
murdered... AFTER the seals recovered the weapons she sold to al
queda. Where are the weapons btw? Then she tried to BLAME an
innocent videographer, american for it all and then put gag orders
like some two bit criminal on those who survived ..and w hy?
because as all american now knows but for YOU she is the criminal.
There is NO WAY she was ever going to win and you all better
figure that out because it trickles down. Bill and his intern. She
and hers. SICKENING.
Include in that her donors, that buck guy
who murders black gay men, and others. Add to it the head of
Bangladesh announcing to the world that HRC was trying to shake
her down for money. Add to that the ukraine and russian oil. Add
to the emails and server destruction.
The CIA just told the world how they gather INTEL: hearsay
evidence! Now all the conspiracy theories about CIA crimes are laid
out for the world. It was NOT Trump's fault. He was following the
rules. Instead, the Democrat Congress was filled with TDS and had to
set up POTUS for a take out that it couldn't accomplish with the
Lapdog Socialist Media. Pick your conspiracy. JFK assassination:
CIA TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE! Murder One: BOOK AGENCY, DANNO!
Government needs you to pay
taxes
,
19 minutes ago
link
Not only is the CIA corrupt and partisan, it also is **** at its
intended agenda. Which calls their usefulness (per legit tasks)
into serious question. Honestly, I would disband the intelligence
agencies, reduce intel headcount by 90%, and hire fresh people.
Anyone above a middle rank in the new agency gets time-limited in
their role.
The Senate should subpoena John Brennan, and ask him if he willfully
undermined or orchestrated actions against President-elect Trump.
Then subpoena John Clapper and ask him that too. If they lie,
they're screwed. If they tell the truth they're fvcked.
Hillary used the deep state once again to not only get Biden rapped
up in this Ukraine business but also make the president look like he
did something improper which he didn't and has the legal authority to
investigate Biden's cronyism. This is all for a reason, she is
hitting the media circus next week to announce she is back in the
running for the White House.
The CIA has had a domestic agenda for decades. They wrapped up
the Clinton crime syndicate in Mena Arkansas when it became the
center for drug smuggling in Latin America. Not long after CIA
captured the Clintons, the first assault weapon's ban was signed into
law. Now that the coup has gone public again and captured the
public discourse, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Murphy
(D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have launched another
assault weapons ban that will ban all semi automatic fire arms in the
United States.
The communists always disarm the public before
they collapse the system. They must have a monopoly of force so
that they can be sure their cohorts continue to eat while the rest of
the population starves.
The controlled political class and the controlled media have been
on board with this agenda for years. We will get a ban either
through an executive order or a bill passed by the politcal class.
I hope you got your iconic Colt M-4 before they disappeared.
Don't forget the Bushes and 'Poppy' Bush being the CIA head. The
Bushes and the Clintons were besties... Bush sent no one less than
Bob Barr to Mena to straighten some **** out.
Ah, so the IC has a process for scrapping those requirements outside
of a democratic way of doing things?
Or does a democratic process
exist for these occasions?
So who voted for, who against?
Who is clearly the opponent here and who understands the
importance of the constitution that they took an oath on.....
HPSCI Chairman Schiff can now, unilaterally, demand and instruct
depositions from anyone, at any time, for any reason; and the
HPSCI does not need to consider any possible scheduling conflicts
for any of the targets, or have any republican members present
therein.
The purpose for the rule changes was to position a new,
and never before seen, impeachment process.
The House can investigate impeachment without any involvement
whatsoever by the minority.
That's why no vote.
That's why the new phrase: "official impeachment inquiry".
IMPORTANT: Keep in mind that Speaker Pelosi selected former
insider DOJ official Douglas Letter to be the Chief Legal Counsel
for the House. That becomes important when we get to the actual
impeachment part.
Pelosi has been working in the background carrying out this
agenda for 10 months.... Republicans have been brutally naive to
what has been going on.
When Republicans return from their 2 week vacation, maybe they'll
realize what's been going on while they were not watching.
Everything was/is designed to keep events hidden from
republicans in congress.
And don't think Chuck Schumer has not been quietly working behind
the scenes in the senate.
So knowing now that Pelosi (and entire team) have had this
impeachment plan in place since December 2018 (per rules).
What is the likelihood of a Senate plan since a same/similar
timeframe?
Now, all that said, there is an optimistic possibility also
present. Assume Trump and/or Barr are aware of this Pelosi
impeachment scheme. Perhaps that explains their delays in
leveraging the declassification material.
ie. Saving biggest weapon(s) for defense of office.
If trump is impeached and they try to remove him from office over
this ******** while the democrats pillage foreign nations using
taxpayer dollars than trump should tell his supporters to head to
Washington...loaded. This is a coup and nothing more
The media is completely complacent in this...probably under blackmail
or bribery. The intellegence community of the former administration runs this
country. They are the deep state
Anyone who doesn't think this is a well planned COUP on the president
of the US should read the new rule changes that Nancy Pelosi has put
into effect in the house!!!!!
This is unfucking real! Why doesn't the public know about this
********???
HPSCI Chairman Schiff can now, unilaterally, demand and instruct
depositions from anyone, at any time, for any reason; and the HPSCI
does not need to consider any possible scheduling conflicts for any
of the targets, or have any republican members present therein.
The purpose for the rule changes was to position a new, and never
before seen, impeachment process.
The House can investigate impeachment without any involvement
whatsoever by the minority.
That's why no vote.
That's why the new phrase: "official impeachment inquiry".
IMPORTANT: Keep in mind that Speaker Pelosi selected former
insider DOJ official Douglas Letter to be the Chief Legal Counsel for
the House. That becomes important when we get to the actual
impeachment part.
So knowing now that Pelosi (and entire team) have had this
impeachment plan in place since December 2018 (per rules).
What is the likelihood of a Senate plan since a same/similar
timeframe?
Now, all that said, there is an optimistic possibility also
present. Assume Trump and/or Barr are aware of this Pelosi
impeachment scheme. Perhaps that explains their delays in leveraging
the declassification material.
ie. Saving biggest weapon(s) for defense of office.
"... While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should have been rejected by the IG. ..."
"... Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over. ..."
"... Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute. ..."
"... Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing less that NatSec coup attempt. ..."
I have been an attorney for over 20-years. So when I first read of the alleged whistleblower
complaint, I immediately looked at the statute allowing such complaints, 50 USC sec. 3033.
Read it for yourself if interested.
While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can
say that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and
should have been rejected by the IG.
Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a
person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One
cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority
over.
Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity
whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters
are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute.
Same as a "whistleblower" complaint that the US Postal Service is slow delivering my mail
or that there is no toilet tissue in the Yellowstone National Park men's room is not an
activity supervised supervised by the DNI and is not the proper subject of an "intelligence
activity whistleblower" complaint, for these same reasons a complaint about the president or
his phone calls is also not the proper subject of such a complaint. This complaint should
have been rejected by an honest and competent IG.
Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower
complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in
Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing
less that NatSec coup attempt.
"... Now, when it appears that Trump has not been sufficiently humbled by Russiagate, and actually has the gall to pursue the source of the debunked allegations, the CIA is apparently NOT happy. ..."
"... And when the CIA says to Pelosi, "Jump!", Pelosi says, "How high?" ..."
"... What will be interesting is to see how much influence the CIA has over Republican Senators, who, in an impeachment vote, could be caught between the wishes of their base, and the wishes of the intelligence community. Will this be the first color revolution on US soil? ..."
"... The president of Ukraine and Ukraine overall are just playing cards in the US politics in the case of the impeachment process. The Democratic Party started playing this card after its hopes to impeach Donald Trump using the Russiagate scandal failed after the Mueller investigation did not prove Trump collusion with the Russian government and a conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian agent was also debunked. The whistleblower report about the call between Volydmyr Zelensky and Trump was used to initiate impeachment proceedings even before the transcript of this call was made public. ..."
"... The declassified transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky demonstrates that Ukraine is still a US client state, like it became after the Maidan under Obama presidency when Biden was in charge or relations with Ukraine. Trump suggests Zelensky what to do, in particular, concerning the investigation of his opponent in the US presidential elections. Zelensky tries to please and flatter Trump numerous times and accepts Trump's suggestion to reopen the investigation involving Biden's son company in Ukraine. Like Bill Clinton, Trump can be impeached in the House of Representatives but unlikely in the Senate. ..."
It appears that the whole impeachment has been orchestrated by the CIA. The whistleblower is
CIA.
Meanwhile, Pelosi served many years on the House Intelligence Committee, an appointment
that certainly could not have hurt her ascent to Speaker. Indeed, I don't recall Pelosi ever
questioning anything the CIA did not even torture. Her only complaint ever was that they
didn't keep her sufficiently informed about torture.
Now, when it appears that Trump has not been sufficiently humbled by Russiagate, and
actually has the gall to pursue the source of the debunked allegations, the CIA is apparently
NOT happy.
And when the CIA says to Pelosi, "Jump!", Pelosi says, "How high?"
What will be interesting is to see how much influence the CIA has over Republican
Senators, who, in an impeachment vote, could be caught between the wishes of their base, and
the wishes of the intelligence community. Will this be the first color revolution on US
soil?
It looks like we will get to meet the whistleblower.
from The Hill:
The House Intelligence Committee is working with the whistleblower's lawyers and Maguire to
allow the whistleblower to speak before the committee. [DNI] Maguire assured lawmakers
during the lengthy hearing that the individual would be able to testify "fully and
freely."
"I was pleased that the director committed to having the whistleblower come in as soon as
the clearance issues are resolved for the whistleblower's counsel," Schiff told reporters
after the hearing. . .
here
If the "whistleblower" was simply reporting hearsay, how can he/she be described as a
whistleblower?
I can't believe how, after Russiagate, this story has managed to gain any traction
whatsoever. The college educated public in America is probably the least sophisticated on the
planet.
Another interesting aspect is this. Whistle blower gives evidence to Trump appointed intel
honcho, who forwards evidence to higher Trump appointed intel honcho, who then takes evidence
to Trump appointed presidential legal advisor for clearance.
Higher Trump intel honcho then waits until phone call transcript is made public before
sending whistle blower evidence to senate intel circus.
So either massive conspiracy by those around Trump to take him down with very week ammo,
or option b - those involved in RussiaGate being set up for massive fall.
Looks like the current drama from the land of drama queens has been set up with an open
ending.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/463274-five-takeaways-from-trump-whistleblower-hearing
"Democrats seized on the declassified whistleblower complaint released right before the
hearing
as further evidence of what they see as an impeachable offense by Trump.
They highlighted how the complaint alleges that White House officials tried to restrict
access
to records of Trump's call with Zelensky, including an allegation that officials removed
the
transcript from the computer system where it would typically be stored to conceal its
existence."
So they gotta prove Trump trump possibly removed a possibly non existent possibly
'truthful'
record of the call.
I guess they will drag this out as long as Russiagate.
I think the point the centrist Dems are going to stumble over is the assertion that Trump
"tried to manipulate
the president of a foreign country" to investigate a possible political opponent "in order to
fabricate material
to be used against him in the 2020 election." If Zelensky says the call was "normal," then
the alleged manipula-
tion was normal diplomatic usage. More interesting is the problem of Trump's motivation. This
is reading minds.
Many criminal charges require proving mens rea, the state of mind or intention of the
accused. If you can't prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to do wrong, then the verdict must be
"not guilty." The summary
of the call does not show Trump saying anything like that. He was requesting an investigation
because we have heard
things that suggest Hunter Biden did wrong. Former Prosecutor Shokin suspended the
investigation into Burisma, but
that doesn't mean there was no wrongdoing there. It may just mean he knew Burisma was
protected.
The president of Ukraine and Ukraine overall are just playing cards in the US politics in
the case of the impeachment process. The Democratic Party started playing this card after its
hopes to impeach Donald Trump using the Russiagate scandal failed after the Mueller
investigation did not prove Trump collusion with the Russian government and a conspiracy
theory that Trump is a Russian agent was also debunked. The whistleblower report about the
call between Volydmyr Zelensky and Trump was used to initiate impeachment proceedings even
before the transcript of this call was made public.
The declassified transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky demonstrates
that Ukraine is still a US client state, like it became after the Maidan under Obama
presidency when Biden was in charge or relations with Ukraine. Trump suggests Zelensky what
to do, in particular, concerning the investigation of his opponent in the US presidential
elections. Zelensky tries to please and flatter Trump numerous times and accepts Trump's
suggestion to reopen the investigation involving Biden's son company in Ukraine. Like Bill
Clinton, Trump can be impeached in the House of Representatives but unlikely in the
Senate.
@151 joe... the usa is in perpetual war.. finally it looks it brought the permanent state of
war onto itself... when they aren't murdering innocents with their NRA mindset in the next
god forsaken usa place, they are murdering others in faraway countries.. now, it looks like
the usa is ready to murder there own in a bigger way... it couldn't happen to a more depraved
group of people based on their actions on the world stage the past 70 odd years beginning in
korea... i hope the wheels come right off the usa and that they reep what they have sown on
the world stage..
"... As Andrew Higgins writes today: "Ukraine's allure for American carpetbaggers, political consultants and adventurers has put it at the center of not just one but now two presidential elections in the United States and a host of second-tier scandals... ..."
"... For Democrats and Republicans alike, Ukraine is a place where dirt on opponents can be fabricated and distributed, free from the prying eyes of fact checkers. Biden swears that any corruption on his part has been firmly debunked by Ukrainians who are part of a regime he brought into existence and whose careers he helps determine. Right! ..."
"... Trump is trying to get to the bottom of that story by making it clear that the success of the regime now depends on him. He wants reliable source information to create a narrative about how Democrats tried to delegitimize him. Good Luck! ..."
"... Meanwhile, Democrats and top figures in the intelligence services are pushing back, trying to preserve their original, Trump-Putin conspiracy narrative, created in part from dubious Ukrainian sources. ..."
"... So now the world is going to be subjected to these dueling narratives, neither of which can ever be verified or confirmed because they originated in the shadowy world of the Ukraine. ..."
"... Ulimately, it will be up to Congress and the American people to decide which narrative they prefer: Trump's or the one pushed by Biden, Team Pelosi and their allies in the intelligence services. ..."
"... Imagine a US president [running the world hegemon with zero moral power] attempting to see just how crooked the thugs in Ukraine are since the DNC cabal wants to war on Russia in Donbass. ..."
"... The truth is that establishment democrats re-opened a tremendous can of worms starting from Nulandgate (after Victoria Nuland famous "F*ck EU" phone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o ). ..."
"... And there is not a single doubt that actions of Obama administration in Nulandgate (including Biden's and Brennan's) and later were simply criminal. As in Nuremberg definition of war crimes. ..."
"... Crime-wise Trump in Ukraine looks like a clueless amateur pocket picker. Previous members of Obama administration were real Mafiosi with a lot of blood on their hands. ..."
"... The democrats are painting a picture aimed at handcuffing any attempt to determine if the regime in Kyiv [Saudi ARAMCO, UAE,....]is worth tilting world war over. ..."
"... The Biden oligarch links go back to before the Obama neocon [Nuland] coup in 2014 when Biden was VP. ..."
NYT: ... the United States Embassy in Kiev (Ukraine) is still without an ambassador after the
administration yanked home Marie L. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who was targeted by the
president and Mr. Giuliani for ostensibly being insufficiently loyal, a charge heatedly
disputed by her colleagues. ...
Ukraine is the place where US politicians, like the bear in Winne the Pooh, get their heads
caught in the honey jar.
As Andrew Higgins writes today: "Ukraine's allure for American carpetbaggers, political
consultants and adventurers has put it at the center of not just one but now two presidential
elections in the United States and a host of second-tier scandals...
Caught between the clashing geopolitical ambitions of Russia and the West, Ukraine has for
years had to balance competing outside interests and worked hard to cultivate all sides, and
also rival groups on the same side -- no matter how incompatible their agendas -- with offers
of money, favors and prospects for career advancement."
For Democrats and Republicans alike, Ukraine is a place where dirt on opponents can be
fabricated and distributed, free from the prying eyes of fact checkers. Biden swears that any
corruption on his part has been firmly debunked by Ukrainians who are part of a regime he
brought into existence and whose careers he helps determine. Right!
All we know for certain is, like Mark Twain once said, "An honest politician is somebody
who, when he is bought, stays bought." IMO, this is how we need to interpret any story that
is sourced from the Ukraine.
Trump is trying to get to the bottom of that story by making it clear that the success of
the regime now depends on him. He wants reliable source information to create a narrative
about how Democrats tried to delegitimize him. Good Luck!
Meanwhile, Democrats and top figures in the intelligence services are pushing back, trying
to preserve their original, Trump-Putin conspiracy narrative, created in part from dubious
Ukrainian sources.
So now the world is going to be subjected to these dueling narratives, neither of which
can ever be verified or confirmed because they originated in the shadowy world of the
Ukraine.
Ulimately, it will be up to Congress and the American people to decide which narrative
they prefer: Trump's or the one pushed by Biden, Team Pelosi and their allies in the
intelligence services.
Personally, I hope they both embarrass themselves to the point where we can finally be rid
of both sides.
Impeachment is a tactic of the [DNC cabal] coup attempt. Russia gate did not work.
The "intelligence" community [the swamp] is at odds with Trump, the phony CIA
"whistleblower" is a deep swamp tool.
Imagine a US president [running the world hegemon with zero moral power] attempting to see
just how crooked the thugs in Ukraine are since the DNC cabal wants to war on Russia in
Donbass.
Suppose someone said "supporting Zelenskiy's/Thieu's corrupt regime would drag the US
through the mud"+. There would not be a Vietnam wall on the Mall.
+Like Marshall observed when he advised the US Chiang should not be imposed on China any
longer.
"Ukraine is the place where US politicians, like the bear in Winne the Pooh, get their heads
caught in the honey jar. "
Of course, one would only welcome that Pelosi just dived head on into Ukrainian mud
(Michelle Obama might not happy, though).
Trump is serious opponent in mud wrestling for Pelosi (5'5, 131 pound) and not only
because he is 6'2, 236 pounds.
The truth is that establishment democrats re-opened a tremendous can of worms starting
from Nulandgate (after Victoria Nuland famous "F*ck EU" phone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o
).
And there is not a single doubt that actions of Obama administration in Nulandgate
(including Biden's and Brennan's) and later were simply criminal. As in Nuremberg definition
of war crimes.
If Trump wants, not a single member of Obama administration can emerge unscathed from
this. He can tarnish Obama legacy forever in a way Iraq war and Abu Ghraib tarnished forever
Bush II administration.
He also can sink Brennan by asking Zelensky to open archives with protocols of talks with
Ukrainian officials during Brennan's visits to Kiev.
Crime-wise Trump in Ukraine looks like a clueless amateur pocket picker. Previous members
of Obama administration were real Mafiosi with a lot of blood on their hands.
Seems that the opposition press wants us mob outrage to make Trump foreign policy for
him.
The democrats are painting a picture aimed at handcuffing any attempt to determine if the
regime in Kyiv [Saudi ARAMCO, UAE,....]is worth tilting world war over.
A novel approach while Trump at odds with the neocon currents in State, CIA and FBI.
It takes a lot more than some good at grammar NYTimes writer to substantiate claims that
allegations against the former VP and his son's cushy Ukraine oligarch job are
unsubstantiated. That is work for prosecutors and defense attorneys.
The Biden oligarch links go back to before the Obama neocon [Nuland] coup in 2014 when
Biden was VP.
Out of context is no reason to make a conclusion
Why I support impeachment. The evidence will be put out and the solicitors will argue on
complete evidentiary lines. It is getting to be anything Trump wants to do they find some phony reason to be
outraged.
I did a 20 minute telephone poll today. They called me! You can count on one respondent
"strongly opposed" to impeachment for trying to get to the bottom of Biden family
corruption.
"A novel approach while Trump at odds with the neocon currents in State, CIA and FBI."
No. Nothing new here. This is just Russiagate II. Same actors, same methods. But it is unclear to me why they even bothered? Trump folded long ago, In April 2017 to be
exact. And before impeachment, his chances in 2020 were far from certain. Especially against
Warren.
Also Biden should not even be discussed anymore. At this point he is history.
Warren now is the official frontrunner. Which is probably the only good thing emerging out
of this CIA-inspired mess.
"... which proves beyond doubt that this is a purely political document, intended for public consumption as a tool for political ends, not for the intelligence committees. Typical Clinton-Cabal manipulation. ..."
"... Apparently a desperate action to obfuscate something in Barr's investigation, as I interpret it. Obviously considerable effort (and considerable discussion) has been expended in trying to make it as watertight as possible - but by people incapable of seeing outside their narrow interests. ..."
"... the Judicial Watch person suspects it's the work of D-Congressman Schiff as it bears the hallmarks of his craftmanship ..."
"... It seems like the mole-like permanent puppet-string-puller* network installed - or more likely expanded and deepened, and made more permanently pro-Dem - by Obomber throughout the US government is much like an infestation of mould, whose spores are impervious to destruction and constantly reinfest the infestation. ..."
The "whistleblower's" letter is so pathetic, it is quite funny. It is nothing but drivel,
very Russiagate-like, nothing but dredging mud.
What is striking about the letter is the inordinate lengths the author goes to to justify
that the letter is non-classified and should not be classified, including verbose and
detailed notes with arguments as to why it should not be classified, taking up a full half of
the document. This is underlined in particular by his statement in the letter:
If a classification marking is applied retrospectively, I believe it is incumbent upon the
classifying authority to explain why such a marking was applied, and to which specific
information it pertains.
which proves beyond doubt that this is a purely political document, intended
for public consumption as a tool for political ends, not for the intelligence committees.
Typical Clinton-Cabal manipulation.
Apparently a desperate action to obfuscate something in Barr's investigation, as I
interpret it. Obviously considerable effort (and considerable discussion) has been expended
in trying to make it as watertight as possible - but by people incapable of seeing outside
their narrow interests.
The other thing that is striking is the extent to which the Whitehouse staff are stuffed
full of Obomber holdovers conspiring in every breath of their working lives to find ways and
means to undermine and attack the US President.
'Did the "leak" about Trump & Zelensky conversation originate in Ukraine?
Has Ukrainian foreign office staff or SBU leaked it to the alleged "whistle blower"?
'It seems that former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Klimkin boasts about it.'
https://twitter.com/PavloKlimkin/status/1176736459455422465
Google translate: "To keep things going, Ukraine will remain in the history of the United
States as the country that led to the impeachment of the US President. Not a very fun
prospect. But now everyone understands what we are capable of"
In the vid I linked @58, the Judicial Watch person suspects it's the work of
D-Congressman Schiff as it bears the hallmarks of his craftmanship , but check the vid
for confirmation.
BM @63--
You interpreted it correctly. The best site I've visited for information on Gabbard is
this Wikipedia page
that lists most everything together all on one page and links to other Wiki pages about
her.
Draining the Swamp and depriving its denizens of their food is an election ploy that ought
to get universal support; it sure garnered Trump votes in 2016 but he did nothing afterwards
and allowed corrupt officials to remain in their posts. IMO, the Duopoly's parties are both
corrupt from head to toe as is the Current Oligarchy that pulls their strings. All three
entities need to be slain for US citizens to regain their freedom and ability to control
their federal, state, and local governments. That such a conception is termed radical
indicates just how far from the center those proclaiming it radical have become--they prove
themselves to be the true radicals: 100% Reactionaries defending the vile and corrupt.
Why is Trump"s DoS stonewalling what ought to be seen as an ally in this affair? More
Obama holdovers?
Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 26 2019 20:00 utc | 58
It seems like the mole-like permanent puppet-string-puller* network installed - or
more likely expanded and deepened, and made more permanently pro-Dem - by Obomber throughout
the US government is much like an infestation of mould, whose spores are impervious to
destruction and constantly reinfest the infestation.
* (but not puppetmaster, because members of the network are themselves puppets to the Deep
State).
Another interesting aspect is this. Whistle blower gives evidence to Trump appointed intel
honcho, who forwards evidence to higher Trump appointed intel honcho, who then takes evidence
to Trump appointed presidential legal advisor for clearance.
Higher Trump intel honcho then waits until phone call transcript is made public before
sending whistle blower evidence to senate intel circus.
So either massive conspiracy by those around Trump to take him down with very week ammo,
or option b - those involved in RussiaGate being set up for massive fall.
"... "Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine? Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's employer?" The true corruption is what's legal. There's no law against influence peddling, as in Hunter Biden offering himself for hire. ..."
"... As for the other question, no question with zero evidence need be answered. Is Trump using his influence to advance his son and son-in-law's career? That isn't a legit question eiher. ..."
Did Ukrainian officials interfere in the 2016 election by creating or hyping the debunked Russiagate affair and by supporting
the Clinton campaign? Alleged Russian interference in the election was a big issue....
"Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine?
Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's
employer?" The true corruption is what's legal. There's no law against influence peddling, as
in Hunter Biden offering himself for hire.
As for the other question, no question with zero
evidence need be answered. Is Trump using his influence to advance his son and son-in-law's
career? That isn't a legit question eiher.
So who is this "savvy official"? Who is this courageous whistleblower who boldly shone the
light of truth upon the mechanisms of power in the interests of the common man? Who is this
brave, selfless individual who set off an impeachment inquiry by taking a stand and
revealing the fact that the US president made a phone call in July urging Ukrainian president
Volodymyr Zelensky to help investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his
son?
Well believe it or not, according to The
New York Times this brave, noble whistleblower who the mainstream media are currently
championing is an officer for the Central Intelligence Agency.
"The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his
re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a CIA officer who was detailed
to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his
identity," The New York Times reports . "The man has since returned
to the CIA, the people said. Little else is known about him."
So there you have it. A mysterious stranger from the
lying, torturing , propagandizing , drug
trafficking ,
assassinating , coup-staging , warmongering , psychopathic CIA was
working in the White House, heroically provided the political/media class with politically
powerful information out of the goodness of his heart, and then vanished off into the Langley
sunset. Clearly there is nothing suspicious about this story at all.
In all seriousness, even to call this spook a "whistleblower" is ridiculous on its face. You
don't get to call someone from the US intelligence community a whistleblower unless they are
actually whistleblowing on the US intelligence community. That's not a thing. A CIA officer who
exposes information about government officials is an operative performing an operation unless
proven otherwise, because that's what the CIA does; it liberally
leaks information wherever it's convenient for CIA agendas while withholding all other
information behind a veil of government secrecy.
A CIA officer who exposes information about CIA wrongdoings without the CIA's permission is
a whistleblower. A CIA officer who exposes information about someone else is just a spook doing
spook things. You can recognize the latter by the way the mass media supports, applauds
and
employs them . You can recognize the former by the way they have been persecuted,
imprisoned, and/or died under
mysterious circumstances .
But if you listen to the billionaire media, we should be calling this CIA officer a
whistleblower, we should be
enraged at The New York Times for exposing that CIA officer's identity, and we should be
raising a small fortune on
GoFundMe for "legal aid" that this CIA officer will never need.
"The idea that the media needs to 'protect' a high-level CIA officer making explosive
claims about the president, which have now been used as the basis for impeachment
proceedings, is such an insane perversion of journalistic ethics," journalist Michael Tracey
tweeted
today on this new development.
While all this political/media class cheerleading for whistleblower protections is going on,
the most prominent whistleblower in America remains imprisoned for taking a principled stand
against secret grand juries while being driven into crippling debt. Chelsea Manning is still
racking up fines of $1,000 per day while locked in a Virginia federal detention center for
refusing to testify against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The mainstream press that is so
keen to champion a "whistleblower" who works for the CIA and provided information which feeds
into America's fake partisan pro wrestling feud has been almost completely silent on the actual
whistleblower who exposed actual US war crimes.
"The courageous whistleblower Chelsea Manning has now been held in a federal detention
center in Alexandria, Virginia for more than six months," reads a recent article by World
Socialist Website , one of the only news outlets to consistently report on Manning's plight.
"Manning has not been charged with or committed any crime. She was sent to jail on March 8,
2019 for refusing to testify before a secret grand jury that has indicted persecuted
WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange, who published the information she leaked
exposing rampant US imperialist criminality."
"The vindictive treatment of Chelsea Manning has included 'administrative segregation' -- a
prison euphemism for solitary confinement -- and being fined an unprecedented $1,000 per day
for refusing to answer grand jury questions," WSWS reports. "By the time she might be released
in October 2020, she will be left owing the US government as much as $440,000. Convicted
antiwar activist Jeremy Hammond, who provided intelligence documents to WikiLeaks, has been
also brought to the same jail as Manning in order to coerce him into giving false
testimony."
" On a scale of 'haha' to 'lol,' how likely would you say it is that politicians' sudden
interest in whistleblowing will lead to the reform of the Espionage Act, which the government
has routinely used to jail the sources behind some of the most important stories in US
history? " tweeted NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in response to an Onion article
satirizing the latest hypocrisy.
Pointing out hypocrisy is such a common practice in politics that it often wears a bit thin
these days, especially since it's frequently done in a disingenuous way, but when implemented
with intellectual honesty it serves a very useful purpose: it shows when people aren't really
being truthful about the position that they are taking.
The political/media class of the United States do not care about whistleblowers. They do not
care about truth, and they do not care about justice. They do not care about holding power to
account, because they exist only to serve power.
I don't pretend to know what the CIA's game is here; it probably isn't to remove Trump from
office because everyone knows that will not happen and failed impeachments
historically boost a president's popularity . But I do know that everyone cheerleading for
this fake "whistleblower" while ignoring the real ones has exposed themselves.
"... "This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern." ..."
"... "It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was breached. This official was not on this call, not on the approved dissem list and should not have been briefed on the call." ..."
"... "The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Committee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the Intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members?" ..."
"... While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should have been rejected by the IG. ..."
"... Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over. ..."
"... Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute. ..."
"... Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing less that NatSec coup attempt. ..."
"This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about
differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern."
"It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was
breached. This official was not on this call, not on the approved dissem list and should not
have been briefed on the call."
"The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my
work on the House Intel Committee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the Intel
oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee
members?"
I have been an attorney for over 20-years. So when I first read of the alleged whistleblower
complaint, I immediately looked at the statute allowing such complaints, 50 USC sec. 3033.
Read it for yourself if interested.
While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say
that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should
have been rejected by the IG.
Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a
person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One
cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority
over.
Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity
whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters
are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute.
Same as a "whistleblower" complaint that the US Postal Service is slow delivering my mail
or that there is no toilet tissue in the Yellowstone National Park men's room is not an
activity supervised supervised by the DNI and is not the proper subject of an "intelligence
activity whistleblower" complaint, for these same reasons a complaint about the president or
his phone calls is also not the proper subject of such a complaint. This complaint should
have been rejected by an honest and competent IG.
Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower
complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in
Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing
less that NatSec coup attempt.
The complaint looks like a "lawyer-assisted document." Produced by a team, not by a single
person. It clearly was carefully designed to inflict maximum damage to replace Russiagate
hysteria with a new one and put Trump on the defensive.
Which was fully achieved. Pelosi decision is also a huge pressure point even when actual
impeachment is above her political capabilities.
But it definitely replaces the pressure of Mueller/Weissmann commission on Trump with an
equal or higher pressure, and may even surpass in the effectiveness Andrew Weissmann witch
hunt.
Now "full of Schiff" members of House have a new bone to chew. They can drag Trump thru
the mud for the next six months, hoping that this will turn the election their way.
Which might well be a wrong assumption, as it cemented Trump coalition and outraged people
who were ready to abandon Trump, so the percentage of former Trump supporters who would stay
home, but now will go to the voting booth might be an unpleasant surprise for neoliberal
Democrats.
Previously Trump chances were IMHO not that great as he proved to be a very weak,
impulsive President, one-trick pony who assumes that bullying is the diplomacy and
negotiating strategy all-in-one, who accepted rabid neocons like Bolton into his
administration, who was pandering to Netanyahu, and who he betrayed most of his election
promises. Without Russiagate2 he can run only on inertia and stock market value, which is not
much. So I would consider the possibility the Trump welcomes this impeachment process as his
last chance. He might well anticipate difficulties competing against Warren; who would beat
him on domestic policy for at least half of Trump base, and she has less baggage in foreign
policy, so she can attract anti-war independents who in 2016 voted for Trump).
In any case, the person who signed it might well be just a pre-selected "placeholder" for
information which was leaked by other people, much like Steele relations with Fusion GPS,
when it is unclear whether Steele supplied information to them or vice versa, or
CIA-connected Nelly Ohr provided material to Steele so that he returned it as his own,
supposedly obtained from a "respectable foreign source", whitewashing the real source.
The scenario of operation really looks like the second stage of the "palace coup" run by
Brennan faction in CIA and other intelligence agencies (surviving members of McCabe faction
in FBI.) It start with some equivalent of Steele dossier produced by a supposedly
"respectable source" also closely resembles Russiagate with neoliberal MSM driving the
hysteria even before facts were known.
That's why I would call this scandal Russiagate2, not Ukraine-gate. As Proverbs 16:4 puts
it, "The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of
evil."
New information suggests that this improper rumor-blower complaint was crafted by a group of
CIA employees and was submitted by a medium or high level CIA employee, possibly an Obama or
Brennan appointee of Samantha Power mold, in coordination with allies in Congress, possibly
in Schiff's House Intelligence Committee, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment
proceedings.
A CIA officer who exposes information about CIA wrongdoings without the CIA's permission
is a whistleblower. A CIA officer who exposes information about someone else is just a
spook.
Simply put, there is nothing in the statute ( 50 USC sec. 3033 ) that allows an
"intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his
phone calls. Such matters are outside the jurisdiction of this statute.
That means that this is the second phase of Obama/Brennan's coup attempt, the color
revolution against Trump which started with Russiagate hysteria in December 2016 (Steele fake
plus Brannan's "17 intelligence agencies memo" fake) and culminated in Mueller appointment in
May 2017 and two years of witch hunt.
An interesting detail is that the IGIC ICWPA "Urgent Concern" report form was probably
doctored specifically to allow rumors to be treated as whistleblower protected activity
Looks like it was done retrospectively to provide justification for the second hand nature
of the rumorblower's report.
Another possibility is that Ukrainian SBU (which for all practical purposes is fully
controlled by CIA outlet) provided those materials to the Brennan faction and that, not
internal leak in WH, what started the whole mess.
It is unclear what this CIA's gambit is about; the move looks very questionable. It
probably isn't to remove Trump from office because failed impeachments historically boost a
president's popularity.
But I do know that everyone cheerleading for this fake "whistleblower" while ignoring the
real ones like Snowden and Manning has exposed themselves as upper hypocrites. Which includes
most of neoliberal MSM like CNN, MSNBC, NYT and WaPo.
A general principle of law (and common sense) holds that one can commit a wrong to prevent
a greater wrong. The greater wrong is Biden juicing Ukraine. The lesser wrong is Trump making
a suggestion to re-open investigation on him despite the fact that he is Trump's possible
political opponent in 2020 elections(actually Biden is an ideal opponent for Trump so taking
him out is an extremely stupid move), albeit at best Trump signature mafioso-like bulling
manner.
Citing Tulsi Gabbard recent interview by FOXNews :
"'I have been consistent in saying that I believe that impeachment in this juncture would
be terribly divisive for our country at a time when we are already extremely divided,'
Gabbard explained. 'Hyper-partisanship is one of the things that's driving our country
apart.'
"'I think it's important to defeat Donald Trump. That's why I'm running for president, but
I think it's the American people who need to make their voices heard, making that decision,'
she said.
Regardless of how you feel about Gabbard, you have to give her credit on this front.
America is extremely divided today. This impeachment on false premises saga is just another
example of Dems role in widening this division and endangering the political stability in the
country.
"... The first casualty of Pelosi's cause is almost certain to be the front-runner for the party nomination. Joe Biden has already, this past week, fallen behind Senator Elizabeth Warren in Iowa, New Hampshire, and California. ..."
"... By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured that the questionable conduct of Biden and son Hunter will be front and center for the next four months before Iowa votes. ..."
"... What did Joe do? By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president, he ordered then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forego a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee that Kiev needed to stay current on its debts. ..."
"... There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor or forego the loan guarantee. Why was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to be threatened with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor whom all of Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt? ..."
"... This is bad news for the Biden campaign. And the principal beneficiary of Pelosi's decision that put Joe and Hunter Biden at the center of an impeachment inquiry is, again, Warren. ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
"... the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat Party have wanted Warren as their standard bearer on the belief that Biden is "yesterday" and that the rest of the field is either too loony (O'Rourke), nondescript (Booker) or -- potentially -- too corrupt (Harris).. ..."
"... Warren is the most pro-establishment candidate of all the non-establishment candidates, that is true ..."
"... Roughly 37% of Americans love Trump and will never change their mind. On the other side there are 38% who already supported impeachment based on previous investigations. That leaves 25% of Americans who are likely to be swayed one way or the other over this. In any case, those 25% are unlikely to be on this website. ..."
"... It'll be interesting to see what the voter turnout will be in 2020. 2016 --one of the most pivotal and controversial elections in modern times--saw 42% of the electorate stay home. This was a shockingly high numbter, little noted in the press. If you tack on the 6% who voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, that would mean that 48% of the electorate--nearly half--did NOT vote for either Trump or Clinton. ..."
"... Well, given that Trump has already released the transcript and Zelensky has already confirmed there were no pressure in their conversation plus said that Hunter's case is to be investigated by the AG, any impeachment hearings can only be damaging to those who decide to go further with them, because, as it turns out, there is no basis for such hearings and they were started a year before the election, showing what those who started them think regarding their own chances to win. ..."
Even before seeing the transcript of the July 25 call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,
Nancy Pelosi threw the door wide open to impeachment.
Though the transcript did not remotely justify the advanced billing of a "quid pro quo," Pelosi set in motion a process that is
already producing a sea change in the politics of 2020.
The great Beltway battle for the balance of this year, and perhaps next, will be over whether the Democrats can effect a coup
against a president many of them have never recognized as legitimate and have sought to bring down since before he took the oath
of office.
Pelosi on Tuesday started this rock rolling down the hill.
She has made impeachment, which did not even come up in the last Democratic debate, the issue of 2020. She has foreclosed bipartisan
compromise on gun control, the cost of prescription drugs, and infrastructure. She has put her and her party's fate and future on
the line.
With Pelosi's assent that she is now open to impeachment, she turned what was becoming a cold case into a blazing issue. If the
Democrats march up impeachment hill, fail, and fall back, or if they vote impeachment only to see the Senate exonerate the president,
that will be the climactic moment of Pelosi's career. She is betting the future of the House, and her party's hopes of capturing
the presidency, on the belief that she and her colleagues can persuade the country to support the indictment of a president for high
crimes.
One wonders: do Democrats, blinded by hatred of Trump, ever wonder how that 40 percent of the nation that sees him as the repository
of their hopes will react if, rather than beat him at the ballot box, they remove him in this way?
The first casualty of Pelosi's cause is almost certain to be the front-runner for the party nomination. Joe Biden has already,
this past week, fallen behind Senator Elizabeth Warren in Iowa, New Hampshire, and California. The Quinnipiac poll has her taking
the lead nationally for the nomination, with Biden dropping into second place for the first time since he announced his candidacy.
By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured that the questionable conduct of Biden
and son Hunter will be front and center for the next four months before Iowa votes.
What did Joe do? By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president, he ordered then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko
to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forego a $1 billion
U.S. loan guarantee that Kiev needed to stay current on its debts.
Biden insists the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt, that Hunter had done no wrong, that he himself was unaware of his son's business
ties. All these assertions have been contradicted or challenged.
There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor or forego the loan guarantee. Why
was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to be threatened with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor
whom all of Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt?
Whatever the truth of the charges, the problem here is that any investigation of the potential corruption of Hunter Biden, and
of the role of his father, the former vice president, in facilitating it, will be front and center in presidential politics between
now and New Hampshire.
This is bad news for the Biden campaign. And the principal beneficiary of Pelosi's decision that put Joe and Hunter Biden at the
center of an impeachment inquiry is, again, Warren.
Warren already appears to have emerged victorious in her battle with Bernie Sanders to become the progressives' first choice in
2020. And consider how, as she is rising, her remaining opposition is fast fading.
Senator Kamala Harris has said she is moving her campaign to Iowa for a do-or-die stand in the first battleground state. Senator
Cory Booker has called on donors to raise $1.7 million in 10 days, or he will have to pack it in. As Biden, Sanders, Harris, and
Booker fade, and "Mayor Pete" Buttigieg hovers at 5 or 6 percent in national and state polls, Warren steadily emerges as the probable
nominee.
One measure of how deeply Biden is in trouble, whether he is beginning to be seen as too risky, given the allegations against
him and his son, will be the new endorsements his candidacy receives after this week of charges and countercharges.
If there is a significant falling off, it could be fatal.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided
America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit
the Creators website at www.creators.com.
They would be, if it were Sanders to get the nomination. Warren's chances are, obviously, better than Biden's - anyone's, save
for complete fringe wackos, are - but, if they really wanted to win, they would need Sanders. Or, even better, Gabbard. But Sanders
is too independent, dangerously so, and Gabbard is an outright enemy of their totalitarian cult. Hence, they pick Warren, who
might be vaaaaaaaaaaguely considered Sanders-lite. But lite is not enough against someone like Trump. Or, even worse for them,
they resort to all possible and impossible machinations to still get Biden nominated. It'll be a screaming mistake, but it's not
excluded at all, given how easily the've just been lured into a trap.
Happened to tune in to Rush Limbaugh yesterday just as he was saying that Pelosi's motivation to spin the wheels was at least
in part to kill two birds with one stone--Trump AND Biden. Mehhh...maybe, but it's been clear from the beginning that the Movers
and Shakers in the Democrat Party have wanted Warren as their standard bearer on the belief that Biden is "yesterday" and that
the rest of the field is either too loony (O'Rourke), nondescript (Booker) or -- potentially -- too corrupt (Harris)..
Warren is the most pro-establishment candidate of all the non-establishment candidates, that is true . Incrowd-lite.
Bernie of course is the big unknown. Will he prevail over Warren?
If this scandal sinks Biden and Trump together, the Dems will come out ahead because they are not committed to Biden as their
nominee. I think Warren will be the biggest net winner. My prediction is that we see an impeachment with the Senate voting on
party lines to acquit. That could still be very damaging to Trump's election chances, if the portion of the public who dislikes
Trump decide that he abused his power.
Roughly 37% of Americans love Trump and will never change their mind. On the other side there are
38% who already supported impeachment based on previous investigations. That leaves 25% of Americans who are likely to be
swayed one way or the other over this. In any case, those 25% are unlikely to be on this website.
The main question, other than whether there is something damning that shows up, is whether the majority of voters think a quid
pro quo is necessary for corruption to be an impeachable offense. It is required in a criminal bribery conviction, but impeachment
isn't a criminal trial. Is the president using a diplomatic call to pressure a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political
rivals something the 25% will be okay with? If they believe the story of Biden's corruption, will they see that as justification
for using a diplomatic talk to push for an investigation into it? Will moderate voters who have a high opinion of Biden from the
his time as Vice President view this as an unfair attack on him or will they change their view of him to match Trump's narrative?
Biden is in a tough spot, because he will be smeared here whether he is guilty or not. Trump is very good as slinging mud to
distract from his actions. And most Americans are very unlikely to parse through the information overload to figure out whether
the fired prosecutor is corrupt, whether the decision to fire him came from Joe or the state department/UK/EU/local protest, whether
Hunter Biden was qualified for the job with his ivy law degree/experience on corp boards/previous consulting experience, and whether
the investigation into Burisma was actuall ongoing when Shokin was fired. Who has time to read through everything and figure out
which side is manufacturing a controversy?
But if Biden decides to go down a Martyr, it wouldn't be difficult for him to take Trump with him.
It'll be interesting to see what the voter turnout will be in 2020. 2016 --one of the most pivotal and controversial elections
in modern times--saw 42% of the electorate stay home. This was a shockingly high numbter, little noted in the press. If you tack
on the 6% who voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, that would mean that 48% of the electorate--nearly half--did NOT vote for
either Trump or Clinton.
These numbers are ominous and do not bode well for the future of this thing of ours.
Well, given that Trump has already released the transcript and Zelensky has already confirmed there were no pressure in their
conversation plus said that Hunter's case is to be investigated by the AG, any impeachment hearings can only be damaging
to those who decide to go further with them, because, as it turns out, there is no basis for such hearings and they were
started a year before the election, showing what those who started them think regarding their own chances to win. If Democrats
want to cut losses, they should stop it now and, using military terms, regroup immediately, nominating Gabbard who consistently
opposed this stillborn impeachment stupidity. But something makes me think they won't. Their visceral hatred to an anti-war candidate
like her is simply too strong.
I think you are missing that Trump's lawyers can subpoena people and drag up a lot of dirt on the Democrats too. I think it can
go both ways.
Still Warren can be tough for Trump. She is not tainted by Clinton. She is a chameleon; will sound sufficiently WASP in New
England and sufficiently woke in California and new York. If Buttgig becomes her sidekick he can get all the gays on-board.
You're missing one thing about Warren: she's a wonk. And she actually has some good ideas alongside the more crazy ones. Even
Tucker Carlson praised her book.
But Warren is an absolute stiff. Zero charisma. Like Kerry or Gore on their very worst day. And in this day and age, where
the only thing that counts for the overwhelming majority of low information voters are soundbites and how telegenic you come off
in a debate, someone like Trump will chew her up and spit her out for breakfast.
Warren? OK. I don't see how she could be any worse than Trump. Plus, we might not feel like we were snorkeling in a cesspool all
the time, like we do now.
Literally every progressive I know save one is team Warren. I think there might be an age divide. Progressives under thirty are
more likely to be for Sanders, and over thirty for Warren.
I have no idea what will happen with the election. But if Trump wins it after the Dems have done nothing for four years except
impeach him - every day is going to be like Christmas.
I sincerely hope that Trump is right in thinking that Biden is his biggest threat, because this affair is going to ensure Warren
is the nominee. I think a lot of proggy Dems know this as well, which partly explains their enthusiasm for impeachment at this
particular moment (not that they haven't been itching for this since November 8, 2016).
I agree Biden and Bernie are toast but Warren is far from a sure thing. Of all the democratic candidates Tulsi is the most attractive
in more ways than one and I could see Tulsi appealing to the many Trump voters who voted for him because he claimed to be non-interventionist
only to discover he is a war-pig like the rest of them. Imagine Tulsi in a debate with Trump! If not Tulsi I would bet another
high profile Dem will enter the race because Warren is un-electable and I would not be surprised to see Hillary get in the race
at the last minute. American's love re-matches and come-back stories.
In breaking news: Pelosi has just revealed who was behind all this. It's Cardinal Richelieu Russians again.
Does the girl even understand that, by saying so, she's, basically, stating that she's the chief Russian agent out there, because
she was the one who initiated that freak show?
Jesus Harold Christ, what a travelling circus. And this passes for a parliament these days.
Ukrainegate is Watergate in reverse. The farcical impeachment unintentionally acts as a foil, amplifying the significance of the
Ukraine stories in the press (John Solomon, Andrew McCarthy) which reveal a culture of corruption and venality permeating the
Democratic leadership: the Clintons, the Bidens, the DNC, the current Democratic caucus, and the entire deep state remnants of
the obama administration. We haven't seen election interference like this since the Watergate break-in and coverup. This impeachment
is the coup-de-grâce of the Democratic Party not just Biden. The Democrat faithful now have a choice between Scylla and Charybdis
- self-proclaimed socialists with a tenuous hold on reality, or the discredited establishment. As an old-school Democrat, I can
only hope that Trump buries them in 2020, so that the Democrats finally get the message and return to their pre-Clinton roots.
It is insane to pursue impeachment this late in a divisive President's mandate. The Democrats should spend their efforts selecting
a moderate nominee that doesn't show signs of cognitive decline (Only candidate that matches these requirements is Tulsi Gabbard.
) rather than make Trump a "victim" in the eyes of many.
Drama Don is doing a good enough job himself to make sure that the Democrats win in 2020. "Trump fatigue" is going to be the
most used expression next fall if Trump runs. If Trump is pushed out before the election, the Republicans may choose a charismatic
new nominee who actually has a chance to win in 2020. The biggest asset that the Democrats have in 2020 is Trump.
Somebody, somewhere, had decided that Democrats stand little chance with Biden, because he is so old and gaffe prone. So they
have put their money on Warren. Warren will choose Buttigieg as VP candidate, primarily because they want all that gay billionaire
money flowing in. At the same time, they tick the SJW boxes -woman, gay candidates, so the left will love them. The fix is in.
Hence the stupid "impeachment " controversy, which is obviously a sham to knock Biden out.
I voted for Trump, not as a Republican because I despise both political parties. I voted for him based on the need for a nationalist
trade policy, and especially because I was so against the TPP --and President Trump rewarded me for that vote his first week in
office by pulling the US out of TPP negotiations. Also I have great respect for you, Mr. Buchanan, and learned much from the 3
of your books I've read and recommended to others. But it looks like President Trump has been using his office for personal political
gain, so I am sorry to admit I support the impeachment investigation to bring the facts to light and make a judgement of whether
it is true he used the office to solicit a foreign country to help undermine his political opponent. But even before this, I'd
decided I will not vote for him again, mainly because I have become alarmed at the looming climate crisis, and believe we need
urgent policy towards full decarbonization of the global energy economy. But that doesn't motivate me to support the impeachment
inquiry, a path I hate and regret...but it seems there is no other way to demand the President not abuse his office and manipulate
foreign governments to help his political career. That is no patriot, that is corrupt and an embarrassment to our nation.
"...effect a coup against a president many of them have never seen as legitimate and have sought to bring down since before he
took the oath of office."
Every single word of that describes the Republicans in Congress during the eight years Obama was president. Every single syllable.
Remember that birth certificate? And remember that Dick Tracy villain, Pocket-Neck McConnell, an excrescence that still infects
us, standing up and actually saying, with a straight face, "Our ONLY goal is to make Obama a one-term president." Never mind an
economy that was in free-fall, right Mitch? Or a couple of bothersome wars going on?
And what about how, for the very first time in history, Standard and Poor's downgraded America's credit rating, all because
of completely meaningless Republican obstruction about the debt ceiling? And when I say completely meaningless, I mean completely
meaningless. Now, under Trump, the deficit is approaching a trillion, and those very same Republicans couldn't give a hoot.
It's all in the great 2012 book, It's Even Worse Than it Looks, by Ornstein and Mann. We've had partisanship and gridlock before.
But what was new is how the Republicans behaved under Obama: they treated him as completely illegitimate from the word go, and
absolutely refused to work with him under any and all circumstances. The stimulus, which by the way saved the entire world economy
from complete meltdown, didn't get a single Republican vote.
But Republicans can feel proud of one thing: their disgusting, scorched-earth, win-at-all-costs tactics are now business-as-usual
in Washington. Probably for all time. Nice going, guys.
Warren is the best candidate to defeat Trump. She is super smart ,honest and works hard as heck for the non 1% to get more of
a fair shake. If she softens her hard left positions she could be a great candidate
A general principle of law (and common sense) holds that one can commit a wrong to prevent a
greater wrong.
The greater wrong is Biden juicing Ukraine. The lesser wrong is Trump making a suggestion, albeit with a mafioso-like subtext.
That's always been a source of puzzlement/astonishment for me given Trump's stated hatred
for all things Obama and vow to drain the swamp -- particularly the holdovers at Justice,
where you had Comey's daughter as the lead prosecutor against Epstein, amongst other notable
examples.
I see Judicial Watch has filed what appears to be a FOIA lawsuit against the Trump
State Department seeking documents
over firing of Biden-Ukraine prosecutor and explains the situation in a 2.5min video that
I can't fault. THis begs the question: Why is Trump"s DoS stonewalling what ought to be seen
as an ally in this affair? More Obama holdovers?
@ Sorghum 49 Judge Naploanito said on Fox that what Trump did was undeniably a crime.
Actually, it is deniable.
from Roll Call
The Justice Department has decided that President Donald Trump did not cross a legal line
in his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. The department said its
review of the call -- in which Trump asked Ukraine to "do us a favor" and talk to his
personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr about opening a potential
corruption investigation connected to Trump's main political rival -- did not find a "thing
of value" that could be quantified as campaign finance law requires. Opposition research can
be a "thing of value" and therefore a potential crime, election law experts said, but the
term is not well defined and has not been fully tested in court. Some experts backed the
Justice Department view on legal grounds; some didn't. . . here
Public Law 107-155 amended amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide
bipartisan
campaign reform. The law places requirements on the collection and disbursement of funds, as
in SEC. 303. STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN which inserts the following language:
(a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
``(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--
``(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or
implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or
local election;
``(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
``(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering
communication (within the meaning of section 304(f)(3)); or
``(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution donation described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.'' . . here
Nowhere in the law is there any control put upon information. The law is about money, with
only a brief mention of "other thing of value" under the general category of money.
The fact Trump "burned " the official transcript tells you all you need to know.
Not that Biden is clean. Dems are handing the reelection to Trump on a silver platter as
the illuminist leaders controlling both parties have commanded. A failed impeachment attempt
is exactly what Trump wants since Biden will go down in flames. His Ukraine baggage should
have ruled him out from the start. They might as well have just run Hillary again but then it
would have been even more transparent that they have no intention of trying to win.
Like I say, its all fake wrestling, the outcome is decided in advance. What follows is
scripted entertainment to keep people from discussing the real issues (not that the majority
even know what those issues are living as they do in the false reality that has been created
for them)
This "Trump is a traitor" garbage is so preposterous that my interest in it was beginning to
wane. But last night an International News 'outlet' broadcast a snippet of the fact-free
dross and drivel from the mouths of his Dem accusers. It soon became obvious that the blather
was a virtual carbon copy of the emotive claptrap deployed to accuse Saddam Hussein of
heinous imaginary crimes in order to justify bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age.
So if anyone wants to get a handle on the course of this Star Chamber style witch-hunt
just cast your mind back to that sorry episode of AmeriKKKan "History".
The Dems are trying to paint Trump as the New, Improved, Saddam Hussein. And, as was the
case with Saddam, no made-up fact or outrageous lie will be "off the table". It's started
already.
More evidence that Hunter Biden was on the Burisma board as a US, just not of the
intelligence services. Per Wikipedia, Hunter Biden served on the President's advisory council
of the National Democratic Institute (NDI,) a subsidiary of the National Endowment for
Democracy (NED). NED was formed after the CIA was stripped of its authority to pursue regime
change.
It is frequently asserted that NED's mandate includes regime change and color revolutions.
From that perch, Hunter Biden could have had intimate, inside knowledge of the Ukrainian
coup.
In the aftermath of the coup, Hunter Biden got appointed to the board of the strategically
important Burisma energy company. IMO this appointment was not an 'ethical lapse,' a bug, but
rather a feature. The US likes to have trusted assets in place at major, foreign energy
companies.
From this position, Hunter Biden would have easily been able to befriend powerful
Ukrainians, the kind of people would could have helped concoct and affirm whatever Russian
narrative that US leaders desired.
Pelosi on Tuesday started this rock rolling down the hill.
She has made impeachment, which did not even come up in the last Democratic debate, the
issue of 2020. She has foreclosed bipartisan compromise on gun control, the cost of
prescription drugs and infrastructure. She has just put her own and her party's fate and future
on the line.
With Pelosi's assent that she is now open to impeachment, she turned what was becoming a
cold case into a blazing issue. If the Democrats march up impeachment hill, fail and fall back,
or if they vote impeachment only to see the Senate exonerate the president, that will be the
climactic moment of Pelosi's career. She is betting the future of the House, and her party's
hopes of capturing the presidency, on the belief she and her colleagues can persuade the
country to support the indictment of a president for high crimes.
One wonders: Do Democrats blinded by hatred of Trump ever wonder how that 40% of the nation
that sees him as the repository of their hopes will react if, rather than beat him at the
ballot box, they remove him in this way?
The first casualty of Pelosi's cause is almost certain to be the front-runner for the party
nomination. Joe Biden has already, this past week, fallen behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren in Iowa,
New Hampshire and California. The Quinnipiac poll has her taking the lead nationally for the
nomination, with Biden dropping into second place for the first time since he announced his
candidacy.
By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured
that the questionable conduct of Biden and son Hunter Biden will be front and center for the
next four months before Iowa votes.
What did Joe do? By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president he ordered
then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating
the company that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forgo a $1 billion U.S. loan
guarantee that Kiev needed to stay current on its debts.
Biden insists the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt, that Hunter had done no wrong, that he
himself was unaware of his son's business ties.
All these assertions have been contradicted or challenged.
There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor
or forgo the loan guarantee. Why was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to
be threatened by the U.S. with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor whom all of
Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt?
Whatever the truth of the charges, the problem here is that any investigation of potential
corruption of Hunter Biden, and of the role of his father, the former vice president, in
facilitating it, will be front and center in presidential politics between now and New
Hampshire.
This is bad news for the Biden campaign. And the principal beneficiary of Pelosi's decision
that put Joe and Hunter Biden at the center of an impeachment inquiry is, again, Warren.
Warren already appears to have emerged victorious in her battle with Bernie Sanders to
become the progressives' first choice in 2020. And consider how, as she is rising, her
remaining opposition is fast fading.
Sen. Kamala Harris has said she is moving her campaign to Iowa for a do-or-die stand in the
first battleground state. Sen. Cory Booker has called on donors to raise $1.7 million in 10
days, or he will have to pack it in. As Biden, Sanders, Harris and Booker fade, and "Mayor
Pete" Buttigieg hovers at 5 or 6% in national and state polls, Warren steadily emerges as the
probable nominee.
One measure of how deeply Biden is in trouble, whether he is beginning to be seen as too
risky, given the allegations against him and his son, will be the new endorsements his
candidacy receives after this week of charges and countercharges.
If there is a significant falling off, it could be fatal.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and
Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
In his phone call with Zelensky, President Trump mentioned two subjects in particular which
are Kryptonite to the Democrats: Crowdstrike and "the server," meaning the DNC server which
was never forensically examined by the FBI. Pulling on these two threads may be even more
interesting than the stuff about the big-bucks shakedowns of foreign governments by Joe Biden
& Son, Inc. Just for starters: what the fcuk is the DNC server doing in Ukraine?
I now think that someone on the Trump team did this leak. It only helps him. The dirt on
Biden was public, but ignored by the corporate media. Now they are forced to report it to
attack Trump, and it makes Dems look corrupt. Big media spins this, but not true leftists
like Jimmy Dore and others with millions of followers.
I'm writing from Athens, Greece, where the Greek language media, along with most other
European non-English language media, have tracked the Hunter Biden story since 2014 –
the unashamed and unabashed nepotism, corruption and conflict of interest of his appointment
to Burisma, and the subsequent trail of arrests in Ukraine for drugs, prostitution, drunk
driving. Burisma itself is not a pretty story, and by being headquartered in Cyprus it of
course evades Ukrainian taxes.
All this is an old story here.
It is satisfying, given the outrages that have been forced on the Ukrainian people, to have
at least one tiny part of this horrible mess brought to light. For us it is immaterial who
does this good thing.
The fact that the Ukrainian prosecutor intended to prosecute despite Washington's
domination speaks to his honesty. Only the compradore "elites" of Europe would pretend
anything different – for Washington's sake.
Meanwhile one can only marvel at the Democrat party: surely they realise they are only
shooting themselves in the foot. Worse, what if it leads to the unveiling of other Obama era
crimes?
Biden insists the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt, that Hunter had done no wrong, that he
himself was unaware of his son's business ties.
All these assertions have been contradicted or challenged".
This is par the "American" course. This attitude of ordering other nations interface with
many unrelated areas . America vouch for their honesty integrity and love for rule of law,
desire for woman's lib , peace, democracy and open business as the reasons for them to
liberate Iraq ,sanction Iran, topple Basher ,kill foreign leaders ,impose IMF on Libya or
Pakistan and displace tribals from Amazon or Ganges ,or dismantle welfare stems in Venezuela
or India.
Biden just made this personal.
Whats wrong with this?
Just as Biden knows that he was aware of the business and the corruption so was America
that Taliban did nit attack USA and Saddam did not carry out 911 or conduct any WMD or CW
tests .
Biden was bombastic. So was America in 2003.
Chicken coming home to roost . But the home has been usurped also by latinos blacks
immigrants and by the climate change.
Good one. She's gotta be next to get defrocked, a phony progressive Wall Street war hawk.
Only not so soon that a limp Biden zombie could rise again.
TULSI Gabbard = A Thinly Veiled Threat to Israel
This speech was about Saudi Arabia, but the Israel Lobby has to get a cold chill at the
thought of a US military that ONLY DEFENDS AMERICA. "Our military exists to defend America -- not the radical Islamist dictatorship of Saudi
Arabia"
@yetagain
We all enjoy Trump, and I hope the enjoyment lasts another few years, because there is a lot
of roach-infested curtains and termite-infested walls to be torn down by the bumbling
mastodont.
(And, bugger me sideways, La Pelosi looks like something out of a Disney "Ghosts of the
Carribean" amusement park ride, what's going on?)
@anonymous
Dems are in a bind on this one. I think the DNC orchestrated the leak to take out Biden who
is clearly losing it. But Biden's strength was his "so called" pro-labor appeal, and there's
no one to take up that mantle. "So Called" because Biden sold out labor on the TPP with China
in exchange for $1.5 Billion to Hunter.
The replacement is the problem. Warren ain't it. Watch the Fake News Media and see who
they start promoting. Yes Warren can win the primary, but free medical to illegals means
she's toast.
@JamesD
Justice Kennedy – who decreed the change in legal marriage – was another
Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh clerked before helping President Cheney with
the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was
the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
Like the "federal" elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4
decrees of the Court, the nail-biting confirmation hearings are another part of the show that
keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people in
Washington. Mr. Buchanan for years has been proclaiming each The Most Important Ever.
I'm still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of
its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of
Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my
lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate
Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other
"foreign policy" waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment's
shepherding and fleecing of the people.
Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to enforce the
Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed from time to
time in a dissenting Justice's opinion, but that ends the discussion other than in the
context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y. Those of us outside the
Beltway are told to tune in and root Red. And there are pom pom shakers and color
commentators just like Mr. Buchanan for Team Blue.
@anon
No democrat votes will be cast for months, yet Pat and other pundits are already saying that
Pocahontas Warren will be their nominee. Tulsi raised the question of Warren's lack of
qualifications to be Commander-in-Chief (the most important job of any president). The media
and the DNC are trying to bury Tulsi, just as the RNC tried to do the same with Trump –
and we know how that turned out. The DNC failed this time to cheat her out of her rightful
place in the upcoming debate, which must make phoneys like Warren scared to death. Don't
count Tulsi out. Americans are sick unto death of constant war.
Another point was CrowdStrike, hired by Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the last
election to analyze an infiltration of DNC email networks. He asked if the CrowdStrike servers
are in Ukraine.
"Trump: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a
lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this
whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike I guess you have one of your wealthy
people The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole
situation."
"Zelenskiy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted
to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old
politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type
of government You are a great teacher for us and in that."
"Zelenskiy: Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near
Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them
again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United
States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to assure you that we will
be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation."
Zelensky was applying the tried and true formula of flattering Trump until he agrees to
fulfill a request. The summary of the conversation is quite limited, and US Congress asked for
the whistleblower complaint to also be unclassified.
US House Of Representatives Launched Impeachment Inquiry Against President Donald
Trump
Donate
US Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi
On September 24 th , US Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi
announced that Democrats are launching an impeachment inquiry against US President Donald
Trump.
"The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law," she said.
The reasoning behind the proceedings are the unconfirmed news reports that Trump pressured
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky into
"digging dirt" on Democratic Presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden and
his son.
"Today I'm announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official
impeachment inquiry," Pelosi said.
This marks the fourth time in US history a president has faced impeachment.
Trump allegedly used $250 million in military aid to Ukraine as a bargaining chip into
forcing the Ukrainian side provide contact with a whistleblower.
This is quite similar to allegations against Joe Biden, back when he was vice president of
holding financial aid to Kiev until the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was released from his
post. He allegedly was about to launch an investigation into a business, which Hunter Biden,
Joe Biden's son had a stake in.
Nancy Pelosi had repeatedly resisted calls to being impeachment inquiries, but a breaking
point appears to have been reached.
"This week, the president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions
which would benefit him politically," Pelosi said. "The actions of the Trump presidency
revealed dishonorable facts of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of
national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections."
Trump "admitting" is rather vague, as he said he had spoke to Zelensky, and had mentioned
Biden, but nothing else he is being accused of. The Ukrainian side, on several occasions, also
said that there was no pressure and refused to acknowledge the topic of Joe Biden had
arisen.
"You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike
Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo!" Trump tweeted.
Ever since the inquiry was announced Trump has gone to Twitter claiming that this was
"Presidential harassment" and a "total Witch Hunt," since Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and Maxine
Waters had "never even saw the transcript" of the call between Trump and Zelensky.
Trump said that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had received permission from the Ukrainian
government to release the transcript of the call, to prove that nothing illicit had taken
place.
He initially said that he wouldn't authorize the release of the transcript, but has since
come round.
Republicans rushed to defend Trump in various interviews, saying that the Democrats were
desperate and scrambling to construct any narrative and theme, after the complete failure of
Russiagate.
Critics have said the transcript, on its own, is insufficient to settle the matter.
"The release of the transcript is necessary but far from sufficient," said Ned Price, a
National Security Council spokesman in the Obama White House. "At its heart, this is about an
urgent, credible whistleblower complaint involving 'multiple actions.' The law says Congress
must be provided with it. This will remain a cover-up until that happens."
The transcript's release may be followed by testimony from the whisteblower, Rep. Adam
Schiff said.
"We're in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower's testimony as soon as
this week," Schiff tweeted.
Whether this would actually lead to impeachment is unknown, and also rather unlikely, since
chances are the Democrats are more likely shooting themselves in the foot by trying to stir yet
another scandal. The entire situation may backfire, since Trump is being accused of
specifically the same thing that Biden was accused of doing years ago.
"... "During the Ukraine cries in 2014-15, Chris Steele had a number of commercial clients who were asking him for reports on what was going on in Russia, what was going on in Ukraine, what was going on between them." --Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... More information on Hunter Biden. He served on the President's Advisory Council of the National Democratic Institute (NDI), a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up after Congress banned the CIA from pursuing regime change. A lot of the coordination and assistance for the Ukraine coup probably passed through that 'non-profit.' Joe Biden was Obama's point person, and Hunter Biden was probably Joe's eyes, ears, and gopher at NDI. ..."
"... As a side benefit, Hunter Biden would have been in an excellent position, both from his work at NDI and at Burisma, to meet the movers and shakers in post-coup Ukraine and coordinate disinformation campaigns as needed. The Ukrainians would have been eager to help as the solvency of the country depended on US loans. ..."
"During the Ukraine cries in 2014-15, Chris Steele had a number of commercial clients who
were asking him for reports on what was going on in Russia, what was going on in Ukraine,
what was going on between them." --Victoria Nuland.
More information on Hunter Biden. He served on the President's Advisory Council of the
National Democratic Institute (NDI), a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy,
which was set up after Congress banned the CIA from pursuing regime change. A lot of the
coordination and assistance for the Ukraine coup probably passed through that 'non-profit.'
Joe Biden was Obama's point person, and Hunter Biden was probably Joe's eyes, ears, and
gopher at NDI.
Immediately after the coup, Hunter was appointed to the board of the strategically
critical Burisma energy company, Ukraine's largest producer of natural gas. From what I have
seen, the US likes to have its assets sit on the Board of strategically critically energy
companies.
And is Ukraine ever strategically important!!! Apart from the fact the Russian pipelines
pass through the country, "Ukraine has an estimated 42 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of
technically recoverable shale gas reserves, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA), ranking its deposits as the fourth largest in Europe." https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Ukraine_and_fracking
Again, Hunter Biden's appointment would not have been by chance. He would have been put
there to once again to be Joe Biden's eyes, ears, and gopher.
As a side benefit, Hunter Biden would have been in an excellent position, both from his
work at NDI and at Burisma, to meet the movers and shakers in post-coup Ukraine and
coordinate disinformation campaigns as needed. The Ukrainians would have been eager to help
as the solvency of the country depended on US loans.
So are we about to witness the first color revolution on US soil? Could be
This is an extract from a tweet linked over at Xymphora's Sept 26 post..
The Biden corruption story is not one invented by Trump. In fact, it was covered by the
NY Times last May. And it includes a roster of not just the Biden family but Obama, Clinton
& Kerry sycophants getting rich in Ukraine as well. This is horrifying.
I'm not a NYT subscriber but it's probably worth a subscriber's time to search NYT May,
2019 archive for Biden/Ukraine stories...
"Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine? Did
he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's employer?
Has the U.S. public an interest in knowing the answers to these questions?"
All worthy of investigation, but not an investigation by Ukraine.
A mayor untruth easily identifiable in the "whistleblower complaint" is that the guy claims
that Trump tried to pressure Z into keeping the prosecutor general Lutsenko who he "praised"
and who came up with "allegations" involving Biden etc.
If you read the phone call memo it is obvious that Trump is praising Shokhin, the
prosecutor general fired by Porky on behalf of Biden. And Z tells Trump that he will put in
"100% my guy" as new prosecutor general (replacing Lutsenko), to which Trump has no objection
at all.
So this is bollocks heard through the grapevine at best.
the fraudulent Muellergate investigation was closed the day before, so Trump could not be
accused of obstructing an ongoing "investigation"
Posted by: BM | Sep 26 2019 18:08 utc
Waiving off questions as "evil" is not answering them. Actually it was the tactics that
"fraudulent Muellergate" adepts are using for all the years, it suits them fine, but does not
suit those annoying critics.
Trump was anyway accused of obstruction whatever he does and does not. And while i cam see
how inqueries into DNC hack cultists from Crowdstrike can be seen interfering with
Muellergate, why did not he inquieried into Burisma Holdings earlier?
It's obvious enough so far that anyone who's been nurturing a strong belief that Trump
needs to be, or ought to be, removed from office ASAP are predisposed to take every
"bombshell" and "smoking gun" at face value.
This faction is not limited to acute TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) sufferers, who
regard Trump as a foul and villanous Usurper who (with the help of the corrupt or decadent
Electoral College) heinously blocked Empress-in-Waiting Clinton from ascending to her
rightful place on the Oval Office Throne.
It also includes self-identified "progressives" and would-be leftists who aren't
necessarily sympathetic towards Clinton and the Democratic Party, but buy into the notion
that since many of Trump's actions and policies in office, and/or his well-known history of
shady business dealings, establish that he is so obviously a man of "high crimes and
misdemeanors" that he is indeed unfit for office and ripe for impeachment.
Some "alternative" news/opinion journalists and pundits either share or implicitly condone
an attitude of, "Well, the Zelensky call is just the latest in a series of fairly flimsy
frames. But, hey, Trump is manifestly a war criminal and self-serving Mafia-type
über-gangster, so he certainly deserves to be impeached." They seem oblivious or
indifferent to the noxious "the end justifies the means" element in this perspective.
Put another way, only persons already wearing Impeachment Goggles are ready, willing, and
able to see this latest Beltway/Ukraine imbroglio as-- at last!-- a clear-cut instance of
Trump "crossing the line" into High Crime territory.
I subscribe to the view that this is the institutional "Resistance"'s attempt to revive
the discredited and unpopular "Russian collusion" narrative by flipping it into a "Ukraine
skulduggery" narrative. Thus, as with the failed "Russian collusion" frame,
Impeachment-Goggle wearers vehemently insist on isolating an ostensible rotten tree or two,
while studiously ignoring the haunted forest.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether escalating this contretemps into an Official
Impeachment Inquiry will succeed in stampeding an ambivalent public into a wholesale disgust
with Trump that will destroy either his administration or his candidacy.
Despite the predictable high-minded rhetoric about upholding noble principles like the
Rule of Law, and "saving democracy", burying Trump's political career is the actual point of
the exercise.
b is quite right. It is amazing how widespread Trump Derangement Syndrome has become: Trump's
request to the Ukrainian President might have offended ultra-nationalist sentimentalists, but
it is both sensible and of interest.
Why did Biden's boy suddenly become worth hiring at $50000 per month? Does anyone NOT know
the answer?
The truth is that the Ukrainian fascists, put into power by the Democratic Party-at a cost of
billions to the US taxpayer- worked hard to make sure that their patron Hillary became
President. How hard is of interest to all.
I don't like Trump either but to suggest that these are impeachable offences is not only
wrong but stupid: the dirt sticking to Biden will spread around the whole party. It would be
a very bad tactical error for Sanders to go along with this nonsense the way he did with
Russiagate-its separated at birth twin. But he will. I expect that that is what Trump is
hoping for.
I have to disagree with B on this. Trump said multiple times in an interview that he would
accept information against an political opponent from an foreign government. Both Trump and
Giuliani have stated on video that the inquiry into Biden was political, not judicial.
Ariochiincorrect.
"If it has such interest why shouldn't the president concern himself with pushing the
Ukrainian president to investigate the issues?"
There are much better ways for one country to influence another's legal processes. When
Trump conducted his phone call with Zelensky, he stupidly said words that would end up in a
transcript and come back to haunt him, like currently is happening. It just points to the
inability of Trump's "advisers" to keep him in check.
Of course, one could say that this is all a calculated political strategy. We'll just
have to see how it plays out. And it is reasonable to see that Democrats have to follow the
evidence towards a possible impeachment. Otherwise they totally abdicate their role
conducting oversight. The executive branch in the U.S. has been accumulating more and more
power (and yes, even under Obama), and Congress is becoming less and less relevant as a
result. At some point it either has to rebalance, or the trend towards autocracy
continues.
And yes, there could be subterfuge in Clintonian circles tossing Biden out as red meat.
But he did do what he is implicated in, and his son Hunter took absolute advantage of his
father's position in the Obama admin when he got on the Board of Directors of Burma. His
position there was rife with corruption.
Good, strong argument, b! At the time, the Ukraine "government" in many respects was
merely an arm of the Obama Whitehouse/CIA cabal as communications and events clearly show.
Since Trump's election, that connection was deeply downgraded but not completely severed.
Then Zelensky was elected, and he needed to establish a positive relationship with his
ultimate master, Trump. The overtness of Giuliani's activities is a major plus, along with
the ineptitude of the DoJ holdovers from Obama in the Russiagate debacle, as well as the
Cases against Flynn & Rafiekian, the latter's having just been dismissed which ought to
be shared by Flynn. Then there's plenty of dirt to be mined from the Nuland "Fuck the EU"
tape that was never put to good use.
"Techno_Fog Consider this: the #Democrats are really freaking out because @realDonaldTrump
@POTUS
#AGBarr and #JohnDurham have caught on to the crimes of #Crowdstike and it's role in the
#RussiaHoax and #Spygate @KerriKupecDOJ, #FISAabuses, #NSA 4th Amendment violations."
That's a lot of meat for the grinder. I wrote yesterday that IMO it was too late for Trump
to deal with Hillary Clinton. Well, it looks like I was premature as this gets at the Clinton
Machine from another angle; and IMO, it's very much in the nation's interest to deal with the
law breaking and corruption of that bunch. There's so much corruption and unlawful activity
occurring now and in the past that its unraveling must begin somewhere if the citizenry is to
ever regain control of the federal government. No, I'm not extolling Trump; I am indicting
the Clintons, DNC, the Current Oligarchy, and all their minions.
Really good conversation that gets to the heart of the new UkraineGate that has morphed from
RussiaGate, that you will not hear on the corporate media.
" Biden's intervention smells of corruption or at least undue interference by a U.S. official
for personal reasons."
Such interventions are bad for many reasons. Law enforcement ideally is about the law and
not political gains. Heavy handed firing and hiring prosecutors according to whom they
managed to prosecute (preferably, political opponents) and whom they stayed away from
(preferably, political allies plus all kin and kith of the current people on top) is at best
frown upon. A more enlightened approach (semi-enlightened?) is to do it discreetly, without
bragging.
In case of "friendly, but heavy-handed" foreign pressure, lack of discretion turns the
obedient target to laughing stock. We should not begrudge Russians and "Russian speakers"
additional occasions for levity, but the morale among hapless Ukrainians surely took a
hit.
Biden's exploits were noted with some chortling a long time ago, but now there is a slew of
new articles like
----------
"To give or not to give"
One cannot envy the new president of independent* Ukraine. He has to choose between Joe
Biden (the most serious Democratic candidate) becoming his enemy, or Donald Trump, the
current president. If he finds kompromat (compromizing materials) on Biden and gives them to
Trump, Biden and his Democratic allies will become enemies, but if he fails, Trump will be an
enemy. [implications that alliance with Russia would not have such dire consequences]
Attack as the best form of defence is standard for the Dems. A psychatrist would call it
projection - projecting their own sins onto someone else.
Of course Hunter, Kerrry's stepson, the China fund, Burisma and most of all Uranium One are
highly corrupt deals.
Of course a deep state warrior would react by dragging these up, but probably just ending up
in a stalemate of accusations.
Trump stuck to his message - that working people have been screwed by the Dems and that he
would listen. It worked. It will work again, all this Dem fuss just means no one will bother
to ask what Trump has actually done for the working man.
Had Trump just asked about crowdstike, or corruption in general, or even the 2016
elections, he would have been in the clear but how is U.S. national security advanced by
specifically bringing in the Bidens?
Had Trump inquired about the Biden's after a Biden loss in the primary or the general
election was over, again, he would have been in the clear. But by asking about him prior to
these elections Trump used the Executive Branch to gain advantage over a political opponent.
This is what we call abuse of power.
Will he be removed from office, no, but it will be an extremely destructive fight in the
U.S. We deserve it. The trouble we have visited on others is now returning to us. We are
color revolutioning ourselves.
I titled this Götterdämmerung to signify how we in the U.S. are destroying each
other. In www.realclearpolitics.com I have never seen articles this contentious, even in the
Trump era.
Trump himself gave a solo press conference in New York, and he specifically called attention
to a CNN report from May
2019, which described how Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, and Patrick Leahy
pushed Ukraine's top prosecutor not to close four investigations perceived as critical to
then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe and made it appear as if US aid to Ukraine
was at stake.
"In four short years, Ukraine has made significant progress in building [democratic]
institutions despite ongoing military, economic, and political pressure from Moscow. We have
supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to
have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump."
"Senator Chris Murphy literally threatened the president of Ukraine that if he doesn't do
things right, they won't have Democrat support in Congress," Trump added.
This was referring to a report by the Hill:
"I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American
politics," Murphy said,
according to The Hill . "I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the
President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would
gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and
Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them."
He finished his press conference by saying that Nancy Pelosi was no longer Speaker of the
House of Representatives.
Prior to the solo press conference, Trump and Zelensky met and sat at an awkward press
conference for approximately 15 minutes. He finished his press conference by saying that Nancy
Pelosi was no longer Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Prior to the solo press conference, Trump and Zelensky met and sat at an awkward press
conference for approximately 15 minutes.
Asked directly if he felt any pressure from Trump to investigate Biden, Zelensky hedged.
"I think you read everything. I think you read text," he said. "I -- I'm sorry, I don't want
to be involved in Democratic, open, elections -- elections of U.S.A. No, you heard. We had I
think good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things. So, I think, and you read
it, that nobody pushed. Pushed me."
Trump then added: "In other words: no pressure."
Later, he was asked if he wanted Zelensky to start an investigation into Biden, he alleged
the following:
"I want him to do whatever he can," Trump said of Zelensky. "Biden's son walks out of
Ukraine with millions and millions of dollars," Trump said. "I think it's a horrible thing, a
horrible thing."
During the conversation, Trump also urged Zelensky that he should resolve things with
Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump commended Zelensky for making "a lot of progress with
Russia," adding, it "would be nice to end that whole disaster."
Essentially, Zelensky, due to his non-existent political experience has landed himself in
the hottest of waters and now has no way to come out unscathed, with the scandal promising to
get much worse, before fading into oblivion.
Probably, one of the main concerns of Zelenksy is that in a fierce attempt to please Trump
he mocked EU leaders:
TRUMP: Well it's very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We
spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and
they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they
do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was
speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn't do anything. A lot of the
European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the
United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal
necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been
very very good to Ukraine.
ZELENSKY: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only. 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell
you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked
with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on
the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as
much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European
Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger
partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United
States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we
are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you
for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the
next steps. specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for
defense purposes.
It's interesting how Zelensky would explain this behaviour to Germany and France.
How much did their bank balances benefit from work in Ukraine? Or their childrens/step
childrens bank accounts?
Why do US politicians always go for the route that takes out the most civilians?
Whether it be, Biden and orders over in Ukraine, or Trump and orders over in Syria, why
is it always the civilians that they go after?
Joe Biden and Ukraine: A Quick Reminder
September 26, 2019Stalker Zone
...A quick reminder of what Joe Biden did during the collective West's 2014 coup in
Kiev
Biden insisted on capturing governmental and administrative buildings in the most violent
way, preferably with victims. In order to do this, there had to already be some
"symbolic" deaths. He cooked up and coordinated a scenario with other foreign embassies.
In addition, Maidan was dying and it needed extra fuel in order to remain alive. The
scenario involved "protestors" being shot by snipers. Biden's guys (Parubiy, Pashinsky,
Parasyuk) organised the massacre...
One interesting note not mentioned in the article was Zelensky's reaction when Trump
spoke badly about the US ambassador in Ukraine that he fired. Zelensky answered that he
was glad too as she was a Poroshenko supporter who didn't like him.
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was Porky's little pal, and a tool for the neocons,
Hillary and Democrat Party. She would have went berserk about Ukraine reopening an
investigation if she were still ambassador. Good riddance.
In the very first meeting she had with the (then new) Ukraine Prosecutor General
Lutsenko in 2016, she gave a list of Ukrainians whom he was NOT allowed to prosecute. If
he didn't obey, then his office was not going to get $4.4 million in assistance already
allocated from the US in 2014. The 'already allocated' part is important - the US Embassy
in Ukraine intercepted the money and illegally withheld it as a kind of bribe for the
Ukraine General Prosecutor's office to 'obey' the US Democrats demands. Who is it that
always accuses you of something they are guilty of?
Lutsenko, to his credit, told her to f'k off. Porky backed her , the US
Ambassador, not his own Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko. Everyone though Lutsenko
was nuts to piss of Porky at the time. But then Ukraine elected a comedian as president
and threw Porky's fat ass out of office. You just can't make this stuff up!
Oh, and f'ck Giuliani. Unfortunate that that slimeball is involved at all. But
anything that will expose the Democrat's organized crime and treason, I guess...
Trump should fire Rudy Guiliani, not let him go on talk shows, advertising that you
are using your Exec power to go after political opponents is beyond stupid, a lawyer
should no better. Biden isn't the only one who has lost his fast ball.
Yeah, I fealt sorry for Zelensky, it was obvious he had his beggars ball out. I
wouldn't want that call to be made public either but he's in a tight spot, he doesn't
have any cards to play. What is this obsession w/Javelin missiles, how many tank attacks
has Ukraine had to repel, I'd say about 0.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky said at a meeting Wednesday with President Donald
Trump that "nobody pushed me" to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. Speaking at a
bilateral meeting at the United Nations in New York, Zelensky said the phone call he had with
Trump in July, where Trump asked him to look into the former vice president and his son,
Hunter, was "normal." Trump repeated that there was "no pressure" on Zelensky but added that
the Ukrainian leader should do "whatever he can do in terms of corruption." Trump added,
without evidence, that the money Hunter Biden made while a board member of a Ukrainian company
constitutes corruption. The U.S. president also added, again with no evidence, that he believes
Hillary Clinton's emails that were deleted from her server could be in Ukraine. He also
defended his decision to involve his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani in the requests he made to
Ukraine. Guiliani does not have an official job at the White House.
Ukrainegate could be damaging to the Democrats as there is
evidence that it was the US-backed Kiev regime which helped seed political dirt on Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager.
Notable quotes:
"... With the “Russiagate” hoax proving to be the “most fraudulent political scandal in American history,” as Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen puts it, now we have emerging an alternative – “Ukrainegate”. ..."
"... Turns out now that Trump's telephone liaison was not with Putin, but rather Ukraine's Zelensky. And the anti-Trump politicos and media are getting all fired up with "Ukrainegate" -- as a replacement for the non-entity Russiagate. ..."
"... despite the obsession with trying to impeach Trump, the renewed focus on Ukraine raises legitimate and serious questions about the past dealings of Joe Biden. ..."
"... Potentially, Joe Biden, the current top Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidency, could see his chances unraveling if "Ukrainegate" is pushed further. The dilemma for his supporters among the political establishment is that the more they try to beat up on Trump over his alleged horse-trading with Ukraine, the more the heat can be turned by him on Biden over allegations of graft and abuse of office to further his family's business interests. ..."
"... "There is enough smoke here," Graham added. "Was there a relationship between the vice president's family and the Ukraine business world that was inappropriate? I don't know. Somebody other than me needs to look at it and I don't trust the media to get to the bottom of it." ..."
"... Ukrainegate could turn out to be even far more damaging to the Democrats. Because there is evidence that it was the US-backed Kiev regime which helped seed political dirt on Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager. ..."
With the “Russiagate” hoax proving to be the “most fraudulent
political scandal in American history,” as Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen puts it, now we
have emerging an alternative – “Ukrainegate”.
... ... ...
Democratic political opponents and the anti-Trump liberal media are renewing
demands for his impeachment. They are adamant that he has now crossed a clear red line of
criminality by seeking a foreign power to interfere in US elections by damaging a presidential
rival.
For his part, Trump
denies his conversations with the Ukrainian president were improper. He said he phoned
Zelensky back in July to mainly congratulate him on his recent election. Trump does however
admit that he mentioned Biden's name to Zelensky in the context of Ukraine's notorious culture
of business corruption. The American leader maintains that Joe Biden should be investigated for
possible conflict of interest and abusing the office of vice president back in 2016 in order to
enhance the business affairs of his son, Hunter.
Trump's phone call to Ukraine hit the news last week when a US intelligence officer turned
whistleblower to allege that the president was overheard in a conversation inappropriately
making "a promise to a foreign leader". The identity of the foreign leader was not disclosed.
But immediately, the anti-Trump US media began speculating that it was Russian President
Vladimir Putin. The keenness to point fingers at Putin showed that the Russiagate fever is
still virulent in the US political establishment, even though the long-running narrative
alleging Russian interference or collusion collapsed earlier this year when the two-year Robert
Mueller "Russia investigation" floundered into oblivion for lack of evidence.
Turns out now that Trump's telephone liaison was not with Putin, but rather Ukraine's
Zelensky. And the anti-Trump politicos and media are getting all fired up with "Ukrainegate" --
as a replacement for the non-entity Russiagate.
Trouble is that this alternative conspiracy could backfire badly for Trump's enemies.
Because, despite the obsession with trying to impeach Trump, the renewed focus on
Ukraine raises legitimate and serious questions about the past dealings of Joe Biden.
In March 2014, Biden's son Hunter was
slung out of the Navy Reserve for his cocaine habit. Then a month later, the younger Biden
ends up on the executive board of Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. This was all
only weeks after the Obama administration and European allies had backed an illegal coup in
Kiev against the elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
Vice President Joe Biden was the White House's point man to Ukraine, supporting the new
regime in Kiev by organizing financial and military aid. Biden even boasted how he personally
warned Yanukovych that the game was up and that he better step down during the tumultuous
CIA-backed street violence in Kiev during February 2014. "He was a dollar short and a day
late," quipped Biden about the ill-fated president.
The appointment of Biden's washed-up son to a plum job in Ukraine should have merited
intense US media scrutiny and investigation. But it didn't. One can only imagine their reaction
if, say, it had been Trump and one of his sons involved.
Moreover, in 2016, when Ukraine's Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was conducting a probe
into allegations of corruption and sleaze at the gas company Burisma, among other businesses,
it was Vice President Joe Biden who intervened in May 2016 to call for the state lawyer to be
sacked. Biden threatened to withhold a $1 billion financial loan from Washington if the
prosecutor was not axed. He duly was in short order and the probe into Burisma was dropped.
Potentially, Joe Biden, the current top Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidency,
could see his chances unraveling if "Ukrainegate" is pushed further. The dilemma for his
supporters among the political establishment is that the more they try to beat up on Trump over
his alleged horse-trading with Ukraine, the more the heat can be turned by him on Biden over
allegations of graft and abuse of office to further his family's business interests.
Senator Lindsey Graham, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is this week
calling for an investigation into Biden's conduct in Ukraine.
"Joe Biden said everybody's looked at this and found nothing. Who is everybody? Nobody has
looked at the Ukraine and the Bidens," Mr. Graham told Fox News.
"There is enough smoke here," Graham added. "Was there a relationship between the vice
president's family and the Ukraine business world that was
inappropriate? I don't know. Somebody other than me needs to look at it and I don't trust the
media to get to the bottom of it."
Ukrainegate could turn out to be even far more damaging to the Democrats. Because there is
evidence that it was the US-backed Kiev regime which helped seed political dirt on Paul
Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager. Manafort is facing jail time for fraud and tax
offenses unearthed by the Mueller probe. Mueller did not find any link between Manafort and a
"Kremlin influence campaign", as was speculated. However, because Manafort did work previously
as a political manager for the ousted Ukrainian President Yanukovcyh, he was seen as a
liability for Trump. Was Russiagate always Ukrainegate all along?
Apart from Biden's potential personal conflict of interests in Ukraine, the country may turn
out to be the key to where the whole Russiagate fiasco was first dreamt up by Democrats, Kiev
regime operatives and US intelligence enemies of Trump.
Ukrainegate has a lot more political skeletons to tumble from the wardrobe. Those skeletons
may bury Democrats and their liberal media-intelligence backers , rather than Trump.
"... Worst of all, this IC officer -- and probably others -- have blatantly crossed the line into policy . ..."
"... And sure enough, if The New York Times is to be believed, the complainant is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point , according to three people familiar with his identity. The man has since returned to the C.I.A. , the people said. ..."
"... Trump's WH staff is a sh##show. One or more of them leaked. Trump has "spies" everywhere. Even Trump's darling, Israel, spies on him with impunity. ..."
"... Trump's only ask was of the Crowdstrike 2016 server, it was the Ukraine Prez that brought up Rudy to look at Biden. Would never know from the morons that write about stuff they never actually read. ..."
"... "BREAKING: A large cache of confidential foreign documents have just been leaked implicating Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Misfud's collusion and possible criminal activity in Ukraine. " ..."
"... Saw some videos on Twitter today of sports bars breaking out into chants yesterday when Pelosi made her hostage-video announcement about the impeachment inquiry. They have the public eating out of their hand. They think this is sports. Nation of selfie-taking monkeys. Begging to be enslaved. ..."
"... Trump will have to act in ways he is not prepared for as a celebrity and real estate showman. He has to make a little bit of history, the type they write about 250 years later. Fate is fickle. His old life is gone forever. His new one requires him to act decisively and with ruthlessness, as Machiavelli advises. ..."
Soon after the Ukraine-gate "whistleblower" complaint was made public, questions about the source's
knowledge and background began to rise,
as one former CIA officer noted
very specifically:
The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help.
I
know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the
intel oversight committees.
Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee
members?
My view is that
this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come
from a typical whistleblower.
Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups
opposed to the president involved?
This complaint will further damage IC relations with the White House for many years to
come
because IC officers appear to be politicizing presidential phone calls with foreign
officials and their access to the president and his activities in the White House.
Worst of all,
this IC officer -- and probably others -- have blatantly crossed the line
into policy
.
And sure enough,
if The New York Times
is to be believed,
the complainant is a C.I.A. officer who was
detailed to work at the White House at one point
, according to three people familiar with his
identity. The man has
since returned to the C.I.A.
, the people said.
The NYTimes,
of course, puts its spin on the news, claiming that the whistle-blower's expertise will likely add to
lawmakers' confidence about the merits of his complaint. However, given the current state of affairs,
we suspect it will simply remind a deeply divided nation of the
bias and prejudice that exists
behind the President's back.
As Chuck Schumer once warned Trump:
"Let me tell you:
You take on the intelligence community - they have six ways from
Sunday at getting back at you
... So, even for a practical supposedly hard-nosed
businessman, he's being really dumb to do this."
Since when do people not actually read the memo, rather spin made up
stuff? Trump's only ask was of the Crowdstrike 2016 server, it was
the Ukraine Prez that brought up Rudy to look at Biden. Would never
know from the morons that write about stuff they never actually read.
"BREAKING: A large cache of confidential foreign documents have just
been leaked implicating Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and
Joseph Misfud's collusion and possible criminal activity in Ukraine.
"
How stupid is the American public -- we have the CIA in what is
probably step 6 of a planned-9 or 10-step process to literally
overthrow a president -- and where is everyone? Taking the side of
the goddamn CIA! Holllly Christ we are fucked.
Saw some videos on
Twitter today of sports bars breaking out into chants yesterday when
Pelosi made her hostage-video announcement about the impeachment
inquiry. They have the public eating out of their hand. They think
this is sports. Nation of selfie-taking monkeys. Begging to be
enslaved.
Trump will have to act in ways he is not prepared for as a
celebrity and real estate showman. He has to make a little bit of
history, the type they write about 250 years later. Fate is fickle.
His old life is gone forever. His new one requires him to act
decisively and with ruthlessness, as Machiavelli advises.
If he refrains from acting, he will likely suffer unimaginably.
These people are demons. I trust he knows it.
>> The prosecutor was thought to be corrupt and was dragging his feet on many
prosecutions (this was the same prosecutor that had refused to prosecute Yulia Tymoshenko
years before) ;
>> Many people (including Western European allies) were calling for the
prosecutor's removal;
>> After the prosecutor left, an investigation proceeded and ultimately resulted in a
settlement in which the company paid a fine.
The key question here is: Is Nancy Pelosi a CIA controlled politician who followed Breenan instruction to open the second stage
of the color revolution against Trump. Her long service in House Intelligence Committee suggest that this is a possibility.
Nancy Pelosi just took the biggest gamble of her entire political career. If she is ultimately successful, she will be remembered
as the woman that removed Donald Trump from the White House, and Democrats will treat her like a hero for the rest of her life. But
if she fails and Trump wins in 2020, the backlash that she created when she tried to impeach Trump is likely to be blamed, and she
could potentially lose her leadership role in the House. Of course at that point she probably wouldn't want to remain in the House
much longer, and she would be hated by many Democrats for the rest of her life for subjecting them to four more years of Trump. So
it really is all on the line for Nancy Pelosi, and she never should have gone down this road if she wasn't absolutely certain that
she could deliver.
And at this point, most Americans don't want impeachment proceedings to happen. For example, just check out what a Politico/Morning
Consult poll just found
In the poll -- conducted Friday through Sunday, as stories circled about Trump allegedly pressuring Ukraine to investigate
former Vice President Joe Biden, one of the Democratic candidates hoping to oust him -- 36 percent of respondents said they believe
Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against Trump.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump in response to the
Ukraine controversy. If it's found that Trump did use his presidential power to force a foreign leader to help take down a political
rival, 55 percent of U.S. adults said they would support removing him from office, according to a recent YouGov survey.
Forty-four percent of those polled said they'd "strongly support" removing Trump if the allegations are true, while another
11 percent said they'd "somewhat support" it.
But as it stands right now, on the national level this is a very unpopular decision by Pelosi, and it could potentially hurt Democrats
among key blocs of voters
Worse yet, impeachment isn't selling where Democrats made their best gains in the midterms. A majority of suburban respondents
oppose starting the impeachment process (35 percent/50 percent), with a wider gap among rural respondents (27/59), while urban
voters are more ambivalent than one might guess (47/35). Impeachment trails by double digits in the South (33/53), Midwest, (36/48),
and even in the Democrat-friendly Northeast (37/48).
Another reason why this is potentially a giant mistake by Nancy Pelosi is the fact that all of this focus on Ukraine is almost
certainly going to damage one of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination.
All of a sudden, everyone is talking about Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Ukraine. A lot of voters are going to look into what happened,
and they are not going to be pleased. And this comes at a time when Elizabeth Warren is surging in the polls, and real votes will
start to be cast in just a few months.
Up until recently, the Biden campaign had successfully kept the focus off Hunter Biden and Ukraine , and Joe was widely considered
to be the heavy favorite to win the nomination.
But now everything could change thanks to Nancy Pelosi.
And what if this push toward impeachment is not successful? Trump's base is going to be extremely fired up by all of the political
drama over the next several months, and if Trump survives it is going to be a huge boost for his campaign.
All of the recent polls indicated that a Democrat was likely to win in 2020, and there was a very good chance that the Democrats
were going to take the Senate too, but now this could dramatically shift public opinion and change everything.
Nancy Pelosi is rolling the dice, and if she fails it is going to be absolutely disastrous for the Democratic Party. The following
is how
Matthew Walther summarized the situation that she is facing
Pelosi knows this will not be popular. She knows more than that. She knows that it will be a disaster for the Democratic Party,
that it will inflame the president's base and inspire even his most lukewarm supporters with a sense of outrage. She knows that
in states like Michigan, upon which her party's chances in 2020 will depend, the question of impeachment does not poll well. She
knows, further, that Joe Biden will not be able to spend the next 14 or so months refusing to answer questions about the activities
of his son, Hunter, in Ukraine, and that increased scrutiny of the vice president's record in office will not rebound to his credit.
She and her fellow Democratic leaders had better hope that someone like Elizabeth Warren manages to steal the nomination away
from him before this defines his candidacy the way that Hillary Clinton's emails and paid speechmaking did during and after the
2016 primaries.
And it isn't going to be easy for Pelosi to be successful, because she is going to need 67 votes in the Senate to convict Trump,
and right now Democrats only hold 47 seats.
In the end, this is yet another example that proves that America's political system is deeply broken, and we desperately need
a seismic change .
Because no matter what the end result is, this entire episode is going to be a giant stain in the history books.
If future generations of Americans get the chance, they will look back on this entire saga with disgust.
And if our founders could see us today, they would be rolling over in their graves, because this is not what they intended.
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... How deep where these involvements? Are there Ukrainian sources in the debunked Steele dossier about Trump? ..."
"... Did Ukrainian officials interfere in the 2016 election by creating or hyping the debunked Russiagate affair and by supporting the Clinton campaign? Alleged Russian interference in the election was a big issue. Why is Ukrainian interference not of interest? ..."
"... Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine? Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's employer? ..."
It alleges what was publicly known even before the phone call between Trump and the
Ukrainian President Zelensky was published.
During the then still ongoing Mueller investigation Rudi Giuliani, as a private lawyer for
President Trump, tried to find exculpating information which he hoped would debunk the
allegations of collusion between Trump and Russia.
It was known that there had been involvement
of Ukraine related people as well as of Ukrainian officials in Russiagate and the election
campaigns:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back
away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on
Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
How deep where these involvements? Are there Ukrainian sources in the debunked Steele
dossier about Trump?
There was also the mysterious fact that just three weeks after the U.S. managed 2014 coup
in Ukraine, in which Joe Biden as then U.S. vice-president was heavily involved, Joe Biden's
son Hunter started to receive more that $50,000 per month for being on the board of a
Ukrainian gas company even though he had no knowledge of the gas business or the Ukraine.
In April the then Prosecutor General of the Ukraine Lutsenko was quoted in The
Hill mentioning the above allegations.
Giuliani hoped that the Ukraine would investigate both issues and would find facts that
might help to exculpate Trump. He openly spoke about this in several TV appearances and
interviews
since at least March 2019.
On July 24 the Mueller investigation into Russiagate closed. On July 25 Trump had a phone
call with Zelensky in which Trump mildly pressed for further Ukrainian investigations into
both issues, the Ukrainian involvement in Russigate and the U.S. election and the case of
Hunter Biden. Zelensky responded that he would so. He later said that he found the telephone
call "normal".
The whistleblower, presumably someone of medium to higher rank in the CIA, is concerned
that Trump's request to Zelensky is a "serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of
law or Executive Order" that justify his action.
The Democrats in Congress will make similar claims. But there are reasons to see the issue
completely differently.
Attorney General Barr has opened an investigation into the roots of the debunked
Russiagate claims. An investigation on the ground in the Ukraine could surely help to find
evidence proving or disproving Ukrainian involvement in it.
Biden had publicly bragged to have blackmailed the then Ukrainian President Poroshenko
into firing the then Prosecutor General of the Ukraine Shokin. Shokin had at that time an
open case against the owner of the Ukrainian company Biden's son worked for. Biden's
intervention smells of corruption or at least undue interference by a U.S. official for
personal reasons.
Trump can reasonable argue that investigations in the Ukraine into both issues are in the
U.S. public interest.
Did Ukrainian officials interfere in the 2016 election by creating or hyping the
debunked Russiagate affair and by supporting the Clinton campaign? Alleged Russian
interference in the election was a big issue. Why is Ukrainian interference not of
interest?
Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in
Ukraine? Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's
employer?
Has the U.S. public an interest in knowing the answers to these questions?
If it has such interest why shouldn't the president concern himself with pushing the
Ukrainian president to investigate the issues? Kettle meet pot.
The phrase "Pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom, used to accuse another
speaker of hypocrisy, in that the speaker disparages the subject for a fault or negative
behavior that could equally be applied to him or her, though there is an alternative
interpretation. In former times cast iron pots and kettles were quickly blackened from the
soot of the fire. The pot would then be hypocritical to insult the kettle's colour, since
both are black with soot. When used in debate, the "pot calling the kettle black" may be
illogical, as it is a form of the argument ad hominem.
I firmly believe that the public face of those who rule the US is a unipolar political party
that I call the Kayfabe Party.
The "Ukrainian Affair" is yet another chapter in the never-ending staged Presnitial Match
where the "limited hang-out" Biden Clan makes another move towards the "heel" Trump's 2020
"victory" while shielding the Dems "babyface" 2024 wannabe's.
Sorry for all the "Air Quotes", but that's what kayfabe is all about.
Enrico Malatesta , Sep 26 2019 15:12 utc |
3Jackrabbit , Sep 26 2019
15:52 utc |
4
b:
Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine?
Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's
employer?
Did Trump appoint family members to government positions? Did Trump block attempts to
understand what conflicts of interest he may have by not releasing his tax returns as all
candidates for high office did previously? Did Trump chose Pence (McCain's guy), Bolton
(neocon guy), Haspel (Brennan's gal), Barr (Bush's guy and Mueller's friend) and others as
part of a 'deal' with the Deep State to win the 2016 Presidential election? Was Trump the
nationalist that Kissinger called for in his 2014 WSJ Op-Ed in which he called for MAGA as a
strategy for meeting the challenge from Russia and China?
Is Biden just another Deep State political operative that is playing a part? Another
"flawed candidate" (like Hillary) for MAGA Trump to trounce?
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Is this latest farce just a nothing-burger distraction from the fact that we are on the
brink of war?
Just think, another year of this still to come. The final shootout between Trump and his
enemies over who is the bigger crook and traitor; and lucky Ukraine the mark in both cases.
Wow. Zelenski looked like he swallowed a bug when Trump started running his big mouth.
"... Agents, officers and analysts from the military, intelligence and law enforcement communities routinely work at the White House. Often, they work on the National Security Council or help manage secure communications, like calls between the president and foreign leaders. ..."
"... The C.I.A. officer did not work on the communications team that handles calls with foreign leaders, according to the people familiar with his identity. He learned about Mr. Trump's conduct "in the course of official interagency business," according to the complaint, which was dotted with footnotes about machinations in Kiev and reinforced with public comments by senior Ukrainian officials. ..."
"... He also obliquely threatened the whistle-blower or his sources with punishment. "I want to know who's the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that's close to a spy," Mr. Trump told staff members from the United States Mission to the United Nations before an event there. ..."
"... "You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right?" he added. "We used to handle it a little differently than we do now." ..."
Whistle-Blower Is a CIA Officer Who Was Detailed
to the White House https://nyti.ms/2ltzVye
NYT - Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt
and Julian E. Barnes - September 26
WASHINGTON -- The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for
his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a C.I.A. officer who was
detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his
identity.
The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him.
His complaint made public Thursday suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he
was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a
sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law.
The whistle-blower's expertise will likely add to lawmakers' confidence about the merits
of his complaint, and tamp down allegations that he might have misunderstood what he learned
about Mr. Trump. He did not listen directly to a July call between Mr. Trump and President
Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the political firestorm over the
president's mixing of diplomacy with personal political gain.
Lawyers for the whistle-blower refused to confirm that he worked for the C.I.A. and said
that publishing information about him was dangerous.
"Any decision to report any perceived identifying information of the whistle-blower is
deeply concerning and reckless, as it can place the individual in harm's way," said Andrew
Bakaj, his lead counsel. "The whistle-blower has a right to anonymity."
The C.I.A. referred questions to the inspector general for the intelligence agencies. A
spokeswoman for the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, said that
protecting the whistle-blower was his office's highest priority. "We must protect those who
demonstrate the courage to report alleged wrongdoing, whether on the battlefield or in the
workplace," Mr. Maguire said at a hearing on Thursday, adding that he did not know the
whistle-blower's identity.
Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The New York Times, said The Times was right to
publish information about the whistle-blower. "The role of the whistle-blower, including his
credibility and his place in the government, is essential to understanding one of the most
important issues facing the country -- whether the president of the United States abused
power and whether the White House covered it up."
Agents, officers and analysts from the military, intelligence and law enforcement
communities routinely work at the White House. Often, they work on the National Security
Council or help manage secure communications, like calls between the president and foreign
leaders.
The C.I.A. officer did not work on the communications team that handles calls with foreign
leaders, according to the people familiar with his identity. He learned about Mr. Trump's
conduct "in the course of official interagency business," according to the complaint, which
was dotted with footnotes about machinations in Kiev and reinforced with public comments by
senior Ukrainian officials.
Officials regularly shared information to "inform policymaking and analysis," the
complaint said. The complaint raises the prospect that the whistle-blower was not detailed to
the White House either during the events in question or when he learned about them. Mr. Trump took aim at the whistle-blower's credibility on Thursday, attempting to dismiss
his revelations because they were secondhand.
He also obliquely threatened the whistle-blower or his sources with punishment. "I want to
know who's the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that's close to a
spy," Mr. Trump told staff members from the United States Mission to the United Nations
before an event there.
"You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason,
right?" he added. "We used to handle it a little differently than we do now."
On the call with Mr. Zelensky, Mr. Trump asked him to investigate unsubstantiated
allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son and
other matters he saw as potentially beneficial to him politically.
Mr. Trump cajoled Mr. Zelensky to coordinate with Attorney General William P. Barr and the
president's personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, according to a reconstituted transcript of
the call that the White House released on Wednesday. Mr. Zelensky, who was elected in April,
agreed to help Mr. Trump. While Ukrainian prosecutors have moved to pursue an inquiry of an
oligarch whose company paid Mr. Biden's son Hunter, they did not allege wrongdoing by the
Bidens.
The call with Mr. Zelensky was originally thought to be a routine matter, the complaint
said, and the White House did not restrict it, meaning a number of officials and note takers
listened.
But the whistle-blower said that afterward, White House officials "intervened to 'lock
down' all records of the phone call," putting them in a highly classified system meant for
discussing covert actions. One White House official called that an abuse because the
transcript contained no classified material.
Notes and rough transcripts of White House calls are typically stored on a computer system
that allows senior officials in different departments and agencies to access them, to better
coordinate policy.
Some White House colleagues told the whistle-blower that they were concerned they had
witnessed "the president abuse his office for personal gain," according to the complaint.
...
The complaint looks like a "lawyer-assisted document." Produced by a team, not by a single
person. It clearly was carefully designed to inflict maximum damage to replace Russiagate
hysteria with a new one and put Trump on the defensive.
Which was fully achieved. Pelosi decision is also a huge pressure point even when actual
impeachment is above her political capabilities.
But it definitely replaces the pressure of Mueller/Weissmann commission on Trump with an
equal or higher pressure, and may even surpass in the effectiveness Andrew Weissmann witch
hunt.
Now "full of Schiff" members of House have a new bone to chew. They can drag Trump thru
the mud for the next six months, hoping that this will turn the election their way.
Which might well be a wrong assumption, as it cemented Trump coalition and outraged people
who were ready to abandon Trump, so the percentage of former Trump supporters who would stay
home, but now will go to the voting booth might be an unpleasant surprise for neoliberal
Democrats.
Previously Trump chances were IMHO not that great as he proved to be a very weak,
impulsive President, one-trick pony who assumes that bullying is the diplomacy and
negotiating strategy all-in-one, who accepted rabid neocons like Bolton into his
administration, who was pandering to Netanyahu, and who he betrayed most of his election
promises. Without Russiagate2 he can run only on inertia and stock market value, which is not
much. So I would consider the possibility the Trump welcomes this impeachment process as his
last chance. He might well anticipate difficulties competing against Warren; who would beat
him on domestic policy for at least half of Trump base, and she has less baggage in foreign
policy, so she can attract anti-war independents who in 2016 voted for Trump).
In any case, the person who signed it might well be just a pre-selected "placeholder" for
information which was leaked by other people, much like Steele relations with Fusion GPS,
when it is unclear whether Steele supplied information to them or vice versa, or
CIA-connected Nelly Ohr provided material to Steele so that he returned it as his own,
supposedly obtained from a "respectable foreign source", whitewashing the real source.
The scenario of operation really looks like the second stage of the "palace coup" run by
Brennan faction in CIA and other intelligence agencies (surviving members of McCabe faction
in FBI.) Its start with some equivalent of Steele dossier produced by a supposedly
"respectable source" also closely resembles Russiagate with neoliberal MSM driving the
hysteria even before facts were known.
That's why I would call this scandal Russiagate2, not Ukraine-gate. As Proverbs 16:4 puts
it, "The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of
evil."
"... Of note, Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) began the hearing with a completely fabricated account of a July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky - the actual transcript of which was released on Wednesday, revealing Trump urging - not threatening or pressuring - Zelelsky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. ..."
"... In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. - The Hill ..."
"... "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
Moments
after an anonymous whistleblower complaint against President Trump was released, acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph
Maguire is offering public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee to discuss the matter.
Of note, Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) began the hearing with a completely fabricated account of a July 25 call between President
Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky - the actual transcript of which was released on Wednesday, revealing Trump urging
- not threatening or pressuring - Zelelsky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.
Last year, Biden openly bragged about threatening to hurl Ukraine into bankruptcy as Vice President if they didn't fire their
top prosecutor , Viktor Shokin - who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into a natural gas firm whose board Hunter
Biden sat on , collecting $50,000 per month.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling,
Biden described
how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in
U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General
Viktor Shokin. -
The Hill
"I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at
them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling
the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired . And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council on
Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat.
"... Fleitz then writes that "that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower," adding " Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved? " ..."
"... This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern. The fact that IC officers transcribe these calls does not give the IC IG jusrisdiction over these calls. ..."
"... The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members? ..."
"... What did House and Senate intel committee dem members and staff know about it and when? Did they help orchestrate this complaint? ..."
"... My view is that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower. Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved? ..."
"... This is such a grevious violation of trust between the IC and the White House that it would not surprise me if IC officers are barred from all access to POTUS phone calls with foreign officials. ..."
In light of Thursday's public release of a 'whistleblower' complaint, who was "not a witness to most of hte events described"
in their allegation that President Trump abused his office to request that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's
dealings in the country, former CIA analyst and National Security Council (NSC) official Fred Fleitz has provided his take on the
whole thing via Twitter .
Notably, Fleitz - CEO of the Center for Security Policy - points out that " The way this complaint was written suggested the author
had a lot of help, " adding "I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel
oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members? "
Fleitz then writes that "that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower,"
adding " Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved? "
Read the thread below (emphasis ours):
As a former CIA analyst and former NSC official who edited transcripts of POTUS phone calls with foreign leaders, here are
my thoughts on the whistleblower complaint which was just released. . .
intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential
phone calls are not an intelligence concern. The fact that IC officers transcribe these calls does not give the IC IG jusrisdiction
over these calls.
It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was breached . This official was not on this
call, not on the approved dissem list and should not have been briefed on the call.
The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee
staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel
committee members?
It is therefore important that Congress find out where this complaint came from. What did House and Senate intel committee
dem members and staff know about it and when? Did they help orchestrate this complaint?
My view is that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower. Were
other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved?
This complaint will further damage IC relations with the White House for many years to come because IC officers appear to
be politicizing presidential phone calls with foreign officials and their access to the president and his activities in the White
House.
Worst of all, this IC officer -- and probably others -- have blatantly crossed the line into policy . This violates a core
responsibility of IC officers is to inform, but not make policy.
This is such a grevious violation of trust between the IC and the White House that it would not surprise me if IC officers
are barred from all access to POTUS phone calls with foreign officials.
"... Two weeks later, the Financial Times did a story about Ukraine's takedown of Manafort, including quotes from Leshchenko and Western analysts. "The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country's biggest ally," it began, "has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a US election." ..."
"... Reading the article in 2019, after three years of nonstop coverage about overseas meddling in US democracy, is stunning. Here is an established Western outlet calmly discussing successful foreign influence of an American presidential campaign as a neat little coup, a bit of gutsy international derring-do. ..."
"... "My desire to expose Manafort's doings was motivated by the desire for justice," wrote Leschenko in a recent Washington Post op-ed. "Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden, nor John Podesta, nor George Soros asked me to publish the information from the black ledger." ..."
Vulnerabilities in US election security need attention, and Ukraine's 2016 impact could
be instructive.
... ... ...
Ukraine's role in the 2016 race is undeniable: In the summer of 2016, Kiev's release of the
so-called "black ledger" resulted in Manafort's ouster from the Trump campaign. The actions of
foreign actors -- however well-intentioned -- directly impacted an American election.
One would imagine Washington media and lawmakers -- who spent three years combing through
every aspect of Moscow's interference in our election -- might direct similar attention to
Kiev's impact. Yet the Ukrainian angle barely made headlines.
If we want to get serious about safeguarding our electoral process from all foreign actors,
not just Moscow-based ones, it's time to examine Ukraine as well.
On August 14, 2016, The New York Times published a bombshell
about what would become known as the "black ledger" -- a handwritten document alleging millions
of off-the-books payments to Manafort by the Party of Regions, led by his former client Viktor
Yanukovych, the ousted pro-Russian president of Ukraine. The Times received the ledger
from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), an independent government
agency.
The story rocked the 2016 election, given Manafort's position as head of Trump's campaign.
The Hillary Clinton campaign immediately seized on it as proof that Manafort -- and therefore
Trump -- was tied to Yanukovych and the Kremlin.
Four days later, the Times ran a
follow-up story, based on more details released by NABU and publicity by Serhei Leshchenko,
a member of the Ukrainian parliament, who told the Times he'd studied the ledger. The
next day, Manafort resigned from Trump's campaign.
Two weeks later, the Financial Times did a story about Ukraine's
takedown of Manafort, including quotes from Leshchenko and Western analysts. "The prospect of
Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country's
biggest ally," it began, "has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider political
leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however
indirectly, in a US election."
"Mr Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue their efforts to
prevent a candidate from reaching the summit of American political power," the story went
on.
Reading the article in 2019, after three years of nonstop coverage about overseas meddling
in US democracy, is stunning. Here is an established Western outlet calmly discussing
successful foreign influence of an American presidential campaign as a neat little coup, a bit
of gutsy international derring-do.
Calling the intervention "indirect" is a bit generous, as well. Manafort was ousted based on
handwritten pieces of paper -- the story would've never gone anywhere without NABU and
Leshchenko's vouching for the ledger's authenticity. That's as direct as it gets.
Of course, all this occurred in August of 2016, when the prospect of a Trump presidency was
seen as inconceivable. After Trump's election,
Leshchenko and
NABU frantically denied their intent to damage the Trump campaign, claiming the ledger was
publicized solely because of their concern to stamp out corruption and had nothing to do with
US politics.
"My desire to expose Manafort's doings was motivated by the desire for justice,"
wrote Leschenko in a recent Washington Post op-ed. "Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe
Biden, nor John Podesta, nor George Soros asked me to publish the information from the black
ledger."
Ukrainians certainly had every reason to expose Manafort's corruption, and the man's
subsequent trial showed there was an enormous amount to expose. But Ukraine's efforts also
happened to coincide with -- and have an immediate impact on -- an American campaign. And yet,
despite this information's being available in English, and published by established Western
media, we've had almost no debate about its implications.
To understand just how astounding that is, simply imagine if the situation were reversed.
Imagine the Financial Times ran a story about a Russian government bureau and lawmaker
leaking documents that directly resulted in the ouster of the Clinton campaign manager. Even if
everything exposed by Russia were true, it'd still be a major scandal.
None of this is to say we should ignore the Kremlin's election meddling or Trump's current
attempt to coerce Ukraine into investigating Biden. These are extraordinarily serious issues --
but so is Ukraine's impact in 2016.
It seems many Americans are under the mistaken assumption that the moment Trump leaves
office, things will return to normal. They won't. If anything, the 2016 election let the devil
out of the box -- other actors in other nations surely took notice of the ease with which a
handful of individuals in Ukraine were able to influence an American campaign. There will be
more of this. Some may be in good faith; some will not.
It is impossible to say we're taking foreign interference seriously until the media,
lawmakers, and political activists have an honest conversation about the new norms. And that
involves looking not only at Trump and Russia, but at Ukraine as well.
Lev Golinkin is the
author of A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka , Amazon's Debut of the Month
and a Barnes & Noble's Discover Great New Writers program selection. Golinkin, a graduate
of Boston College, came to the United States as a child refugee from the eastern Ukrainian city
of Kharkov (now called Kharkiv) in 1990. His op-eds and essays on the Ukraine crisis have
appeared in The New York Times , the Los Angeles Times , The Boston Globe
, and Time.com , among others.
"... Tulsi is the only Democrat who has her head screwed tight on her shoulders. As for the rest of that clown show---God help us!! ..."
"... Russia Gate 2.0 ..."
"... The Ukrainian gas HoldCo gave Hunter Biden a no-show job that paid $600K a year. They could have hired dozen of Yale Law grads for less. ..."
"... Kind of sad we Americans after two years of Russia gate will be dragged through a new political ploy. Our intelligence community and the DOJ need come clean and quick. ..."
"... The transcript of Trump's call to the Ukrainian president is out. There is absolutely no mention of anything close to a quid pro quo. ..."
"... "Repeat after me: the President should not demand foreign powers investigate his political rivals." How about Senate Democrats, Hillary Clinton, the DNC? Do you have a problem with them soliciting, even paying cash, to foreigners to investigate Trump? How about spying? Do you have a problem with one party using U.S. intelligence to spy on another party's nominee? ..."
"... This time - played into showing an utter electoral weakness by demanding an impeachment with no grounds for such a year before an election they, according to their screams on every corner, are "poised to win". Uncool, bros and sises, uncooool... ..."
"... The only mildly critical observation as to how exactly Trump played the said fiddle is that it would have been a tad better had he taken his time and waited for some days. ..."
"... The Democrats have hitched their train to the impeachment star not with impeachment per se as the goal. ..."
"... Just dragging us through this execrable process will achieve what they want nicely, i.e., disrupting possible Trump progress on his policy initiatives ( such as they are ), and weakening his electoral chances amongst the incorrigibly indecisive segment of American voters at the margin. Fighting corruption with corruption has now become the norm in Washington, D.C. ..."
I agree with Tulsi Gabbard - an impeachment at this time serves no point. It also discounts
the value of voting Democrat. This act may hand the White House to Trump for another 4
years. One can only hope that a Tusi G can arise and become our next president. The rest of
the team are basically knee jerk politicians waiting for the lobbies to instruct.
If Democrats weren't fanatically determined to prevent her from arising at all costs, she
could become the president already in a year. She can realiably beat any Republican aside
from Rand Paul, who isn't much more loved within his party than she within hers. One can
only wonder why the Democratic establishment hates her so much. Not a member of the Cult?
Better losing on and on and on than allowing an anti-war candidate to get the nomination?
Collective political manifestation of Freudian death wish?
"I hope with all of my soul, and with respect for those like Ellsberg, Manning, and
Snowden, that this whistleblower proves worthy to stand next to them. And God help him and
our country if not."
So, Democrats have done just what he wanted them to do - started a miserable (and a doomed,
given that the Senate is in Republican hands) circus instead of actually campaigning with
their voters, while also riling his ones. But thanks, team D, for showing what your
candidates' chances to get elected really are. Has been no secret to me that those chances
are illusory, but thanks for making the thing official anyways. Starting a stillborn
attempt to depose a president, against whom you, in your fantasy world, are "poised to win"
in a year, is the best testimony of how toast you are in the said fantasy world's real
counterpart. Attacongressboys and attacongressgirls. Take some metaphorical cookies from
the metaphorical jar.
The only sad thing is that you're sullying the notion of whistleblower with a clown,
who, most probably, doesn't even exist. The whole thing is actually your petty revenge
against Snowden, who has just released his new book, ain't it? Low.
"Remember, he knows what was said and the Dems demanding impeachment do not."
Exactly and the Dems are setting themselves up for another public disaster thus handing
Trump his reelection. Anyway Biden is history and he should withdraw immediately. Fighting
this losing battle will only invoke the well deserved wrath of justice.
Looks to me that Trump is turning the tables on the democrats and they are in for a
world of hurt when the investigations and indictments start rolling now.
Kind of sad we Americans after two years of Russia gate will be dragged through a new
political ploy. Our intelligence community and the DOJ need come clean and quick.
The transcript of Trump's call to the Ukrainian president is out. There is absolutely no
mention of anything close to a quid pro quo. Trump asks the president to take calls from
Bill Barr and Giuliani to talk about corruption broadly. Biden's son is also included in
what they'll talk about. It is all very high-level, general, surface talk. If Dems want to
try and impeach on this, it is a long shot at best.
https://fm.cnbc.com/applica...
"Repeat after me: the President should not demand foreign powers investigate his political
rivals."
How about Senate Democrats, Hillary Clinton, the DNC? Do you have a problem with them soliciting, even paying cash, to foreigners to
investigate Trump? How about spying? Do you have a problem with one party using U.S. intelligence to spy on
another party's nominee?
I'll repeat after you once you clarify your position on those things. But if you're not
consistent, why should I?
The transcript released has Trump asking for an investigation of Biden and Biden's son
explicitly. Then it emphasizes how "very good" to the Ukraine the U.S. has been and how the
relationship "has not always been reciprocal".
At the time of the call the president was holding back hundreds of millions of dollars
in Ukranian aid. How dumb do you have to be to not interpret this as a gangsta time of quid-pro-quo
attempt?
The whole whistle blower report should be released.
The Demos have no real choice but to start an impeachment query as their voters will
interpret not doing this as clear cowardice and moral spinelessness. They know the
impeachment won't succeed.
So, looks like "some" folks have been played like a fiddle all over again. This time -
played into showing an utter electoral weakness by demanding an impeachment with no grounds
for such a year before an election they, according to their screams on every corner, are
"poised to win". Uncool, bros and sises, uncooool...
The only mildly critical observation as to how exactly Trump played the said fiddle is
that it would have been a tad better had he taken his time and waited for some days.
Nothing practical - the situation served its purpose fairly and squarely - but it would be
such a cute circus, and wailings would be so much louder if everything fell apart just a
little bit later. But maybe he just doesn't like the circus. De gustibus non est
disputandum , though.
Whoa, there cowboys and indigenous peoples! The Democrats have hitched their train to the
impeachment star not with impeachment per se as the goal.
Just dragging us through this
execrable process will achieve what they want nicely, i.e., disrupting possible Trump
progress on his policy initiatives ( such as they are ), and weakening his electoral
chances amongst the incorrigibly indecisive segment of American voters at the margin.
Fighting corruption with corruption has now become the norm in Washington, D.C.
It's sort of the long game, with a hint of the "Hail Mary" pass thrown in for good
measure. They know what they're up to. But, as the author says, it just might backfire.
They may overplay their hand. Or make one of the two classic blunders.
Vizzini: "Ha-ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most
famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia,' but only slightly less well
known is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!'"
"... Third, an impeachment battle would give Trump a last chance to solidify his hold on the souls and reputations of his possible Republican successors. To understand what I mean, consider Jonathan V. Last's explanation of why so few Republican elected officials are likely to break with Trump, no matter how Nixonian his straits become: ..."
"... But my ultimate guess is that none of this matters quite as much as some impeachment arguers suppose. An impeachment effort could be both foredoomed and unlikely to influence the 2020 outcome all that much, so Nancy Pelosi might be wise to forestall one but also find herself with few regrets if one gets forced on her. ..."
Does Donald Trump Want to Be Impeached? https://nyti.ms/2mKgmBS
NYT - Ross Douthat - September 24
When it comes to determining when it makes sense to impeach a president, congressional
Democrats are working with 200 words in the Constitution, three significant historical
precedents, the fervor of impeachment advocates, the anxieties of swing-state members of
Congress and all the polling data that a modern political party can buy.
None of this, unfortunately, tells them what to do when the president in question actually
wants them to impeach him.
That Donald Trump actually wants to be impeached is an argument that Ben Domenech, the
publisher of The Federalist, has been making for some time -- that the president isn't
stumbling backward toward impeachment, but is actually eager for the fight.
In his email newsletter Monday morning, Domenech cited the last few days of
Ukraine-related agitation as vindication, arguing that the circus atmosphere of congressional
hearings, scenes of Joe Biden talking about corruption instead of health care or the economy,
and wavering House Democrats getting forced into an impeachment vote by their angry
colleagues and constituents are all exactly what Trump wants.
For my own part I think wants is probably an overstatement, since it implies a strategic
purpose, a permanent intention and a stable mental state, none of which should be assumed
when analyzing the president of the United States.
... ... ...
First, if the Democrats impeach him they will be doing something unpopular instead of
something popular. Maybe the polls showing impeachment's unpopularity will alter as the
Ukraine story develops. Maybe public hearings will deliver a series of blows that persuades
the large anti-Trump, anti-impeachment constituency that his expedited removal from office is
desirable or necessary. But the current shape of public opinion is the boring, basic reason
that Trump seems to want to be impeached more than Nancy Pelosi wants to impeach him: The
Democratic agenda is more popular than the Republican agenda (whatever that is), the likely
Democratic nominees are all more popular than Trump, and so anything that puts the Democrats
on the wrong side of public opinion may look better, through Trump's eyes, than the status
quo.
Second, Trump is happy to pit his overt abuses of power against the soft corruption of his
foes. This is an aspect of Trumpism that the president's critics find particularly
infuriating -- the way he attacks his rivals for being corrupt swamp creatures while being so
much more nakedly compromised himself. But whether the subject is the Clinton Foundation's
influence-peddling or now the Biden family's variation on that theme, Trump has always sold
himself as the candidate of a more honest form of graft -- presenting his open cynicism as
preferable to carefully legal self-dealing, exquisitely laundered self-enrichment, the spirit
of "hey, it's totally normal for the vice president's son to get paid hundreds of thousands
of dollars by the Ukrainians or the Chinese so long as every disclosure form gets filled out
and his dad doesn't talk to him about the business."
In fact this sort of elite seaminess is bad, but what Trump offers isn't preferable:
Hypocrisy is better than naked vice, soft corruption is better than the more open sort, and
what the president appears to have done in leaning on the Ukrainian government is much worse
than Hunter Biden's overseas arrangements. But no one should be surprised that some voters in
our age of mistrust and fragmentation and despair prefer the honest graft -- some in Trump's
base, and also some in the ranks of the alienated and aggrieved middle, the peculiar
Obama-Trump constituency.
Indeed, history is replete with "boss"-style politicians who got away with corruption
because they were seen as the rough, effective alternative to a smug, hypocritical elite.
Trump's crucial political weakness is that unlike those bosses, he hasn't delivered that much
to many of his voters. But that may make him all the more eager to return to the politics of
comparative corruption, to have the argument again about whether he's more ethically
challenged than the swamp. He may not win it, but at least he's playing a part that he knows
well.
Third, an impeachment battle would give Trump a last chance to solidify his hold on
the souls and reputations of his possible Republican successors. To understand what I mean,
consider Jonathan V. Last's explanation of why so few Republican elected officials are likely
to break with Trump, no matter how Nixonian his straits become:
... ... ...
This doesn't just explain why Trump thinks he can survive an impeachment fight; it also
explains why he might relish it. He knows that he could well lose the next election, but
there's no reason a mere general-election defeat will prevent him from wielding power over
the Republican Party, via Twitter and other means, for many years to come. And what better
way to consolidate that power (or at least the feeling of that power) in the last year of his
administration than seeing all his would-be successors, all the bright younger men of the
Senate especially, come down and kiss the ring one last time?
... ... ...
Which brings us to the last reason Trump might kind of like to be impeached: Because the
circus is the part of politics that he fundamentally enjoys. Throughout the Mueller
investigation my Twitter feed was alight with liberal and NeverTrump fantasies about how
Trump must be bed-wetting, flop-sweat terrified by the tough G-man's investigation. And maybe
at times he was. But I'm pretty sure that when he ranted on Twitter about the "Twelve Angry
Democrats" and "WITCH HUNT" and "NO COLLUSION," he was more engaged, more alive, more fully
his full self than at any point during the legislative battles over tax reform or Obamacare
repeal.
And Robert Mueller's was a legal investigation, with the power to actually put people in
Trump's inner circle in prison. A merely political trial, where the worst-case scenario is a
political martyrdom that Sean Hannity will sing of ever after, seems to offer Trump a much
lower-stress variation on that experience. Why, the nicknames for the impeachment managers
alone will be a Trumpian banquet, a veritable feast!
None of this, I should stress, adds up to an airtight argument that the Democrats should
not impeach. Nine months ago I made a case against impeachment, and many of the arguments in
that essay might apply to this case -- depending on how far it turns out Trump went in
pressuring Ukraine. But politics is a contact sport, a field for combat as well as for
maneuver, and just because someone wants a fight doesn't mean that you should never, ever
give him one. The dictum about wrestling a pig (you get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it)
doesn't hold up if the pig keeps punching you; the dictum that it's better to beat Trump at
the polls than lose a Senate vote probably doesn't hold up if you talk yourself into looking
permanently supine in the face of indubitable corruption.
Much of the Trump era has consisted of politicians of both parties waiting for someone
else to give Trump a knockout blow. So there's something to be said, at the level of
spiritedness if not necessarily strategy, for House Democrats to take a swing themselves.
But my ultimate guess is that none of this matters quite as much as some impeachment
arguers suppose. An impeachment effort could be both foredoomed and unlikely to influence the
2020 outcome all that much, so Nancy Pelosi might be wise to forestall one but also find
herself with few regrets if one gets forced on her.
The nature of the Trump era is that yuge events recede far more rapidly than anyone
expects. So it might be with impeachment: Have the vote or don't have it, we'll be arguing
about something completely different by the time Americans are going to the polls.
"... Citing a "political and humanitarian crisis" committed by Caracas, the White House Office of the Press Secretary issued a "suspension of entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants of persons who threaten Venezuela's democratic institutions." ..."
"... The move comes as the latest effort from the Trump administration to oust Venezuela's president. ' ..."
'US President Donald Trump has moved to suspend Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's
senior officials, relatives, and others who receive financial benefits from entering into
the US in Wednesday press release from the White House.
Citing a "political and humanitarian crisis" committed by Caracas, the White House
Office of the Press Secretary issued a "suspension of entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants
of persons who threaten Venezuela's democratic institutions."
The move comes as the latest effort from the Trump administration to oust Venezuela's
president. '
Krugman is a funny jerk (aka neoliberal propagandist): " completely unsupported claims of
corruption by Joe Biden"
Notable quotes:
"... The Winners and Losers of the Latest Trump Scandal. A snapshot of the Ukrainian fallout. By Paul Krugman ..."
"... However, I expect Democrats to disingenuously pretend that the problem is a limited to single bad actor. But they may take Biden down in the process, because the facts of his involvement in Ukraine will never really be known because of Ukraine's own rampant corruption and their politicians'' eagerness to say whatever the man with the money wants them to say. ..."
"... One of the reasons that I doubt Biden's version of the story stems from my experience in Venezuela. After Chavez took power, Venezuelans told me that he had found that a critical subsidiary of the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA was basically a CIA shop. ..."
"... This brings us to Hunter Biden's appointment to Ukrainian energy giant Burisma. ..."
The Winners and Losers of the Latest Trump Scandal.
A snapshot of the Ukrainian fallout.
By Paul Krugman
Only 11 days have passed since Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee, revealed that the Trump administration was illegally withholding a whistle-blower
complaint from Congress. When the news came out, I -- probably like most observers --
expected it to be another fizzle, yet another clear example of Trump malfeasance that would
just fail to catch fire with Congress or the public.
And that may yet happen. I presume and hope that pollsters are at work as we speak, trying
to gauge public opinion on the scandal. But this time feels different, maybe because it's so
simple and clear cut. The president of the United States and his personal lawyer both admit
that they called on a foreign regime to produce dirt on one of his political rivals. It now
looks as if he tried to pressure said foreign regime by withholding crucial military aid,
which makes it worse.
The result is that this scandal is blowing up in a way previous Trump scandals, no matter
how serious, haven't. A House vote to impeach has quickly gone from "unlikely" to "more
likely than not" now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to announce a formal impeachment
inquiry.
Why does this matter? In general, I dislike the common journalistic trope of "winners and
losers" from political developments. In this case, however, it seems to me like a good way to
sum up the fallout so far. So here are three winners and two losers from the developments so
far.
Winners
Adam Schiff: After years when it seemed as if nothing could shake Trump's
ability to stonewall, Schiff started an avalanche that has a good chance of bringing the
wall tumbling down.
The narrative of Trump as betrayer of America: There has been abundant evidence
all along that Trump's team colluded with Russia in 2016, and that Trump in office has been
all too happy to carry water for brutal foreign autocrats. But it was all complicated and
obscure enough to confuse many people. Pressuring Ukraine to smear Joe Biden's son is
something everyone can understand, and it retroactively makes all the other accusations
credible.
Hard-working reporters: We don't have all the facts about what exactly Trump and
company did to set off the whistle-blower, but the past week and a half have been one
devastating revelation after another, all thanks to reporters at major news outlets,
including The New York Times.
Losers
"Savvy" journalistic analysis: The two great media sins of 2016 were false
equivalence and the substitution of speculation about how things would "play" for
description of what was actually going on. Sure enough, the first reaction of some in the
media was to present Trump's verified abuse of power and completely unsupported claims of
corruption by Joe Biden as comparably grave, and to suggest that the episode somehow
"raises questions" about Biden -- a cowardly dodge of the media's obligation to get at the
truth. But articles along these lines generated huge criticism, and I'm seeing a lot less
of that sort of thing in the past couple of days.
Senate Republicans: It's looking quite likely now that G.O.P. senators will have
to vote on charges of impeachment -- charges that will be based on documented abuses, not
disputable interpretations. Most if not all of them will, of course, vote to acquit. But in
so doing they'll expose their corruption and disloyalty to American principles for all to
see.
So it's been quite a couple of weeks. And while it won't be over until November of next
year, and probably not even then, it looks as if Trump and his party are finally in the kind
of trouble they deserve.
________________________________
Quick Hits
The Founding Fathers worried a lot about foreign influence on U.S. politics; sometimes it
seems as if Trump took their concerns as an operating manual.
It's important to realize that Ukraine is engaged in a slow-motion war with Trump's
favorite dictator. Diplomacy depends on the use of both sticks and carrots. Trump gets the
sticks part, but the carrots part doesn't work because nobody trusts him to honor his
promises. You can almost feel sorry for Republicans, who know that any criticism of Trump
will tank them with the base. On the other hand, never mind; they chose to put themselves in
that position.
Does anybody really believe that powerful politicians haven't been doing this forever? Does
anybody remember Iran Contra when Reagan got the Iranians to delay the hostage release to
benefit him against Jimmy Carter?
Furthermore, isn't one of the primary goals of foreign policy the promotion of American
business to help the politicians' friends and donors? Wasn't WalMart, where Hillary served on
the Board, one of the movers and shakers behind Bubba's signing China PNTR?
In an ideal world, this whole vast corrupt swamp would get a thorough airing as part of
Trump's impeachment. While we're airing dirty laundry, let's see it all!
However, I expect Democrats to disingenuously pretend that the problem is a limited to
single bad actor. But they may take Biden down in the process, because the facts of his
involvement in Ukraine will never really be known because of Ukraine's own rampant corruption
and their politicians'' eagerness to say whatever the man with the money wants them to
say.
One of the reasons that I doubt Biden's version of the story stems from my experience in
Venezuela. After Chavez took power, Venezuelans told me that he had found that a critical
subsidiary of the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA was basically a CIA shop. The names of CIA on
the Board of Directors were not just ordinary CIA, but were recognizable figures at the very
top. To me this is entirely plausible. Control of oil is critical to US global hegemony. And
what better way to control foreign oil than to have trusted American asset sit on the BOD?
This brings us to Hunter Biden's appointment to Ukrainian energy giant Burisma. After the
coup in 2014, why wouldn't Biden want a trusted asset on the board of the biggest natural gas
producer in Ukraine? IOW it was unpublicized standard operating procedure.
Interesting day in Presidential politics today.
I assume most here are sick of hearing about it further today. I enjoy speculating on what Speaker Pelosi might do with the results of the Impeachment Inquiry by the House.
Assumption: The House finds grounds for Impeaching Trump and hands it to Pelosi. What will she do or rather what can she do? She can have the full House vote to Impeach and march the Articles over to the Senate. She can have the House Censure Trump, not vote to Impeach, and go no further at this time. That brings Trump's crimes to light,
but saves the country from a Political Trial in the Senate, that won't convict Trump.
She can hold the Committee's report for review and not go forward until and unless she see's the POLITICAL need. She can, IMO, have the House vote Articles of Impeachment and then HOLD them in the House waiting to take them to the Senate
at a much later date of her choice or never. The Senate cannot act until the Speaker delivers the Articles of Impeachment. No where does the Constitution declare WHEN those
Articles, once voted, must be delivered, only that they are to be.
She can set a new precedent if she desires. Who can stop her?
This would allow the Articles to float over Trump's head - and the Re-Election campaign serving to restrain Trump, like a cudgel
over his head - preventing or at least limiting more of Trump's outrageous unconstitutional and illegal acts in Office until Election
2020.
Simultaneously this would allow The House to continue its multiple investigations of Trump, including the IRS Whistle Blower
complaint, further checking Trump, and even to open more investigations into Trump's abuse of Office, e.g., his use of AG Barr
on Ukraine/Biden as well as investigations of AG Barr pursuing Ukraine/Biden.
Not to mention other investigations into Trump including NY's pursuit of Trump's Tax Returns, which could well be as revealing
as the Ukraine phone call transcript.
So, while today was interesting in D.C., the future is far more so, imho.
Biden is now a zombie and has less then zero changes to beat Trump. Even if nothing explosive will be revealed by Ukraine-gate,
this investigation hangs like albatross around his neck. Each shot at Trump will ricochet into Biden. Add to this China and the
best he can do is to leave the race and claim unfair play.
Trump now probably will be reelected on the wave of indignation toward Corporate Dems new witch hunt. People stopped believing
neoliberal MSM around 2015, so now neolibs no longer have the leverage they get used to. And by launching Ukraine-gate after Russiagate
they clearly overplayed their hand losing critical mass of independents (who previously were ready to abandon Trump.)
If unpleasant facts about neolib/neocon machinations to launch Ukraine-gate leak via alternative press via disgruntled DNC
operatives or some other insiders who are privy to the relevant discussions in the Inner Party, they will poison/destroy the chances
of any Dem candidate be it Warren or anybody else. Joining this witch hunt greatly damages standing of Warren exposing her as
a mediocre, malleable politician ( unlike Tulsi )
Instead of running on policy issues the Democrats again tried to find vague dirt with which they can tarnish Trump. This
is a huge political mistake which exposes them as political swindlers.
Neolib/neocon in Democratic Party from now on will be viewed as "The Children of Lieutenant Schmidt" (a fictional society of
swindlers from the 1931 classic "The Little Golden Calf" by Ilf and Petrov).
I would say that Pelosi might now be able to understand better the situation in which Wasserman-Shultz had found herself in
2016 and resign.
IMHO this is a kind of zugzwang for neoliberal Dems. There is no good exit from this situation: After two years of falsely
accusing Trump to have colluded with Russia they now allege that he colluded with Ukraine.
In addition to overpaying their hand that makes it more difficult for the Democrats to hide their critical role in creating
and promoting Russiagate.
Here is one post from MoA which tries to analyze this situation:
== quote ==
nil , Sep 25 2019 19:37 utc | 24
I think what's going in the brain trust of the DNC is something like this:
i. Biden is a non-starter with the public. He'll be devoured alive by the Republicans, who only need to bring up his career
to expose his mendacity.
ii. Warren might be co-opted, having been a Republican and fiscal conservative up to the mid-90s, but what if she isn't?
iii. Sanders is a non-starter, but with the "people who matter". Rather than having to threaten him with the suspicions around
his wife, or go for the JFK solution, they'd rather [make that] he didn't even get past the primaries, much less elected.
iv. As a CNN talking head said weeks ago, it's better for the wealthy people the DNC is beholden to that their own candidate
loses to Trump if that candidate is Sanders.
So better to hedge their bets start impeachment hearings, give Trump ammunition to destroy Sanders or Warren. That way, the
rich win in all scenarios:
a. If Biden wins the nomination, the campaign will be essentially mudslinging from both sides about who is more corrupt. The
rich are fine with whoever wins.
b. If Warren gets the nomination and is co-opted, the media will let the impeachment hearings die out, or the House themselves
will quickly bury it.
c. If Warren gets the nomination and is not co-opted, or if Sanders get it, the impeachment will suck up all the air of the
room, Trump will play the witchhunt card and will be re-elected.
All this brouhaha over Russiagate and to think that in the end it
was Ukraine that did it
Anyhow:
I am pretty sure this is a trap (for the Dems), who are initiating impeachment without even
knowing what's on the damn transcript.
It will be nice to see some questions on how exactly Hunter Biden was given a position at
Ukraine's natural gas monopoly with a monthly salary of $50,000 (in a country where the average
wage is two orders of magnitude lower) while daddy campaigned against Ukrainian corruption.
Perhaps there'll even be some good opportunities for knowledge about the Maidan false flag
to seep into the US, discourse though I'll believe it when I see it.
I do not know where the Dems are going with this. To actually get Trump out of office would
require a 2/3 majority of the senate to vote for conviction do the Dems really think there's
any set of circumstances under which they get those votes? Impeachment itself is nothing more
than "bringing charges." Bill Clinton was impeached; he still finished his term.
4D chess: the Dem establishment wants to knock off Biden and they think any extended
investigation into this Ukraine stuff may bring him down. But it could backfire: Biden still
ends up the nominee but Trump uses any dirt unearthed to portray him as a corrupt
wheeler-dealer, thereby weakening Biden's campaign.
a monthly salary of $50,000 (in a country where the average wage is two orders of
magnitude lower)
FWIW, the New York Times report suggests Hunter Biden's monthly salary for this cushy
position fluctuated, and that $50,000 was the maximum he ever received for his
services in any given month.
I wonder, if they had salary information, why not publish the full total? e.g., it could
have been [to make up a plausible number] $1,500,000 over his five years in that role (ca.
May 2014 to April 2019), ranging from $10,000 to $50,000 a month.
What would a Ukrainian look like who makes a salary as high as – one –
order of magnitude lower than Hunter Biden made for his Ukraine consulting work?
Someone made an English wiki page on Ukraine salaries:
According to that page, the salary avg. in Kiev was at 11,400 hryvnia/month in mid 2017,
while most other oblasts were at 6-7,000 hryvnia/month.
The exchange rate to USD
(nominal) in the period Sept. 2015 to Sept. 2019 has fluctuated between 21 and 29 hryvnia to
1 USD, which yields, covering the exchange rate range:
– avg. Kiev salary: something between $400 and $540/month [USD]
– avg. non-Kiev salary: something between $210 and $335/month [USD]
But the PPP-to-nominal spread for Ukraine suggests a more accurate view, when viewing the
figures in USD as above, would mean multiplying each by about 3x or even 3.33x.
So it looks like a lower-rung Kiev professional making ~1.5x to 1.75x the Kiev avg.
monthly salary, when that salary-figure is pushed up by PPP, is able to make, in one year,
what Hunter Biden may have made in a typical (not peak) month.
IMO, Trump's lying for no apparent reason to the American public is a misdemeanor and meets
the US Constitution's threshold of High Crimes and Misdemeanors for Impeachment.
The right thing is to Impeach Trump, but it may not be the Politic thing given S.
McConnell's majority in the GOP in Senate.
Why would it not be politic? No one is going to vote for trump because he was impeached, his
base is set in stone and always turns out. Meanwhile, impeachment hearings would excite the
Dem base and increase turnout. Further, the GOP Senators up for re-election in purple states
would face retribution if they do not vote for impeachment.
What I can't understand about some commenters here is the level of political naivety.
== quote ==
The right thing is to Impeach Trump, but it may not be the Politic thing given S. McConnell's
majority in the GOP in Senate.
== end ==
Let's assume that neoliberal Dems impeached Trump and got President Pence as a reward.
Than what ?
At this point the only way to get rid of Trump is to defeat him in 2020 elections. And
currently neoliberal Dems desperate moves to save face only improve Trump chances. Already
high.
I would like to know who dusted off and pushed in the fight Biden ?
Biden from the very beginning has had zero changes to defeat Trump. Now with Burisma
scandal in full bloom he is just a walking political zombie.
Especially taking into consideration effect on 2020 election of the outcome of the
impeachment process in the House and outcome of Schiff investigation ( with his recent
blunder -- an attempt to get Flynn to testify; Flynn saga in not about Russia it is about
Israel lobby)
Recent blowback from Lewandowski testimony is just a glimpse of things to come.
== quote ==
And let me also stress this fact: during the 2016 campaign cycle, Mr. Trump held no
elected position. He was not a government official.
Rather, the Obama-Biden Administration and the intelligence community, overseen by James
Clapper, Jim Comey, and John Brennan, had the responsibility to the American people to ensure
the integrity of the 2016 election. I leave it to this committee and the American public to
decide how successful -- or not -- they were in doing their jobs.
Regardless, as the special counsel determined, there was no conspiracy or collusion
between the Trump campaign and any foreign government, either on my watch or afterward. Not
surprisingly after the Mueller report was made public, interest in the Fake Russian collusion
narrative has fallen apart.
Sadly, the country spent over three years and 40 million taxpayer dollars on these
investigations. It is now clear the investigation was populated by many Trump haters who had
their own agenda -- to try and take down a duly elected President of the United States.
As for actual "collusion", or "conspiracy", there was none. What there has been however,
is harassment of the President from the day he won the election.
== end ==
If this not a political checkmate for Nadler I do not know what is
Rudy Giuliani leveled serious new claims at the Bidens in a series of Monday morning
tweets. Chief among them is a claim that $3 million was laundered to former Vice President
Joe Biden's son, Hunter , via a "Ukraine-Latvia-Cyprus-US" route - a revelation he claims was
"kept from you by Swamp Media."
Rudy Giuliani ✔ @RudyGiuliani
NEW FACT: One $3million payment to Biden's son from Ukraine to Latvia to Cyprus to US.
When Prosecutor asked Cyprus for amount going to son, he was told US embassy (Obama's)
instructed them not to provide the amount. Prosecutor getting too close to son and Biden had
him fired.
Rudy Giuliani ✔ @RudyGiuliani
Today though it's the $3 million laundered payment, classical proof of guilty knowledge
and intent, that was kept from you by Swamp Media. Ukraine-Latvia-Cyprus-US is a usual route
for laundering money. Obama's US embassy told Cyprus bank not to disclose amount to Biden.
Stinks!
Trump's personal attorney then mentioned China - where journalist Peter Schweizer reported
Joe and Hunter Biden flew in 2013 on Air Force Two. Two weeks later, Hunter's firm inked a
private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of
China , which expanded to $1.5 billion , according to an article by Schweizer's in the New
York Post .
Rudy Giuliani ✔ @RudyGiuliani
Biden scandal only beginning. Lots more evidence on Ukraine like today's money laundering
of $3 million. 4 or 5 big disclosures. Also the $1.5 billion China gave to Biden's fund while
Joe was, as usual, failing in his negotiations with China is worse.
Giuliani then went on to tweet that the Bidens lied about not discussing Hunter's overseas
business .
On Saturday, Joe Biden said he "never" spoke with Hunter about the Ukrainian energy company
that Hunter sat on the board of while being paid $50,000 per month. As you're doubtless aware
by now, the elder Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees from Ukraine
if they didn't fire the investigator probing the company, Burisma.
Rudy Giuliani ✔ @RudyGiuliani
Biden says he never talked to his son about his overseas business. Do you think we can
prove, with our fact a day disclosures, it's a lie-a false exculpatory statement. Do we have
to prove, or do you already know, it's a lie, and an incriminating statement.
Hunter, however, admitted in July that the two did speak about his Ukraine business "just
once," telling the New Yorker " Dad said, 'I hope you know what you are doing,' and I said,
'I do' "
Rudy then lashed out at the Democratic party, which he said would "own" Biden's scandals
if hey don't "call for investigation of Bidens' millions from Ukraine and billions from
China."
Rudy Giuliani ✔ @RudyGiuliani
If Dem party doesn't call for investigation of Bidens' millions from Ukraine and billions
from China, they will own it. Bidens' made big money selling public office. How could Obama
have allowed this to happen? Will Dems continue to condone and enable this kind
pay-for-play?
Here's what we know about Hunter's dealings in China based on Schweizer's reporting via
our May report :
Hunter Biden and his partners created several LLCs involved in multibillion-dollar private
equity deals with Chinese government-owned entities.
The primary operation was Rosemont Seneca Partners - an investment firm founded in 2009
and controlled by Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz, and Heniz's longtime
associate Devon Archer. The trio began making deals "through a series of overlapping
entities" under Rosemont.
In less than a year, Hunter Biden and Archer met with top Chinese officials in China , and
partnered with the Thornton Group - a Massachusetts-based consultancy headed by James Bulger
- son nephew of famed mob hitman James "Whitey" Bulger (h/t @Guerrilla_Magoo for the
correction).
According to the Thornton Group's Chinese-language website, Chinese executives "extended
their warm welcome" to the "Thornton Group, with its US partner Rosemont Seneca chairman
Hunter Biden (second son of the now Vice President Joe Biden."
Officially, the China meets were to "explore the possibility of commercial cooperation and
opportunity," however details of the meeting were not published to the English-language
version of the website.
"The timing of this meeting was also notable. It occurred just hours before Hunter Biden's
father, the vice president, met with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington as part of the
Nuclear Security Summit ," according to Schweizer.
Perhaps most damning in terms of timing and optics, just twelve days after Hunter and Joe
Biden flew on Air Force Two to Beijing, Hunter's company signed a "historic deal with the
Bank of China ," described by Schweizer as "the state-owned financial behemoth often used as
a tool of the Chinese government." To accommodate the deal, the Bank of China created a
unique type of investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). According to BHR, Rosemont
Seneca Partners is a founding partner .
It was an unprecedented arrangement: the government of one of America's fiercest
competitors going into business with the son of one of America's most powerful decisionmakers
.
Chris Heinz claims neither he nor Rosemont Seneca Partners, the firm he had part ownership
of, had any role in the deal with Bohai Harvest. Nonetheless, Biden, Archer and the Rosemont
name became increasingly involved with China . Archer became the vice chairman of Bohai
Harvest, helping oversee some of the fund's investments. - New York Post
And while Hunter Biden had "no experience in China, and little in private equity," the
Chinese government for some reason thought it would be a great idea to give his firm business
opportunities instead of established global banks such as Morgan Stanley or Goldman
Sachs.
Also in December 2014, a Chinese state-backed conglomerate called Gemini Investments
Limited was negotiating and sealing deals with Hunter Biden's Rosemont on several fronts.
That month, it made a $34 million investment into a fund managed by Rosemont.
The following August, Rosemont Realty, another sister company of Rosemont Seneca,
announced that Gemini Investments was buying a 75 percent stake in the compan y. The terms of
the deal included a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese, who were eager to purchase new US
properties.
Shortly after the sale, Rosemont Realty was rechristened Gemini Rosemont.
Chinese executives lauded the deal. - New York Post
"Rosemont, with its comprehensive real-estate platform and superior performance history, was
precisely the investment opportunity Gemini Investments was looking for in order to invest in
the US real estate market," said Li Ming, chairman of Sino-Ocean Land Holdings Limited and
Gemini Investments. " We look forward to a strong and successful partnership. "
Three years later, a crack pipe, two DC driver's licenses and other paraphenelia would be
found in a rental car Hunter Biden returned to an Arizona Hertz location in the middle of the
night .
The morning after the car was dropped off, a phone number belonging to a renowned local
"Colon Hydrotherapist" called the Hertz . The caller identified himself as "Joseph McGee,"
who told the employees that the keys were located in the gas cap as opposed to the drop
box.
Amazing how so many countries would scramble to do business with Hunter - a guy with
virtually no experience who was discharged from the Navy after testing positive for cocaine -
who just happened to be the Vice President's son.
Biden, His Son and the Case Against a Ukrainian Oligarch
By JAMES RISEN
As Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. aims to curb corruption in Ukraine, his son, Hunter,
sits on the board of a Ukrainian company that the American ambassador has accused of having
"illicit assets."
[ Here, December 2015, was New York Times coverage of the involvement of Vice President
Biden and Hunter Biden in Ukraine. So that there is a frame of reference. ]
The current "whistleblower" from intelligence services revival of this scandal might be
designed as a Trojan horse to weaken Trump and simultaneously to end Biden run.
Intelligence services did have their favorite candidate in 2016. It is logical to assume
that they have it for 2020.
How can one know whether or not the accusation is false after all the obstruction? If it were
a false accusation, why obstruct? This is circular reasoning. Like Mike - I will also be
ignoring.
Ilsm is a traitor. He is okay with Trump blowing up the whistleblower act. He is okay with
Trump being a puppet of a foreign rival. He is fine with the President being personally
compromised by at least 3 foreign governments. There is only one word that fits. Traitor.
I think you have problem with understanding of the legal terms and the level of criminality
of Biden behavior.
The person in question is not a whistleblower in classical sense revealing potentially
illegal, or unethical act.
This is not the case for Trump talk with Zelensky as the whole conversation lie within the
scope of the existing law (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).
He is leaker who wants to capitalize on the controversy associated with the fact that
Biden is running for the President and simultaneously his past potentially criminal act of
forcing Ukraine to fire prosecutor who was investigating the company (Burisma) who was paying
large sums of money monthly to his son.
But running for President does not absolve Biden of past criminality.
Trump prompting for the investigation of Biden behavior clearly was acting within the
limit of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (one billion dollar in view of this act can be
considered as a bribe offered to stop investigation of the company connected to his son)
Remember back in April when the only thing the Dems wanted was an unredacted version of
the Mueller report? Then they wanted Mueller to testify... And they got that.
In this case they also need to move goalposts and this unapt gambit like previous one will
blow in neoliberal Dems face.
As Aaron Maté warns, "They're doubling down on failure: a failure to transform
after losing 2016; & a failure to bring Trump down w/ the failed Russiagate conspiracy
theory."
And here is Buchanan pretty informed take on the matter:
== quote ==
Yet, left out of Biden's drama about how he dropped the hammer on a corrupt Ukrainian
prosecutor was this detail.
The prosecutor had been investigating Burisma Holdings, the biggest gas company in
Ukraine. And right after the U.S.-backed coup that ousted the pro-Russian government in Kiev,
and after Joe Biden had been given the lead on foreign aid for Ukraine, Burisma had installed
on its board, at $50,000 a month, Hunter Biden, the son of the vice president.
Joe Biden claims that, though he was point man in the battle on corruption in Ukraine, he
was unaware his son was raking in hundreds of thousands from one of the companies being
investigated.
Said Joe on Saturday, "I have never spoken to my son about his various business
dealings."
Is this credible?
Trump and Rudy Giuliani suspect not, and in that July 25 phone call, Trump urged President
Volodymyr Zelensky to reopen the investigation of Hunter Biden and Burisma.
The media insist there is no story here and the real scandal is that Trump pressed
Zelensky to reopen the investigation to target his strongest 2020 rival. Worse, say Trump's
accusers, would be if the president conditioned the transfer of $250 million in approved
military aid to Kiev on the new regime's acceding to his demands.
The questions raised are several:
Is it wrong to make military aid to a friendly nation conditional on that nation's
compliance with legitimate requests or demands of the United States?
Is it illegitimate to ask a friendly government to look into what may be corrupt conduct
by the son of a U.S. vice president?
Joe Biden has an even bigger problem : This issue has begun to dominate the news at an
especially vulnerable moment for his campaign.
Was Zelensky pressed by Trump to open investigation on Biden pressing Ukrainian government
to fire Chief Prosecutor (threatening to block one billion IMF package) to squash the
investigation into the gas company Burisma which paid Bind son large monthly "maintenance
fee" for nothing ?
Without answering this question we can't proceed. and answering requires real
investigation into Burisma scandal involving Biden son.
If yes, Biden really falls under foreign corruption act and should be investigated and
prosecuted because he was engaged classic "protection racket" with Poroshenko government and
previously with Provisional government.
In other words he was acting like a typical Mafiosi trying to secure "protection
payments". As such he falls under the RICO statute.
In such case it is duty of any US President to uphold the law ;-).
Why NYT tried to present this as unlawful political pressure ?
Karoun Demirjian, Josh Dawsey, Ellen Nakashima
and Carol D. Leonnig - Washington Post- September 23
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump told his acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, to
hold back almost $400 million in military aid for Ukraine at least a week before a phone call
in which Trump is said to have pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate the son of
former vice president Joe Biden, according to three senior administration officials.
Officials at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) relayed Trump's order to the State
Department and the Pentagon during an interagency meeting in mid-July, according to officials
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. They explained
that the president had ''concerns'' and wanted to analyze whether the money needed to be
spent.
Administration officials were instructed to tell lawmakers that the delays were part of an
''interagency process'' but to give them no additional information -- a pattern that
continued for nearly two months, until the White House released the funds on the night of
Sept. 11.
Trump's order to withhold aid to Ukraine a week before his July 25 call with Volodymyr
Zelensky is likely to raise questions about the motivation for his decision and fuel
suspicions on Capitol Hill that Trump sought to leverage congressionally approved aid to
damage a political rival. The revelation comes as lawmakers clash with the White House over a
related whistleblower complaint made by an intelligence official alarmed by Trump's actions,
and as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is said to be exploring whether it's time to
allow impeachment proceedings.
Republican senators on the Senate Appropriations Committee said Sept. 12 that the aid to
Ukraine had been held up while the Trump administration explored whether Zelensky, the
country's new president, was pro-Russian or pro-Western. They said the White House decided to
release the aid after Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., threatened to freeze $5 billion in Pentagon
funding for next year unless the money for 2019 was distributed.
One senior administration official said Monday that Trump's decision to hold back the
funds was based on his concerns about there being ''a lot of corruption in Ukraine'' and that
the determination to release the money was motivated by the fiscal year's looming close on
Sept. 30.
There was concern within the administration that if they did not spend the money, they
would run afoul of the law, this official said, noting that, eventually, Trump gave the OMB's
acting director, Russell Vought, permission to release the money. The official emphatically
denied that there was any link between blocking the aid and pressing Zelensky into
investigating the Bidens, stating: ''It had nothing to do with a quid pro quo.''
But on Capitol Hill, Democrats were calling for an investigation of what they viewed as
potential ''extortion,'' as Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee's ranking Democrat, put it Monday. Trump, he said, is trying to ''reshape American
foreign policy'' to advance his personal and political goals.
''I don't think it really matters . . . whether the president explicitly told the
Ukrainians that they wouldn't get their security aid if they didn't interfere in the 2020
elections,'' said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. ''There is an implicit threat in every demand
that a United States president makes of a foreign power. . . . That foreign country knows
that if they don't do it, there are likely to be consequences.'' ...
Instead of 'No Collusion!' Trump Now Seems to Be
Saying, So What if I Did? https://nyti.ms/2mEQWFL
NYT - Peter Baker - September 23
WASHINGTON -- The last time he was accused of collaborating with a foreign power to
influence an election, he denied it and traveled the country practically chanting, "No
collusion!" This time, he is saying, in effect, so what if I did?
Even for a leader who has audaciously disregarded many of the boundaries that restrained
his predecessors, President Trump's appeal to a foreign power for dirt on former Vice
President Joseph R. Biden Jr. is an astonishing breach of the norms governing the American
presidency.
That his phone call with Ukraine's leader took place literally the day after the special
counsel Robert S. Mueller III testified to Congress about Russian interference in the 2016
election demonstrated that Mr. Trump took no lessons from that episode about the perils and
propriety of mixing his own political interests with international relations.
If anything, the president has grown even more defiant since Mr. Mueller found
insufficient evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and
Russia, almost as if having avoided charges, he is daring the establishment to come after him
again. The man who once said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan without
consequence seems to be testing whether he can do the political equivalent.
"What he's learned is you can get away with just about anything if you're willing to
gamble and you have zero shame," said Gwenda Blair, a biographer of the Trump family. "He had
just outbluffed the old-school way of holding people to account, so what the heck, why not go
for it in the phone call to the new, young and vulnerable Ukrainian president?"
Mr. Trump has openly acknowledged raising the topic of Mr. Biden during a July 25 phone
call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in which he urged the newly inaugurated
government to crack down on corruption. While Mr. Trump denied applying pressure to
investigate Mr. Biden, he said it would "have been O.K. if I did."
Likewise, he said that he did not threaten during the call to cut off security aid if
Ukraine failed to investigate Mr. Biden. But he also did not explain why he blocked the aid,
and he quickly added that "we're giving a lot of money away to Ukraine" and it was legitimate
to want to ensure that an aid recipient was "going completely to be not corrupt."
In speaking with reporters while in New York for the annual United Nations General
Assembly, Mr. Trump was in a combative mood on Monday, brimming with hyperbole and invective,
at one point even casually saying that if Republicans had done what Mr. Biden had done,
"they'd be getting the electric chair right now."
Mr. Trump scored his lawyer's rambling and confusing appearance on a CNN show on last week
night like a boxing match. "Rudy Giuliani took Fredo to the cleaners," he said, using a
derogatory nickname for the show's host, Chris
Cuomo. And the president excoriated reporters in the room with him. "You are crooked as
hell," he charged.
Mr. Giuliani has been Mr. Trump's point person in pushing Ukraine for an investigation,
and in recent days, he has thrown out a dizzying series of allegations and conspiracy
theories about the country involving Hillary Clinton, George Soros and others plotting to
take down Mr. Trump in 2016.
But now it is Mr. Trump whose intervention with Ukraine is at issue, and whether it
constitutes an abuse of power will fall to Congress to decide. After bulldozing past so many
other controversies, Mr. Trump has now exposed himself to a greater risk of impeachment in
the House than ever before, even if conviction in the Senate remains a remote
possibility.
"I do regard this as a transgression by the president even more egregious and dangerous,
and even more clearly calling for impeachment, than the many that have come before it," said
Laurence H. Tribe, the Harvard law professor and an author of "To End a Presidency," a book
on impeachment.
"It's difficult to imagine a purer example, even on the president's own account of his
conduct, of why the Constitution's framers thought it essential to include the impeachment
power," he added.
Richard Ben-Veniste, a former Watergate prosecutor, said that if reports about the
president's actions were accurate, it would be "the latest and perhaps most disturbing
example in a series of actions that display a profound disregard for presidential norms by
this president."
Plenty of questions remain unanswered, and Congress will now press for more information,
particularly the release of a transcript of the call with Mr. Zelensky as well as the
complaint filed by an American government whistle-blower raising alarms. A clear focus of the
inquiry will be the blocked aid.
Some critics said it did not even matter if Mr. Trump explicitly linked the two issues in
the call; simply using the power and prestige of his office to lean on a foreign leader for
help in a domestic political contest by itself could justify impeachment, they said. And
suspending the aid, they said, appeared to be a corrupt exercise of presidential power to
benefit himself, whether he mentioned it to Mr. Zelensky or not.
But Mr. Trump's defenders said he was being targeted for partisan and political reasons,
his every move interpreted in the most cynical light and distorted to tarnish his reputation,
while adversaries like Mr. Biden are given a free pass.
The United States "routinely pushes foreign countries to launch broad anti-corruption
initiatives as well as to undertake criminal investigations or prosecutions of specific
persons, both Americans and foreigners," said David B. Rivkin Jr., a lawyer in the
administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
"And we routinely back up such requests with threats and blandishments," he added. "So,
political issues aside, there is nothing inherently unusual about Trump's request to
Zelensky."
Mr. Trump and his allies argue that Mr. Biden is the one who abused his power when he was
vice president by threatening to hold up $1 billion in American loan guarantees to Ukraine
unless it fired its chief prosecutor. At the time, his younger son, Hunter Biden, worked for
a Ukrainian oligarch who had come under scrutiny by the prosecutor.
The ouster of the Ukrainian prosecutor, who was widely believed to be turning a blind eye
to rampant corruption, was the consensus position of the Obama administration as well as
European governments and international institutions at the time. No evidence has emerged to
indicate that Mr. Biden acted to protect his son. However unseemly it might be for a family
member to appear to cash in on the vice president's name, no authorities in either country
have alleged illegality by either Biden.
Anthony Scaramucci, who served briefly as White House communications director but has now
broken with the president, said Mr. Trump was not interested in corruption but re-election.
"He is going after Biden hard because he knows Biden destroys him in a general election, and
so he will do and say anything to anybody to knock him out now," Mr. Scaramucci said.
The furor that has developed in recent days will force the White House, Congress, the
Justice Department, the intelligence agencies and perhaps even the courts to confront once
again the question of where the lines of political standards are drawn and whether Mr. Trump
crossed over them.
In more than two years in office, Mr. Trump has kept his properties, which do business
with the federal government and foreign officials, and has even proposed hosting next year's
Group of 7 summit at his Doral resort in Florida. He has repeatedly called on the Justice
Department to investigate his political rivals, and he fired an attorney general who he
complained did not protect him from Mr. Mueller. The president has even sought the
repudiation of weather forecasters who contradicted his hurricane prediction.
In recent days, his lawyers have asserted that not only can Mr. Trump not be indicted
while serving as president, he cannot even be criminally investigated, a far more sweeping
claim of immunity than ever found by courts. And Mr. Trump has made clear he sees no problem
in accepting derogatory information from foreign governments, saying, "I'd take it," even
after the Mueller report.
That leaves the impression with allies and adversaries alike that Mr. Trump is focused on
his own interests. "The president will say and do anything for his own personal pursuits and
not for the benefit of the country," said Heather A. Conley, the director of the Europe
program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
All of which, she said, has damaged the notion of America as a "shining city on a hill,"
as Mr. Reagan put it, the country that would stand for principle, even if it did not always
live up to that aspiration. Now, she said, millions of people around the world "have now
learned that the city is for sale, not unlike other kleptocratic regimes."
Ukraine and Whistle-Blower Issues Emerge as Major
Flashpoints in Presidential Race https://nyti.ms/2V8Ehbx
NYT - Lisa Lerer and Reid J. Epstein - Updated September 22
DES MOINES -- Allegations that President Trump courted foreign interference from Ukraine
to hurt his leading Democratic rival, Joseph R. Biden Jr., dominated presidential politics on
Saturday, as Mr. Biden demanded a House investigation of Mr. Trump's phone call with
Ukraine's leader and as Mr. Trump lashed out, denying wrongdoing without releasing a
transcript of the call.
With Mr. Trump seizing on a familiar defense, saying Democrats were undertaking a "witch
hunt" against him, Mr. Biden called on the House of Representatives to begin a new
investigation of whether the president sought the interference of a foreign government to
bolster his re-election campaign.
"This appears to be an overwhelming abuse of power," Mr. Biden said during a campaign
swing in Iowa. "We have never seen anything like this from any president."
Mr. Trump is said to have urged the Ukranian president on a July 25 phone call to
investigate Mr. Biden's son, Hunter Biden, who did business in Ukraine while his father was
vice president. Mr. Trump's request is part of a secret whistle-blower complaint in the
intelligence community that is said to involve Mr. Trump making an unspecified commitment to
a foreign leader, according to two people familiar with the complaint.
The sharp accusations between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden elevated the president's dealings
with Ukraine as a potentially significant new issue in the presidential race, and offered
voters a preview of what is likely to be an extraordinary general election contest if Mr.
Biden were to win the nomination. ...
The controversy has focused on whether Mr. Trump manipulated foreign policy -- a military aid
package to Ukraine had been delayed at the time of the phone call -- to pressure the
country's newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to take action to damage Mr. Biden's
election bid.
On Saturday, Mr. Trump sought to deflect attention from that question by accusing Mr.
Biden of acting improperly as vice president in calling for the ouster of a Ukranian
prosecutor who had overseen an inquiry into corruption related to the oligarch whose company
employed Hunter Biden.
Mr. Trump described his conversation with Mr. Zelensky as "perfectly fine and
routine."
"Now that the Democrats and the Fake News Media have gone 'bust' on every other of their
Witch Hunt schemes, they are trying to start one just as ridiculous as the others, call it
the Ukraine Witch Hunt," Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. He said that any effort to investigate
him would fail, comparing it to the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III, the special
counsel, into his ties to Russia during the 2016 campaign.
Intensifying a line of attack he and his allies have stoked for months, Mr. Trump said the
real problem was Mr. Biden and questions about what the president described as "the Joe Biden
demand that the Ukrainian Government fire a prosecutor who was investigating his son."
Referring to his conversation with Mr. Zelensky, Mr. Trump said: "Nothing was said that
was in any way wrong, but Biden's demand, on the other hand, was a complete and total
disaster."
No evidence has surfaced to support Mr. Trump's claim that the former vice president
intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor general's dismissal. But
some State Department officials had expressed concern that Hunter Biden's work in Ukraine
could complicate his father's diplomacy there.
The issue strikes a particular nerve for Mr. Biden, who has long feared putting his family
under the harsh spotlight of a presidential campaign. During a two-minute encounter with
reporters on Saturday morning, he grew irate, angrily insisting that he had never spoken with
his son about any overseas work. ...
Josh Wingrove and Jennifer Jacobs
Bloomberg News - September 22
Donald Trump appeared to acknowledge on Sunday that he had discussed former Vice President
Joe Biden in a July 25 phone call with Ukraine's president that is the subject of a
congressional investigation.
"The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, was largely corruption, all of the
corruption taking place," the president told reporters as he departed the White House on
Sunday for events in Texas and Ohio. "It was largely the fact that we don't want our people,
like Vice President Biden and his son, creating to the corruption already in the
Ukraine."
Trump said that a mysterious intelligence whistle-blower raised "false alarms" about his
interactions with a foreign leader and said he wouldn't object to his attorney Rudy Giuliani
testifying to Congress about the Ukraine affair.
"You can't have people doing false alarms like this," Trump said of the whistle-blower,
who has not been identified. He added that he'd have "no problem" with Giuliani speaking to
House committees that are investigating allegations the president and his lawyer pressured
the new president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, to re-open an investigation into a company
connected to the family of former Vice President Joe Biden.
In a July 25 phone call with Zelenskiy, Trump asked the Ukrainian leader to investigate
Biden's son Hunter, according to a person familiar with the call. Trump defended the call on
Sunday.
"I said nothing wrong, it was perfect. I assume many people are on the line. I know that
before I make the call," Trump told reporters as he departed for events ahead of the United
Nations General Assembly next week. "What wasn't perfect was the horrible thing Joe Biden
said."
The Washington Post has reported that the whistle-blower's complaint concerns Trump's
interactions with Zelenskiy. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said in an interview
with a Ukrainian news outlet, Hromadske, on Saturday that "Trump did not pressure
Zelenskiy."
Ukraine's prosecutor general said in May that he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe
Biden or his son, Hunter Biden, who once sat on the board of one of the country's biggest gas
companies. In addition, Vitaliy Kasko, a former deputy prosecutor who pursued a case against
the gas company's owner, told Bloomberg in May that there had been no U.S. pressure to close
the case.
Biden revisited the issue on Saturday while campaigning in Des Moines, Iowa.
"Trump's doing this because he knows I will beat him like a drum," Biden said. "Why is he
on the phone with a foreign leader trying to intimidate a foreign leader if that's what
happened, that appears what happened."
Biden repeated his call for Trump to release the transcript of the Zelenskiy phone call.
Revelations about Trump's interactions with Zelenskiy have led some congressional Democrats
to turn up the heat on their leadership to begin impeachment proceedings against the
president.
Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, on Sunday called for the whistle-blower "to
come forward."
"Republicans who claim to be national security experts need to demand that the
whistle-blower present himself or herself before Congress," Murphy said in an interview on
NBC's "Meet the Press."
"If we do have the evidence from this whistle-blower that the president indeed did try to
bully a foreign power into affecting our elections, then we have to do something about it,"
he said.
"A coalition of seven freshman Democrats published a fierce opinion article on Monday
decrying claims that President Donald Trump asked the leader of Ukraine to investigate one of
his top 2020 rivals, Joe Biden, calling the shocking reports an "unprecedented" move that, if
true, should result in impeachment.
"We have devoted our lives to the service and security of our country, and throughout our
careers, we have sworn oaths to defend the Constitution of the United States many times
over," the group, all lawmakers who previously served in the U.S. military or defense and
intelligence agencies, wrote in the op-ed in The Washington Post. "Now, we join as a unified
group to uphold that oath as we enter uncharted waters and face unprecedented allegations
against President Trump."
The editorial was written jointly by Reps. Gil Cisneros (Calif.), Jason Crow (Colo.),
Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.), Elaine Luria (Va.), Mikie Sherrill (N.J.), Elissa Slotkin (Mich.) and
Abigail Spanberger (Va.). Many of the lawmakers represent competitive districts that Trump
won in the 2016 presidential race."
"... U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. ..."
"... Biden used his power as vice-president to ask the Ukraine to fire a prosecutor he didn't like and who (by chance?) was going after the company which enriched his son. He openly withheld money to achieve his aim. ..."
"... Trump should be impeached for his crimes against Syria, Venezuela and Yemen. ..."
"... But the Democrats will surely not touch on those issues. They are committing themselves to political theater that will end without any result. Instead of attacking Trump's policies and proposing better legislation they will pollute the airwaves with noise about 'crimes' that do not exist. ..."
"... The Democrats are giving Trump the best campaign aid he could have wished for. Trump will again present himself as the victim of a witch hunt. He will again argue that he is the only one on the side of the people. That he alone stands with them against the bad politicians in Washington DC. Millions will believe him and support him on this. It will motivate them to vote for him. ..."
"... It is likely Biden and son are being investigated in Ukraine and dirt or charges will come from it. Dems blowing smoke about impeachment to take attention away from what may come out of Ukraine. ..."
"... What seems even more idiotic, is that Pelosi made this announcement BEFORE the transcript was published. Is everyone senile in the Democratic leadership? ..."
"... Now that Trump has effectively betrayed his base, and - tweets aside - is governing like Hilary Clinton would have, the only way for him to hold on to his base is for them to think that he's being treated unfairly. Make it all about fake impeachment, and nothing about real issues. ..."
"... Remember, the corporate Democrats and the corporate Republicans are all paid by the same masters, they all read form the same script. This is just theater to distract the proles. It's like professional wrestling without the muscles. ..."
"... I would like to suggest another reason for this impeachment malstorm at this point. Trump is acting presidential at the UN. He made a very nationalistic speech that I'm sure the MSM would like to erase. See The future does not belong to globalists. ..."
"... With Gabbard now making it to the next debate the CORPORATE Dems are running scared. Gabbard will be taking someone out, perhaps it'll be either Warren or Biden: maybe "Beto" or "Pete" just to put a stake in the hearts of these clowns (Harris is already fatally wounded -- just waiting for her to finally drop). ..."
"... The Dems cannot attack Trump's policies. They are bound to sing the same song as Trump, just to a different melody. They have the very same masters, and those who pay the bill dictate the music. It is that simple. ..."
"... The Current Oligarchy is behind the strings controlling Pelosi's mouth and teleprompter as Biden won't be nominated, and it can't totally count on Warren's allegiance. Gabbard has already voiced her opposition to Trump's impeachment, arguing that it's better to beat him at the polls. ..."
"... Trump re-election chances just shot up. Not just the Biden collateral damage, but this is a clear reprise of the Russiagate nonsense. This will re-energize the Trump base - and Trump is going to cry all the way back to the White House saying he's being unfairly prosecuted. Saker is saying this is a literal reprise, but it is irrelevant if that is true or not. ..."
"... A bit off topic, but, DJT's speech at the UN was a eff'en joke. Everything he said about Iran, Venezuela, and other countries negatively, was the most blatant use of "projection" I've ever heard. ..."
"... If during that phone call, Trump would have said in Biden's style "I expect an indictment of Hunter Biden until next week, otherwise Ukraine won't receive any money any more." the push towards indictment would be understandable. But just mentioning Biden's corruption, for which there are strong indications, can be no basis can hardly be a basis for impeachment. ..."
"... A second reason that may be plausible is that Joe Biden is quite influential within the Democratic party, he may have been enraged that someone dared to speak about his corruption and therefore have demanded impeachment. ..."
"... Perhaps impeachment is also meant to distract from the findings about the origins of Russiagate and FISA abuse that will probably soon come out. But it may still be a bit unwise to choose something that is so closely connected with Biden's corruption (and probably also with the fabrication of Russiagate for which the DNC's Ukraine connections were also used). ..."
"... But Michael Tracey said this before the contents of the phone call was known, and I think it is fair to say it is rather underwhelming, and impeachment could end in an embarrassment for Democrats. ..."
"... I think Tulsi Gabbard who so far seems to be the only Democrat who clearly spoke out against impeachment proceedings could profit from this - even though a majority of Democrats currently seems to be in favor of impeachment, the percentage of Democrats who oppose impeachment on such dubious grounds and prefer campaigning on real political issues is probably much higher than Gabbard's current rating, and some of those could be motivated to support her. ..."
"... If a corporate Democrat who is fully behind impeachment is nominated, the chances in the general election are probably not that great, anyway. Even though polls now show the opposite, I hardly think Biden could win against Trump - not only because of the profiteering of the Biden family from his vice presidency, but mainly because of the clear signs of mental decline. ..."
"... Of all the various misdeeds committed by the Trump government over the last few years within US borders and without, the one crime Nancy Pelosi decides to go after Trump over turns out not only a non-crime but it is not even a pale shadow of a more egregious incident in which Joe Biden, while US Vice-President, pressured the Ukrainian government under Porky Pig Poroshenko to sack Viktor Shokin as Prosecutor General for launching an investigation into possibly corrupt activities of Burisma Holdings and in particular of one of its directors who happens to be Joe Biden's son, Hunter. ..."
"... Incidentally wasn't a major shareholder of Burisma Holdings at one time (if not currently) the notorious Ihor Kolomoisky, governor of Dnepropetrovsk region in mid-2014, about the time that the Malaysia Airlines Boeing passenger jet fell from the sky in a region where Burisma Holdings had been granted a license to explore and prospect for shale oil? ..."
"... Incidentally Dmitri Alperovich, CEO of Crowdstrike, the cyber-security company that worked for the DNC during the 2016 Presidential election campaign, is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council and its Digital Forensics Research Lab where Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat is a non-resident advisor. ..."
"... I feel that the Democrats' real problem with Trump is that he ended their corruption financing plan for the future. I would like to add Trump just replaced the Democrats corruption plan with his own, but OOPS, the Democrats haven't provided any evidence of that, instead they spent 3 years trying to prove something that never happened. ..."
"... Instead the Democrats chased a ghost for 3 years and now the Democrats have just signalled that they will spend the next 6 months trying to impeach Trump for investigating Joe Biden's corruption. The American people have, in effect, been defrauded of their political leadership time, how do the Democrats think this will go over with the American voters in 2020. ..."
"... impeachment provides another topic to help avoid discussion of the Empire, its wars, ..."
"... Yes, the congress-critters get to enjoy a well-paying job with an annual salary of $174,000 and increase their already high likelihood of getting re-elected if they don't do anything notable that people might not like, but only play politics and sound important on presidential betrayals like (quoting Pelosi) "betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections." ..."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday
announced to open an
impeachment process against President Donald Trump:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump,
charging him with betraying his oath of office and the nation's security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival
for his own political gain.
Instead of running on policy issues the Democrats will (again) try to find vague dirt with which they can tarnish Trump. This
is a huge political mistake. It will help Trump to win his reelection.
After two years of falsely accusing Trump to have colluded with Russia they now allege that he colludes with Ukraine. That will
make it much more difficult for the Democrats to hide the dirty hands they had in creating Russiagate. Their currently preferred
candidate Joe Biden will get damaged:
For the past two years, talk of impeachment had centered around the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who
investigated Russia's interference in the 2016 elections and Mr. Trump's attempts to derail that inquiry. On Tuesday, Ms. Pelosi,
Democrat of California, told her caucus and then the country that new revelations about Mr. Trump's dealings with Ukraine, and
his administration's stonewalling of Congress about them, had finally left the House no choice but to proceed toward a rarely
used remedy. ... At issue are allegations that Mr. Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation
of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son.
The conversation is said to be part of a whistle-blower complaint that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. And
it occurred just a few days after Mr. Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.
Trump indeed withheld money
from the Ukraine. But the Ukrainian president did not know that when Trump spoke with him:
Mr. Trump did not discuss the delay in the military assistance on the July 25 call with Mr. Zelensky, according to people familiar
with the conversation. A Ukrainian official said Mr. Zelensky's government did not learn of the delay until about one month after
the call.
At that time Trump was withholding money from several countries. The money for the Ukraine was released in early September without
any known conditions.
The immediate impulse to start an impeachment investigation came from some whistle blower in the intelligence community who claimed
that Trump did something nefarious during a phone call with the newly elected President of Ukraine Zelensky.
The White House published a
memorandum of the phone call
. The call was made on July 25 2019, a day after the final Robert Mueller testimony in Congress. There are two passages which the
Democrats will claim are damaging:
President Zelenskyy: [...] I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue
to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot
about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess
you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole
situation.. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you
or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor
performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever
you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President,
it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page of cooperation in relations between
the United States and Ukraine. [...]
Trump wanted Zelensky to look into the Ukrainian influence on the whole Russiagate campaign. There certainly was a lot of it.
The three Ukrainian-American Chalupa sisters,
Alexandra
,
Irena and Andrea , worked with the DNC and Ukrainian
officials in Washington and Kiev to
sabotage the Trump campaign
. They are, together with other Ukraine affiliated persons like the Dimitry Alperovich, the CEO of the
hacks at Crowd
Strike, at the core of Russiagate.
The Mueller investigation closed a day before the phone call. It found that Trump had not colluded with Russia or the alleged
Russian influence on the 2016 election. That Trump wants the new Ukrainian leader to investigate what Ukrainian officials did in
support of a debunked campaign against him may be a wrong thing to do but it is certainly not criminal.
In another passage Zelensky says that he will soon meet Trump's lawyer Rudi Guiliani who wanted to revive an investigation into
the Ukrainian company that hired Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden while vice-president Biden himself was running U.S. foreign policy
with regards to Ukraine. Trump then
asks for support for
Giuliani:
President Zelenskyy: [...] I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr.Giuliani just recently and we are
hoping very much that Mr. Guliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. [...] We are great
friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround
myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations
will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.
The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A
lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved.
Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I
will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy.
If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people
she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that The other thing, There's a lot of talk about
Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the
Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It
sounds horrible to me.
Zelensky then again assures Trump that the incoming prosecutor general will look into the issue.
Trump asks for investigations and Zelensky assures him that those will happen. Trump applied no open pressure. There is of course
always implicit pressure any time a U.S. president utters a wish to the president of a country that needs U.S. good will and money
to survive.
As for the Biden case it was Joe's Biden big mouth that brought the issues back into light. In January 2018 he gave a talk at
the Council of Foreign Relations and explained how he
directly threatened
( video ) to withhold money to blackmail the Ukraine
into firing a prosecutor general who was seen as corrupt:
And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan
guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor.
And they didn't.
So they said they had -- they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I'm not going to -- or, we're not going
to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the president. The president said -- I said, call
him. (Laughter.) I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm
going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor
is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who
was solid at the time.
Biden did that at a time when his son
lobbied for the Ukrainian company Burisma who the prosecutor he wanted fired investigated (or maybe blackmailed):
U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one
of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when
Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia.
The general prosecutor's official file for the Burisma probe -- shared with me by senior Ukrainian officials -- shows prosecutors
identified Hunter Biden, business partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
There is no direct evidence that Joe Biden told the Ukrainians to stop the investigation into Burisma. But it was not difficult
for the Ukrainians to figure out that ending the investigation into the company that Joe Biden's son worked for would help them with
further requests to him.
How the Democrats want to construct an impeachment out of this is beyond me.
Trump is the president. Foreign policy is his constitutional prerogative. He used his power to ask the Ukraine to open investigations
into two issues. He withheld money but not to achieve that. The Ukrainians did not even know at that time that the money was blocked.
Biden used his power as vice-president to ask the Ukraine to fire a prosecutor he didn't like and who (by chance?) was going after
the company which enriched his son. He openly withheld money to achieve his aim.
How will the Democrats explain that what Trump did was wrong or even criminal while insisting that what Joe Biden did was normal
business?
They can't. Pelosi knows that there is no case to impeach Trump. That's why she
does not have a plan
how to do proceed with it:
Although Ms. Pelosi's announcement was a crucial turning point, it left many unanswered questions about exactly when and how Democrats
planned to push forward on impeachment. ... And Ms. Pelosi said she had directed the chairmen of the six committees that have
been investigating Mr. Trump to "proceed under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry." In a closed-door meeting earlier in the
day, she said the panels should put together their best cases on potentially impeachable offenses by the president and send them
to the Judiciary Committee, according to two officials familiar with the conversation. That could potentially lay the groundwork
for articles of impeachment based on the findings.
Pelosi has nothing. Six committees have investigated Trump issues but so far found nothing to charge him with. Neither did the
Mueller investigation find anything damaging. How will combining all those nothing-burgers make an impeachment meal?
Trump should be impeached for his crimes against Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
But the Democrats will surely not touch on those issues. They are committing themselves to political theater that will end
without any result. Instead of attacking Trump's policies and proposing better legislation they will pollute the airwaves with noise
about 'crimes' that do not exist.
There is no case for impeachment. Even if the House would vote for one the Senate would never act on it. No one wants to see a
President Pence.
The Democrats are giving Trump the best campaign aid he could have wished for. Trump will again present himself as the victim
of a witch hunt. He will again argue that he is the only one on the side of the people. That he alone stands with them against the
bad politicians in Washington DC. Millions will believe him and support him on this. It will motivate them to vote for him.
Why is it so hard for Democrats to understand this?
Posted by b on September 25, 2019 at 18:03 UTC |
Permalink
It is likely Biden and son are being investigated in Ukraine and dirt or charges will come from it. Dems blowing smoke about impeachment
to take attention away from what may come out of Ukraine.
What seems even more idiotic, is that Pelosi made this announcement BEFORE the transcript was published. Is everyone senile
in the Democratic leadership?
Missing the point. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Now that Trump has effectively betrayed his base, and - tweets aside - is governing like Hilary Clinton would have, the
only way for him to hold on to his base is for them to think that he's being treated unfairly. Make it all about fake impeachment,
and nothing about real issues.
Remember, the corporate Democrats and the corporate Republicans are all paid by the same masters, they all read form the
same script. This is just theater to distract the proles. It's like professional wrestling without the muscles.
I would like to suggest another reason for this impeachment malstorm at this point. Trump is acting presidential at the UN.
He made a very nationalistic speech that I'm sure the MSM would like to erase. See
The future does not belong
to globalists.
In a continuation of the anti-globalist, sovereign-nations theme, Trump warned against totalitarianism and the erosion
of democracy and individual freedoms. "We must always be skeptical of those who want conformity and control," he told the assembly.
"Even in free nations, we see alarming signs and new challenges to liberty."
Obviously, the MSM needs some very negative news about Trump to breathlessly report instead.
Keep in mind that when when we're talking Biden, Pelosi et al we're talking CORPORATE Dems. CORPORATE Dems will do anything,
even lose an election, to ensure that there is the least disruption to their corporate funders -- they would rather have Trump
in office than say Sanders. The Dem's campaign is showing a lot of weakness in their CORPORATE Dem puppets in which case they're
afraid of allowing Sanders to rise (working really hard to push up the CORPORATE Wishy-Washy-Warren).
With Gabbard now making it to the next debate the CORPORATE Dems are running scared. Gabbard will be taking someone out, perhaps
it'll be either Warren or Biden: maybe "Beto" or "Pete" just to put a stake in the hearts of these clowns (Harris is already fatally
wounded -- just waiting for her to finally drop).
Instead of attacking Trump's policies and proposing better legislation
This is exactly the point. They can't! They are paid by the same 0.1 % as the Republicans. They can only propose to secure
the Mexican border by other means (drones! lol), they would continue to deport small children just as Obama did, continue all
illegal wars, and try to enrich the ruling class even further. Just like Trump. That's why they got rid of candidates like Gabbard
that fast and instead install an old man suffering from dementia.
The Dems cannot attack Trump's policies. They are bound to sing the same song as Trump, just to a different melody. They
have the very same masters, and those who pay the bill dictate the music. It is that simple.
Yep, b's 100% correct that there're plenty of grounds on which to impeach the entire upper echelon of TrumpCo that won't ever
make it into whatever Articles of Impeachment are generated. The Ukrainian stuff is all political with absolutely no impeachable
offense incurred.
The Current Oligarchy is behind the strings controlling Pelosi's mouth and teleprompter as Biden won't be nominated, and it
can't totally count on Warren's allegiance. Gabbard has already voiced her opposition to Trump's impeachment,
arguing that it's better to beat him at the polls.
Sanders in contrast, has endorsed impeachment
. IMO, Gabbard's approach is best. However, IMO, both Sanders and Gabbard must plan on what to do when the DNC again throws the
nomination to someone other than the best candidate to beat Trump as the DNC is wholly owned by the Current Oligarchy.
karlof1 - if sanders had any character he would have left the dem party and ran as an independent... at this point the dem party
is completely insane..
Trump re-election chances just shot up. Not just the Biden collateral damage, but this is a clear reprise of the Russiagate
nonsense. This will re-energize the Trump base - and Trump is going to cry all the way back to the White House saying he's being
unfairly prosecuted. Saker is saying this is a literal reprise, but it is irrelevant if that is true or not.
"Why is it so hard for Democrats to understand this?"
I think they understand that they need a big distraction, even if it later swirls down the toilet like the previous turd, because
Brennan's tit is in the wringer. If Brennan is indicted, then the whole corrupt Russia-hoax starts unraveling. I think the DNC
gerontocracy are playing for time with this fiasco out of desperation on several fronts.
I don't think the issue is Sanders's "character;" if you follow
his Twitter , you'll quickly discover he has a fine character, as with this proposal:
"We are going to end homelessness and build millions of new affordable housing units -- paid for with a tax on the billionaire
class."
Sometimes, I don't think he wants to become POTUS, which has allowed him to get rather radical by US political norms. I also
wonder how closely those promoting him pay attention to the DC Circus. Given Pelosi and Co's opposition to a host of Bernie's
proposals--particularly Medicare For All--it seems wise to put them into the oppositional camp too, as I have.
Mistake or not, I'll enjoy the theater, IF, it's on MSM. Personally, I'd like to know if the "whistle blowers" accusations can
hold water. It needs to be released.
If this regime has nothing to hide, let your people respect lawful summons to testify. If DJT continues to advise them to ignore
'em, that's obstruction..
P.S. This coming circus will be a massive distraction, and keep relevant issues from the public a little longer, which, the
corporatists will love.
The Dims seem to be setting new records in Stupid, and, as we all know - you can't fix Stupid. Surely they see that while Trump
is an appalling scoundrel elected almost by accident due to the Stupid factor in the Dims prior campaign - Pense is a certifiable
Lunatic. Too scary for words.
I think maybe casey # 18 is right. The Dims are running scared because they think something Really wicked this way comes.
On the other hand, it is a nice distraction from the Greta Pet Rock Whinging Society - itself a distraction from, well, reality....
A bit off topic, but, DJT's speech at the UN was a eff'en joke. Everything he said about Iran, Venezuela, and other countries
negatively, was the most blatant use of "projection" I've ever heard.
I think what's going in the brain trust of the DNC is something like this:
i. Biden is a non-starter with the public. He'll be devoured alive by the Republicans, who only need to bring up his career
to expose his mendacity. ii. Warren might be co-opted, having been a Republican and fiscal conservative up to the mid-90s, but
what if she isn't? iii. Sanders is a non-starter, but with the "people who matter".
Rather than having to threaten him with the
suspicions around his wife, or go for the JFK solution, they'd rather he didn't even get past the primaries, much less elected.
iv. As a CNN talking head said weeks ago, it's better for the wealthy people the DNC is beholden to that their own candidate loses
to Trump if that candidate is Sanders.
So better to hedge their bets. Start impeachment hearings, give Trump ammunition to destroy Sanders or Warren. That way, the
rich win in all scenarios:
a. If Biden wins the nomination, the campaign will be essentially mudslinging from both sides about who is more corrupt. The
rich are fine with whoever wins. b. If Warren gets the nomination and is co-opted, the media will let the impeachment hearings
die out, or the House themselves will quickly bury it. c. If Warren gets the nomination and is not co-opted, or if Sanders get
it, the impeachment will suck up all the air of the room, Trump will play the witchhunt card and be re-elected.
If during that phone call, Trump would have said in Biden's style "I expect an indictment of Hunter Biden until next week, otherwise
Ukraine won't receive any money any more." the push towards indictment would be understandable. But just mentioning Biden's corruption,
for which there are strong indications, can be no basis can hardly be a basis for impeachment.
If the new rule was that any contact
with foreign governments relating to information that can be relevant in elections, Hillary Clinton should have been disqualified
before the election because her team and the DNC worked with Ukraine to get dirt on Manaford (and anything they could find about
people around Trump, let alone the Steele dossier for which rumors were also collected abroad).
The behavior of Democrats seems a bit odd. They start impeachment procedures although a majority of Americans is against this
(so, despite the polarization, a sizable percentage is against Trump, but wants him to be defeated in elections rather than be
impeached, which hardly won't happen anyway when it is tried). I think there are probably mainly two possible reasons.
One is
that, although a majority of Americans overall is against impeachment, a majority of Democratic voters is currently in favor of
impeachment. Obviously, as to many issues, Democrats don't do what a majority of their voters want (they generally don't when
their voters want something different from what their donors want), but sometimes, they do what a majority of their voters wants,
even if it is rather stupid strategically.
A second reason that may be plausible is that Joe Biden is quite influential within
the Democratic party, he may have been enraged that someone dared to speak about his corruption and therefore have demanded impeachment.
Perhaps impeachment is also meant to distract from the findings about the origins of Russiagate and FISA abuse that will probably
soon come out. But it may still be a bit unwise to choose something that is so closely connected with Biden's corruption (and
probably also with the fabrication of Russiagate for which the DNC's Ukraine connections were also used).
An interesting question is what the influence on the primaries will be. Obviously, it will be rather inconvenient for those
candidates who are senators (Sanders, Warren, and others that may or may not be in the race at that time) if there are impeachment
hearings in the Senate at the same time as primaries. Michael Tracey thinks the impeachment procedure would rather help Elizabeth
Warren (who had been demanding impeachment for some time) and Joe Biden, while it would be quite inconvenient for Bernie Sanders
because he would primarily want to talk about things like economic inequality and healthcare, and constant headlines about impeachment
only hinder this.
But Michael Tracey said this before the contents of the phone call was known, and I think it is fair to say it is rather underwhelming,
and impeachment could end in an embarrassment for Democrats. The suspicious profiteering of the Biden family will inevitable constantly
be an ubiquitous subject, and even if the media who support the Democrats attempt to frame this in a way that protects Biden,
in the end, it can hardly be good for him. Of course, a significant part of the Democratic basis is now completely consumed by
conspiratorial thinking (in some online forums, we can see constant claims that Trump has been found guilty of conspiring with
Russia and that the Mueller report confirmed this because it did not "exonerate" him) - they will support impeachment without
caring on what basis is done. But if they continue with such a weak case, support for impeachment could weaken even among Democratic
primary voters, and then fervent impeachment proponents like Elizabeth Warren may not profit from this.
I think Tulsi Gabbard who so far seems to be the only Democrat who clearly spoke out against impeachment proceedings could
profit from this - even though a majority of Democrats currently seems to be in favor of impeachment, the percentage of Democrats
who oppose impeachment on such dubious grounds and prefer campaigning on real political issues is probably much higher than Gabbard's
current rating, and some of those could be motivated to support her. That way, she might move up. At the moment, it seems unlikely
that she could win outright, but if she has good results and Sanders is elected, there might be a chance that she is appointed
to an important position (e.g. Secretary of State) where she has influence on foreign policy.
If a corporate Democrat who is fully behind impeachment is nominated, the chances in the general election are probably not
that great, anyway. Even though polls now show the opposite, I hardly think Biden could win against Trump - not only because of
the profiteering of the Biden family from his vice presidency, but mainly because of the clear signs of mental decline. Maybe
Sanders can, like with the Russiagate conspiracy theory, nod to the establishment enough that he does not get in trouble, but
not invest himself too much in that partisan bickering that he is not damaged too much when it fails.
Huawei Chairman Liang Hua told China-Germany-USA Media Forum that the US putting Huawei on entity list has had no substantial
impact on Huawei's business. All of the company's flagship products are shipped normally. Ecosystem of Huawei's end products will
be built in 2-3 years.
B is once again a sane voice that is being drowned out by a chorus of screaming DC morons. The stupidity of those cretins that
run the US of A has no limits. It is indeed infinite! Get ready America, the orange haired jackass (with my apologies to that
durable, noble beast of burden) will get another four years in the White House thanks to the Democratic Party's leadership. Reason
and logic roll-off what passes for their brains like water on a duck's back. The late journalist, critic and cynic H.L. Mencken
was once asked why if he so disliked America why then did he remain in it? He replied, "why do men go to zoos?"
The only way this will help Democrats is that perhaps Biden will vanish from the political scene more expeditiously. I theorize
that his current "support" is not related to any particular position but nostalgia and a certain amiability -- that vanishes when
you try to understand what (the hell) is he saying. That said, Trump is a master of assorted serious facial expression, can spontaneously
coin an insult, for him Biden is a lamb waiting to be roasted.
The Democratic impeachment process isn't a mistake it's a strategy. As with Bojo's Brexit or the Canadian election centrally planned
to result in a weak minority, the UK-centred financiers of the Leviathan Soviet needs weak governments to enact their derivative
flushing and fiat takedown exercise + the inevitable Financial Patriot Act that follows, as Mark Carney essentially promised several
weeks ago.
Sever the head of the beast. Arrest and prosecute the gangsters and financiers when they make their only possible move. The
Lubavitcher mob will be used as scapegoats but we can't stop there. Those directing this centuries long crime spree against humanity
must be held accountable for their perfidy and their every pilfered asset must be returned to the people from which they stole.
There's probably an internal struggle in the Democratic Party between the "democratic socialists" (Sanders, Warren?, Gabbard,
AOC etc.) and the liberals (the "establishment": Pelosi, Biden, DNC etc. etc.).
The term "democratic socialism" comes from the early Cold War in the UK, more precisely, in the right-wing of the Labour party
at the time (also called "Gaitskellites"). It proposes general welfare state policies in order to best manage the capitalist boom
of post-war Britain while, at the same time, embracing the idea of capitalism. Democratic socialists are not really socialists
-- but they still represent a radical leftwards turn for the political spectrum of the USA, hence are seen as an existential threat
to the American electoral machine.
My guess is the liberal faction of the Democratic Party sees Biden as its last hope of aborting the historical process that
brought Trump to power thus reconnecting American recent history with Obama's legacy. It's either that or a permanent transformation
of American political landscape for the forseeable future.
The problem is that Biden is probably extremely corrupt and has a lot of skeletons in Ukraine. If said investigation proceeds
honestly and quickly in Ukraine, my hypothesis is that Biden will go down and even be arrested (alongside his son). That would
permanently damage the liberal faction.
The American people still is rabidly anti-socialist (or "anti-communist", in Cold War terminology that they still use nowadays).
However, American capitalism has reached its structural limits and even mild socialistic reforms such as universal healthcare
free at the point of use is too much for the country to handle without collapsing. For practical purposes, the American elite
must consider democratic socialism (Gaitskellism) as full-fledged socialism simply because they are very fragile -- that's also
why dumbed down leftists such as Elizabeth Warren and AOC are disferring such devastating blows to the liberals and are so popular.
At the same time, Trump's reelection would still be bad for the American capitalist class as whole because he is eroding America's
image to its allies. This is specially true to its First World allies (Western Europe and Japan). The special case here is Atlanticism,
i.e. the ideology that posits the existence of a unified Western Civilization in the North Atlantic that strikes envy to the rest
of the world (in Asia and India in particular). Besides, a lot of very powerful American billionaires owe their social status
to outsourcing to China, so they prefer a Russophobe in the White House instead of a Sinophobe. The American elite is divided.
That Sanders and Gabbard work within the duopoly is all that needs to be known. One person can only make a difference if there
is a party that is independent of the duopoly behind them. We had one here for a bit. Took the combined efforts of the duopoly
and media plus splitting her electorate and then jailing her to bring her down. I didn't agree with some of the policies, but
that was the first time in my life I voted as they were not part of the system.
While it's true that there is nothing impeachable here (replace the name "Biden" with "Assange" or "Snowden" and imagine if anyone
would have even batted an eyelash at this). That said Trump talks too much. I only hope that this was a rookie mistake as it was
done a long time ago but he just talks too much. People make too much of too many unguaraded comments. Anyway, as to why the democrats
need this instead of talking policy, that's easy. All their large campaign contributors are very much against the ideas of the
progressive wing in their party and without the progressive wing their policies are the same as the republicans on every major
issue. They think it helps them in the election. Kinda stupid but Schumer, Pelosi, Leahey, Grassley and the rest of the gang will
drive the party straight into the ground rather than upset their large campaign contributors because that's the seat of their
power and why all their policies are identical to republican policies.
OMG! Trump and Zelensky talk again, now on TV. The recording snap I have seen shows Trump saying thoughtfully "I hope that you
and Putin will get together and sort out your problems. I know that this is what you were planning to do, and it would be a tremendous
achievement. Zelensky looks as if he just learned about the death of his beloved babushka.
The Democratic Party position is only incomprehensible if you assume they actually want to win and govern in the people's interest.
They clearly do not. Late empire circumstances dictate that the pseudo-left choice on the ballot cannot actually adopt any positions
opposing the elite, so all that is left is identity politics and orange man bad to veil this increasingly obvious and embarrassing
scam. Trump will prevail against any non-progressive Democratic candidate running an orange man bad campaign. Book it.
News that an impeachment inquiry is being initiated instantly sent stock prices tumbling on Tuesday, but that small jolt is nothing
compared to what we will experience if Donald Trump is actually impeached. Over the past couple of years we have seen a tremendous
boom in stock prices, and one of the big reasons for that boom is the fact that the folks on Wall Street know that Trump is always
going to be looking out for their best interests. Trump understands that his chances of winning again in 2020 will be greatly
enhanced if stock prices are rising and most Americans believe that we have a "booming economy", and so he wants to do everything
in his power to try to make those things happen. That means that Trump's short-term interests are perfectly aligned with Wall
Street's short-term interests, but things will shift dramatically if someone like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders ends up in
the White House. Wall Street knows that they have a friend in Donald Trump, and losing that friend would potentially be absolutely
devastating.
B.'s post and the comments (so far) are a refreshing change of pace from the US mass-media coverage, which as usual treats this
as another "bombshell" event to be taken at face value.
Since I try to avoid corporate mass-media infoganda, I can only assume that the Biden video referenced in the post has not
gotten much mainstream airplay. As the quoted bit shows, Biden is openly and smugly bragging to an enthusiastic audience about
how he successfully gave Ukraine's leaders an ultimatum: either fire the prosecutor who was investigating his crooked son, or
lose "a billion dollars" in aid.
Sounds like an, er, quid pro quo , no? Unlike the accusation against Trump, Biden's motives and actions don't have to
be hyped, massaged, and spun to create the "impression" of misconduct-- the video speaks for itself.
I've seen alternative-media speculation that the DNC, or some faction within the Democratic Party leadership, actually want
this "bombshell" to boomerang back upon Biden and force him to withdraw his candidacy. There are indications that Elizabeth Warren
has been moved to the on-deck circle.
I lack expertise and interest in electoral-politics handicapping, but it may be that since the odious Kamala Harris isn't exactly
a "hit" with the public, and the charade of Sanders being an "independent" may exclude him from the position of the Democratic
Party's 2020 "standard-bearer", Warren is considered "electable".
Warren has issues too, but if Biden drops out for one reason on another, the Dem strategists probably see her as a New! Improved!
version of Hillary: a "historic" candidate by identity-politics standards, a reassuringly "safe pair of hands" in contrast to
Wild 'n Crazy Trump, and though hardly "charismatic", more personable than Hillary and with less baggage.
Given the Democratic Party leadership's TDS-saturated hysteria and groupthink, it's plausible that the Dems hope that their
ongoing assault on Trump's character will prime the public to enthusiastically turn to a reformist "clean as a hound's tooth"
schoolmarm type for political salvation.
Theory 1) Perhaps given Trump will not agree to a launch a war with Iran, there are those who do, assuming Pence is the idiot
who will agree to starting such a war?
"Biden used his power as vice-president to ask the Ukraine to fire a prosecutor he didn't like.... Pelosi has nothing"
Theory 2) Perhaps the Dems have faced reality after all and know Biden who will lose to Trump. Is this a backhanded way to
smear Biden, forcing him to pull out of the race once this inevitably blows up in his face?
This is puzzling. I can't see why the thread has been stymied into overshoot but it has. Never mind, the issue was so important
that it is worth doing our best to scroll sideways on the comments.
I also cannot see why Sanders has shot himself in the foot. Perhaps he thinks, with all the pressures of the office, it is
better left to Trump.
Thank you b, for analyzing the phone call. How can this be seen as an impeachable issue? It is all very strange indeed, since
calling attention to the situation with Biden's son cannot be in the best interests of the Democratic party, and yet that is what
Pelosi has done.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain..." Is that it?
stupidity of those cretins that run the US of A has no limits. It is indeed infinite! Get ready America, the orange haired jackass
(with my apologies to that durable, noble beast of burden) <-- GeorgeV | Sep 25 2019 20:09 utc | 33
As anyone with some contact with computing knows (using a laptop should be sufficient), information processing power comes
from small size of processing units and their number. In a living mammal, the but has some trillions of bacteria in the gut, and
this is the source of ideas for some (they pull them out of their anus), used sparingly it yields a few megacretins, but we use
most of them, we can reach teracretins and more. But if we assemble more than 1000 experts, politicians, commentators, bloggers
etc., we can get petacrektins. I would need to check calculations, I think that we will not see exacretins.
Also, noble or not, which beasts of burden have sparse orange manes? Baltimore orioles do not count.
I am not sure I agree with the author. The Ukraine call is definitely a bigger scandal than the Mueller's fishing trip, and it
may sway some independents. Much depends on what Trump actually said, how he said it, etc, i.e. the actual phone recording will
decide whether Democrats make the right decision to impeach this time.
which has allowed him to get rather radical by US political norms
If pointing out the crucial problems the US society faces and adding solutions vis "getting radical by Us political norms",
what is radical is not Bernie Sanders discourse, but "US political norms"
Painting him as radical contributes to avoid discussion of those crucial issues by US society.
On Ivan Redondo, Basque, formed at private jesuit Deusto University, and then at the US in political communication, presents
himself as "respectful of all ideologies", amongst which he thinks "we must reach an agreement"...He assures, at his parents home
there is of almost all ideologies ( although I very doubt that there is anyone of the left in his home...but I may be wrong...)
and recommends reading the "suspicious", Freud, Nietzsche, Marx..if not for to learn....An interesting guy, no doubt...
"Trump should be impeached for his crimes against Syria, Venezuela and Yemen" and the Muslim ban, and separating kids from parents
at the US-Mexico border, the denial of asylum too.
Impeachment hearings will give Biden cover for his racism, jingoism, and his flailing memory.
Right Biden and son should be prosecuted for corruption by the USA, but that's true of Trump and his adult children too.
Trump stepped over line and invited Ukraine to work against the candidacy of Biden, doesn't matter what Biden foolishly said
about the prosector in Ukraine.
@Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 25 2019 20:20 utc | 37
One person can only make a difference if there is a party that is independent of the duopoly behind them.
But, is it at all possible in the US, with its current electoral system, present yourself as "independent" for presidential
elections, out of the "duopoly"?
The system in Spain ( although not only of Spain...the "system"...) managed to thwart the popular support of even new third
political force born out of the "15M Movement" ( kinda Occupy...) Podemos, by using a it of kabuki and political machinations
amongst oligarchic powers and monarchy ( and I do not discard also US Embassy, as happened during the NATO referendum... )....Sánchez
flew to have dinner with Macron as soon as he won the past presidential elections...the same night!
DNC just got scared that their front man Biden's dirt is being on the front page. ANYTHING to deflect the attention NOW. They
dont think about long term fallout anyway.
Beautiful. Now that Trump after some years more and more realizes he is indeed president, we may finally see some of his promises
full filled in the coming years. Only question is at what cost. But with Bibi and Bolton out, MBS shaky after Aramco attack, the
neocons influence my finally decrease. Though it may all end out much worse we can imagine. We will see.
News reports are saying that Pelosi changed her position on impeachment because Democrats representing Trump districts suddenly
changed to a pro-impeachment position. Pelosi and Schumer bend over backwards to accommodate these Republicans posing as Democrats,
using them as their excuse for not getting anything meaningful done.
When it became obvious to them that Trump was going all out for Biden, their savior, I believed they got spooked, seeing their
reelection chances plummet if anyone but Biden got the nomination. So of course Pelosi stepped in, as she always does for corrupt,
corporate Democrats, and tried to preempt the Ukraine investigation. It may well backfire.
Democrats will spend the next six months trying to make Trump the issue. Republicans will spend the next six months making
Biden's corruption the issue. Because Ukraine is such a swamp of corruption, the facts of the matter will remain murky. Ukrainian
politicians are likely to say whatever the person controlling the purse strings wants them to say. Back then, it was Obama/Biden.
Now it's Trump until it becomes obvious that Trump won't control the money.
In the process let's hope that a lot of dirty laundry about how the US conducts foreign policy gets aired. One of the major
goals of US foreign policy is to promote US business abroad and any politician would prefer that his supporters and donors get
helped the most which means that tacit, corrupt quid pro quos are the norm.
@37 peter au... thanks.. how is it working out in australia since you voted? has the system reverted to another duopoly?
@46 d dan... did you watch the 1 1/2 minute video
on biden speaking that b shared up above and i am again sharing in this link here? check it out and let us know what you think..
@49 jay.. i agree it was a mistake on trumps part, but biden is caught in a much more serious bind as i see it.. ultimately
this impeachment idea of pelosi's is very dead in the water and will sink biden too.. maybe that is the point?
According to Ivan Redondo at that interview, the Sanders campaign in 2016 was the one really counterposed to that of Trump....
Thus, attacking Sanders now could equate campaigning for The Donald...hwen who must be attacked is Biden...
Sasha I do not know enough about the system in Spain to make any comment in that direction.
Re US and an independent president. The two party system or duopoly would take an independent down immediately using impeachment.
Impeachment is somewhat different to criminal investigation and trial. A claim can be made and is voted on first by congress.
If enough votes it then goes to the senate who vote as to guilty or not. For any president to survive, they must have backers
in either the congress or senate.
https://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2019/09/open-thread-on-the-effort-to-expel-trump-from-office-through-impeachment.html
"It takes a simple majority (218) for the House of Representatives to pass a bill of impeachment against any federal official.
The Democrats have 232 seats in the present congress. The Bill (equivalent to an indictment) then is transferred to the US Senate
where the impeached person is tried before the US Senate with the Chief Justice of the United State presiding.. 2/3 of the senators
must vote for conviction for that to occur. Two presidents have been impeached. None has been convicted."
Biden is in no trouble. He is/will make the case that the removal of the Ukrainian prosecutor was supported by many people
and allies that saw the prosecutor as slow/unwilling to tackle corruption in Ukraine.
This is whole thing is truly a nothing-burger distraction from the fact that we are on the cusp of war.
When Joe Biden's son, Hunter was appointed to the board of Burisma, the Vice-President's spokesperson described Hunter as just
"a private citizen".
In case anyone believes that the Ukrainian company appointed Hunter Biden purely on merit (and not because of who his father
is), there are a few things that should be considered:
- Hunter had no previous experience either in eastern Europe or in the gas industry.
- His appointement was made just a few days before his Dad visited Ukraine:
- Joe Biden gave a speech during his visit, in which he encouraged Ukraine's 'energy security'( to Ukrainian Legislators in
Kiev on April 22, 2014).
- The day before that speech (three days after Hunter's appointment), the White House announced that the USA would help with
Ukraine's 'energy security' by sending expert teams in the following weeks. The aim was "to help Ukraine meet immediate and longer
term energy needs" and "to increase conventional gas production from existing fields to boost domestic energy supply".
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/21/fact-sheet-us-crisis-support-package-ukraine
The Democrats have made a big mistake by drawing attention to the Bidens' interests in Ukraine.
When Joe Biden's son, Hunter was appointed to the board of Burisma, the Vice-President's spokesperson described Hunter as just
"a private citizen".
In case anyone believes that the Ukrainian company appointed Hunter Biden purely on merit (and not because of who his father
is), there are a few things that should be considered:
- Hunter had no previous experience either in eastern Europe or in the gas industry.
- His appointement was made just a few days before his Dad visited Ukraine:
- Joe Biden gave a speech during his visit, in which he encouraged Ukraine's 'energy security'( to Ukrainian Legislators in
Kiev on April 22, 2014).
- The day before that speech (three days after Hunter's appointment), the White House announced that the USA would help with
Ukraine's 'energy security' by sending expert teams in the following weeks. The aim was "to help Ukraine meet immediate and longer
term energy needs" and "to increase conventional gas production from existing fields to boost domestic energy supply".
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/21/fact-sheet-us-crisis-support-package-ukraine
The Democratics have made a big mistake by drawing attention to the Bidens' interests in Ukraine.
the people at the dnc don't really care about winning, they just have to make sure the dollars keep rolling in, and that people
like gabbard and sanders lose. to that end, they try political grandstanding like talking about impeaching trump and keeping russiagate
alive.
Yeah, straight back to the duopoly. Greens always get a few votes but they're no different. Put a vote on a long shot one time.
He had a falling out with his side of the duopoly and set up a new party. Gained the ballance of power and all roads from both
sides of the duopoly led to his door. Literally he sat back in his chair, big obese clown shirt half unbuttoned and held court
there. In the end the duopoly caved in and gave him the required permits for to run a rail line from a new coal mine he was kicking
of to the coast. Straight away he was one of the boys again, and those of his party that had been elected left him and become
independents. Entertaining while it lasted though.
from
Pelosi statement : "The president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him
politically. The actions of the Trump presidency revealed dishonorable facts of betrayal of his oath of office and betrayal of
our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.'
presidential oath of office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the
United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." It comes
from Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.
So: > It's not clear why a US president asking a foreign president to investigate the actions of an American to cause the firing
of a prosecutor is wrong. > The only way such an investigation could benefit Trump politically is if that American (Biden) had
done something wrong. > So obviously Biden did do something wrong. > Therefore we must conclude that wrongdoing by Americans in
other countries must not be publicized because that might affect elections. > Americans voters should not be allowed access to
information about US politicians acting badly in foreign countries, and any president who requests such information should be
impeached. > The integrity of our elections requires the withholding of some information from voters, when it impacts badly on
Democrats.
Oh the irony of the Democrats building their impeachment case on information from a whistleblower. After the record shattering
prosecutions of the Obama Presidency, I didn't think there were any left. This instance of Biden's oral incontinence is just one
reason he's a poor choice. Besides being on the wrong side of history on every issue of importance, according to another whistleblower
Edward Snowden, Biden was responsible for EU nations denying him asylum and was the primary reason he ended up in Russia.
I find it impossible to believe the narrative we are being fed that politicians with decades of experience with shrewdness and
the swamp of DC under their belts could possibly step on their own dicks this many times in a row by accident. This has the feel
of being orchestrated reality TV playing to the Trump victim narrative that barely pushed him over the hump in 2016.
And impeachment provides another topic to help avoid discussion of the Empire, its wars, and the financial burden it places on
everything. The very sour state of the Empire's economy was mentioned above; in that light, I suggest
this excellent
if somewhat technical essay , as a multitude at the bar have voiced their approval of the topic: "Are We Approaching the End
of Super Imperialism?"
Jackrabbit I reckon we are going to see Netanyahu but with Lieberman who is worse (more homicidal lunacy) even than nutty, calling
some of the shots. I think it was Lieberman behind the downing of the Russian plane.
This is my go to site now for real news and evaluation, thanks b. The overall thread here fits my perceptions in many ways except
for the elephant in the room and that is the tremendous influence (power) that the Zionist/Neocon/Israeli Fifth column has over
US government, political parties, media and foreign governments. Why is this so lightly touched on here or dismissed as "corporate
interests"? Is this site vulnerable to those special interests or $$? Or are there so many shills here ready to destroy anyone
mentioning it? I guess I will see?
Bravo!! Your next pint's on me! I merely stated no impeachable offense was committed while you laid out the illogic of it all!
As with Bill Clinton's impeachment, none of the Articles focused on the genuine crimes he committed, and the same will prove
true with Trump. Lots of Jonesing for Pence as POTUS, a desire by many D-Partyites since Trump's win. My guess is the election
will occur before the trial's resolved in the Senate if it even gets that far.
After 3 years of the Democrates being totally up their own asses, I've come to the sad conclusion that they must be paid to lose,
there's simply no rational explanation for how insane they've behaving, 3 or 4 crazy Democrates shouting at trees is one thing,
but there's not one Democrat pointing out how deranged they've been behaving. I can only imagine that their campaign contributors
are laughing into their sleeves as they wright one check to the Republicans and then a slightly smaller one for the Democrates.
John Sanguinetti Israel does have strong influence on the US. I have noticed that many who would like to concentrate on just that
aspect in anything that happens, Try to place all blame on Israel and depict the US as an innocent baby led astray. It was a conscious
choice for the US to side with Israel and unless the yanks can clean up their act, there will always be an Israel. In fact there
are many Israels behind anything political in the US. To name them all is just a matter of looking up who puts money into politics,
be it sponsorship or lobbying or has in any way a hold over one or more elected politicians. You will find that virtually nobody
can run for a public office in the US and hope to win without having a sugar daddy.
Please, see this excellent interview of The Duran: "BIDEN SCANDAL EXPLODES: UKRAINE FRACKING, MONEY LAUNDERING, BANK OF CHINA
PAYOFFS" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qxk9Pnw4tbM
With Gabbard now making it to the next debate the CORPORATE Dems are running scared. Gabbard will be taking someone out, perhaps
it'll be either Warren or Biden: maybe "Beto" or "Pete" just to put a stake in the hearts of these clowns (Harris is already fatally
wounded- just waiting for her to finally drop).
Posted by: Seer | Sep 25 2019 18:37
Tulsi is making up for all those years wasted in the medical unit and shines in her new job: bomb throwing. One bomb hit Kamala
the hanging prosecutor, the most recent "we are not Saudi prostitutes" is even better. I would most sincerely ask people here
to contribute to her campaign and see your pennies at work. Of course, if you would rather see debates full of establishment collegiality
then you should not do it.
One of the reasons that I doubt Biden's version of the story stems from my experience in Venezuela. After Chavez took power, Venezuelans
told me that he had found that a critical subsidiary of the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA was basically a CIA shop. The names of
CIA on the Board of Directors were not just ordinary CIA, but were recognizable figures at the very top. To me this is entirely
plausible. Control of oil is critical to US global hegemony. And what better way to control foreign oil than to have trusted American
asset sit on the BOD? This brings us to Hunter Biden's appointment to Ukrainian energy giant Burisma. After the coup in 2014,
why wouldn't Biden want a trusted asset on the board of the biggest natural gas producer in Ukraine? IOW it was unpublicized standard
operating procedure.
"For decades there has been a "catch me if you can" quality about Donald Trump, skipping from casino bankruptcies to fraudulent
universities to porn actor payoffs." True--- But that may be coming to a end.
Thank you Piotr Berman #77, I share that view with you. Tulsi Gabbard is changing the debate and corporate Dems AND Repugs are
terrified of a wave.
I see that Bernie's moment is coming where he will have to choose to either step in line as a sheepdog or take a truly independent
path. He is unlikely to run again in 4 years and given the vice grip that these corporate Democrat party thugs have on the machine
it may well be time for a leader to go on strike against the machine and run as a people's president.
Tulsi is running hard and I dont expect her to break ranks but I do not see her capitulating as a sheep dog either given her
profound focus on messages that the USA working and middle class support. They both need to consider their power and risk in taking
direct action in this campaign when the watershed moment arises.
It is funny, The Dems spent 4 years trying to find the stain on the dress for Trump and impeach him for lying about it - and it
seems that they have absolutely no other idea how to get into power. There is an election next year, and still they prefer to
shoot themselves in the foot rather than appeal to voters. Step one of course would be to listen to voters - the ones telling
them to shut up about impeachment and find a candidate under 65 with electable policies. In that sense the inevitable departure
of Biden is good for the Dems.
Why is it so hard for Democrats to understand this?
Is the key question. Psychiatrists would call it projection. The Dems seem to take everything bad that they get accused of
and accuse the oppo early. Thus The Russia smears on Trump came right after internal research told Hillary that she was vulnerable
to corruption charges over Uranium One. (it is to the Trump campaign's great credit that they did not respond to the silly Russia
gate charges by Hillary by pointing to the far more serious and credible corruption charges against HRC and the $145 million payment
to the Clinton foundation by the guy that was permitted by HRC to sell his Uranium stake to Russia's Rosatom. Rather Trump ignored
media chat and stuck to his message to voters - essentially that the Dems had abandoned the working man and that Trump at least
listened to them.)
And clear criminal behaviour by Biden with Ukraine is the model to accuse Trump in the Biden coverup (though surely he gets
ditched now - the Chinese $1 billion to the hedge fund run by Biden's son + Kerry Step-son + big drugs criminal and murder, Whitey
Bulger's nephew is just dynamite - just wait till we get to discussing why Obama never faced down China over trade!!).
Has to be said that with all this media power but no policies the Dems are doing appallingly badly, with much of the blowback
from the Mueller inquiry yet to hit them.
That's a rather macabre balancing act that the creatures in DC are performing. They are certainly a strange lot. I wonder just
how badly the faction being represented by the DNC and Democratic Party actually screwed up (on a global/cosmic scale that is).
Because, they sure do seem to be stuck in freak out mode. I mean, it is a known fact that Obama, and Biden, were directly responsible
for the Kiev coup (I'm sorry, but anyone who believes otherwise really needs a little cognitive adjustment therapy), so that's
not really a bombshell. Everyone already knows that Clinton was on point for the Arab Spring and the Libya debacle (to include
bumping off a US diplomat), not to mention in on the ground floor of the entire aggression against Syria (and possibly had a finger
in the aggression against Yemen). So, these things are in no way able to be considered secrets (even if they do ammount to Nuremberg
style war crimes). What else could these ridiculous creatures possibly be afraid of people finding out about, which would prompt
them to behave so aggressively towards someone who merely mentions 'maybe looking into somebody's something'?
Of all the various misdeeds committed by the Trump government over the last few years within US borders and without, the one crime
Nancy Pelosi decides to go after Trump over turns out not only a non-crime but it is not even a pale shadow of a more egregious
incident in which Joe Biden, while US Vice-President, pressured the Ukrainian government under Porky Pig Poroshenko to sack Viktor
Shokin as Prosecutor General for launching an investigation into possibly corrupt activities of Burisma Holdings and in particular
of one of its directors who happens to be Joe Biden's son, Hunter.
Incidentally wasn't a major shareholder of Burisma Holdings at one time (if not currently) the notorious Ihor Kolomoisky, governor
of Dnepropetrovsk region in mid-2014, about the time that the Malaysia Airlines Boeing passenger jet fell from the sky in a region
where Burisma Holdings had been granted a license to explore and prospect for shale oil?
God, even the real news network is descending into madness over this Trump impeachment, they just interviewed Elie Mystal & Alexandra
Flores-Quilty and they have drunk the cool-aid so hard they are basically convulsing on the floor. According to them investigating
Joe Biden's video confession of extortion is a crime but Joe Biden's extortion is perfectly fine.
I feel that the Democrats' real
problem with Trump is that he ended their corruption financing plan for the future. I would like to add Trump just replaced the
Democrats corruption plan with his own, but OOPS, the Democrats haven't provided any evidence of that, instead they spent 3 years
trying to prove something that never happened.
Millions of dollars, millions of manhours of political discourse and newsmedia
coverage, all of it wasted. Those hours could have been used discussing foreign policy, economic policy, healthcare policy, industrial
policy, environment policy but nope. Instead the Democrats chased a ghost for 3 years and now the Democrats have just signalled
that they will spend the next 6 months trying to impeach Trump for investigating Joe Biden's corruption. The American people have,
in effect, been defrauded of their political leadership time, how do the Democrats think this will go over with the American voters
in 2020.
impeachment provides another topic to help avoid discussion of the Empire, its wars,
Yes, the congress-critters get to enjoy a well-paying job with an annual salary of $174,000 and increase their already high
likelihood of getting re-elected if they don't do anything notable that people might not like, but only play politics and sound
important on presidential betrayals like (quoting Pelosi) "betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of
our elections."
Dems don't take the A Train, they take the B Trail! . . .sorry, I couldn't resist a corny joke (again)
"... With an impeachment moving through the House, you can either kiss any and all legislation and cooperation goodbye, or Speaker Pelosi will try to move something through "to inoculate vulnerable House Democrats from the 'Do Nothing' talking-point," Cowen analyst Chris Kruger wrote in a note Tuesday. ..."
"... Two prime examples could be the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement for North American trade or a drug pricing bill that could get presidential support. Either of those options, however, do not seem very likely with an impeachment moving forward ." ..."
"... But look, that would mean that the entire Democrat nomenklatura plus their assets in the press lost their minds about a single-source story from the intelligence community where a whistleblower was operating on hearsay. I don't see how that can be. ..."
"... Remember back in April when the only thing the Dems wanted was an unredacted version of the Mueller report? Then they heard Mueller testify ..."
" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formally announced Tuesday that the House will begin an
impeachment inquiry into whistleblower charges that Trump tried to pressure Ukraine's
president into investigating presidential contender Joe Biden and his son. That announcement
came less than a week after Pelosi and other top Democrats unveiled a proposal that would
allow the government to negotiate with drugmakers on the prices of at least 25 of the most
expensive drugs in Medicare and the private market in an attempt to lower prescription-drug
prices.
With an impeachment moving through the House, you can either kiss any and all legislation
and cooperation goodbye, or Speaker Pelosi will try to move something through "to inoculate
vulnerable House Democrats from the 'Do Nothing' talking-point," Cowen analyst Chris Kruger
wrote in a note Tuesday.
Two prime examples could be the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement for North American trade or a
drug pricing bill that could get presidential support. Either of those options, however, do
not seem very likely with an impeachment moving forward ."
But look, that would mean that the entire Democrat nomenklatura plus their assets in the
press lost their minds about a single-source story from the intelligence community where a
whistleblower was operating on hearsay. I don't see how that can be.
To be fair, the WSJ IIRC story looked an awful lot like a quid pro quo. So much will
depend on the transcript. If it really is a full transcript (which, interestingly, the
whistleblower would not know).
Once this happened, msnbs started saying that the dems also want the unredacted
whistleblower complaint released, since the complaint allegedly concerns not just the single
phone call, but "multiple" incidents of "wrongdoing."
"... The attorney for retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn is refusing to let the former national security adviser testify before Rep. Adam B. Schiff , saying the California Democrat disregards "ethics in your theatrical demand." ..."
"... Ms. Powell said in her letter to Mr. Schiff that Flynn "will not appear before your committee on September 25, 2019 to be paraded, harassed or disparaged for doing so." ..."
"... She accused Mr. Schiff of a "disregard for propriety, professionalism, prior practices and ethics in your theatrical demand." ..."
The attorney for retired
Army Gen.
Michael Flynn is refusing to let the former national security adviser testify before
Rep. Adam B.
Schiff , saying the California Democrat disregards "ethics in your theatrical demand."
Attorney Sidney Powell said Monday in a
letter that Flynn is invoking his rights under
the Fifth Amendment to avoid being "paraded, harassed or disparaged" by Democrats on the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr.
Schiff , who took committee control in January, has launched an investigation into nearly
every aspect of President Trump's life.
Mr.
Schiff was a big proponent of the Democratic Party-financed dossier sourced to the Kremlin.
The dossier's charges of Trump election conspiracy proved unfounded.
Ms.
Powell is mounting a vigorous effort in federal court to dismiss the case against
Flynn , who
pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents in the Trump White House's early days. She accuses the
Robert Mueller prosecution team of withholding evidence favorable to him.
The Mueller probe failed to establish an election conspiracy between Trump allies and
Moscow.
Flynn
admitted to lying about discussions he had with the Russian ambassador about U.S. sanctions. He
cooperated with the prosecution on a lobbying investigation unrelated to the 2016 election.
Ms.
Powell said in her letter to Mr. Schiff that Flynn "will not appear before
your committee on September 25, 2019 to be paraded, harassed or disparaged for doing so."
She accused Mr. Schiff of a "disregard for
propriety, professionalism, prior practices and ethics in your theatrical demand."
https://g.jwpsrv.com/g/gcid-0.1.2.html?notrack
More Videos
Volume 90%
Press shift question mark to
access a list of keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard Shortcuts
play/pause
increase volume
decrease volume
seek forwards
seek backwards
toggle captions
toggle fullscreen
mute/unmute
seek to %
SPACE
↑
↓
→
←
c
f
m
0-9
Next Up
Lewandowski predicts Trump will by wider electoral margin in 2020
01:46
facebook
twitter
Email
Link
Copied
This video will resume in 14
seconds
Live
00:00
00:14
00:15
More Videos
01:46
Lewandowski predicts Trump will by wider electoral margin
in 2020
01:21
Krystal Ball rips into 'Never Trump' Republicans
00:56
RNC spokeswoman names New Mexico as 2020 target for Trump
03:18
Saagar Enjeti: Why Andrew Yang is beating Kamala Harris
00:47
Conservative strategist calls Steyer's 2020 bid a 'vanity
run'
02:55
Saagar Enjeti: Jimmy Carter's dire warning about Joe
Biden
06:57
Krystal Ball: calls on Sanders to follow Yang's lead on
war on drugs
04:42
Saagar Enjeti: The real story behind Biden's 'Corn Pop'
tale
Close
Two years after leaving office,
Joe
Biden
Joe
Biden
United
Auto Workers strike against GM poised to head into eighth day
Trump
doubles down on call to investigate Biden after whistleblower complaint: 'That's the real story'
Omar:
Biden not the candidate to 'tackle a lot of the systematic challenges that we have'
MORE
couldn't resist the temptation last year to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists about
the time as vice president that he strong-armed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor.
In his
own words, with video cameras rolling,
Biden
described how
he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama
administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic
toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
ADVERTISEMENT
William Russo, a spokesman for Joe Biden, and Hunter Biden did not respond to email messages
Monday seeking comment. The phone number at Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC in Washington was no
longer in service on Monday.
Although Biden made no mention of his son in his 2018 speech, U.S. and Ukrainian authorities
both told me Biden and his office clearly had to know about the general prosecutor's probe of
Burisma and his son's role. They noted that:
Hunter Biden's appointment to the board was widely reported in American media;
The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and
publicly discussed the general prosecutor's case against Burisma;
Great Britain took very public action against Burisma while Joe Biden was working with that
government on Ukraine issues;
Biden's office was quoted, on the record, acknowledging Hunter Biden's role in Burisma in a
New York Times article about the general prosecutor's Burisma case that appeared four months
before Biden forced the firing of Shokin. The vice president's office suggested in that article
that Hunter Biden was a lawyer free to pursue his own private business deals.
President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014, after a
popular revolution ousted Russia-friendly President
Viktor Yanukovych
and as Moscow sent military forces into Ukraine's Crimea territory.
According to Schweizer's book, Vice President Biden met with Archer in April 2014 right as
Archer was named to the board at Burisma. A month later,
Hunter Biden was named to the board
, to oversee Burisma's legal team.
But the Ukrainian investigation and Joe Biden's effort to fire the prosecutor overseeing it has
escaped without much public debate.
Most of the general prosecutor's investigative work on Burisma focused on three separate cases,
and most stopped abruptly once Shokin was fired. The most prominent of the Burisma cases was
transferred to a different Ukrainian agency, closely aligned with the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, known
as the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (
NABU
),
according to the case file and current General Prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko.
NABU closed that case, and a second case involving alleged improper money transfers in London
was dropped when Ukrainian officials failed to file the necessary documents by the required
deadline. The general prosecutor's office successfully secured a multimillion-dollar judgment in a
tax evasion case, Lutsenko said. He did not say who was the actual defendant in that case.
But then, as Biden's 2020 campaign ramped up over the past year, Lutsenko -- the Ukrainian
prosecutor that Biden once hailed as a "solid" replacement for Shokin -- began looking into what
happened with the Burisma case that had been shut down.
Lutsenko told me that, while reviewing the Burisma investigative files, he discovered "members
of the Board obtained funds as well as another U.S.-based legal entity, Rosemont Seneca Partners
LLC, for consulting services."
"Unfortunately, Mr. Biden had correlated and connected this aid with some of the HR (personnel)
issues and changes in the prosecutor's office," Lutsenko said.
Nazar Kholodnytskyi, the lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Lutsenko's office, confirmed to me
in an interview that part of the Burisma investigation was reopened in 2018, after Joe Biden made
his remarks. "We were able to start this case again," Kholodnytskyi said.
But he said the separate Ukrainian police agency that investigates corruption has dragged its
feet in gathering evidence. "We don't see any result from this case one year after the reopening
because of some external influence," he said, declining to be more specific.
Ukraine is in the middle of a
hard-fought
presidential election
, is a frequent target of intelligence operations by neighboring Russia
and suffers from rampant political corruption nationwide. Thus, many Americans might take the
restart of the Burisma case with a grain of salt, and rightfully so.
But what makes Lutsenko's account compelling is that federal authorities in America, in an
entirely different case, uncovered financial records showing just how much Hunter Biden's and
Archer's company received from Burisma while Joe Biden acted as Obama's point man on Ukraine.
Between April 2014 and October 2015, more than $3 million was paid out of Burisma accounts to an
account linked to Biden's and Archer's Rosemont Seneca firm,
according to the financial records
placed in a federal court file in Manhattan in an unrelated
case against Archer.
The bank records show that, on most months when Burisma money flowed, two wire transfers of
$83,333.33 each were sent to the Rosemont Seneca–connected account on the same day. The same
Rosemont Seneca–linked account typically then would pay Hunter Biden one or more payments ranging
from $5,000 to $25,000 each. Prosecutors reviewed internal company documents and wanted to
interview Hunter Biden and Archer about why they had received such payments, according to
interviews.
Lutsenko said Ukrainian company board members legally can pay themselves for work they do if it
benefits the company's bottom line, but prosecutors never got to determine the merits of the
payments to Rosemont because of the way the investigation was shut down.
As for Joe Biden's intervention in getting Lutsenko's predecessor fired in the midst of the
Burisma investigation, Lutsenko suggested that was a matter to discuss with Attorney General Barr:
"Of course, I would be happy to have a conversation with him about this issue."
As the now-completed Russia collusion investigation showed us, every American deserves the right
to be presumed innocent until evidence is made public or a conviction is secured, especially when
some matters of a case involve foreigners. The same presumption should be afforded to Joe Biden,
Hunter Biden, Devon Archer and Burisma in the Ukraine case.
Nonetheless, some hard questions should be answered by Biden as he prepares, potentially, to
run
for president in 2020
: Was it appropriate for your son and his firm to cash in on Ukraine while
you served as point man for Ukraine policy? What work was performed for the money Hunter Biden's
firm received? Did you know about the Burisma probe? And when it was publicly announced that your
son worked for Burisma, should you have recused yourself from leveraging a U.S. policy to pressure
the prosecutor who very publicly pursued Burisma?
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has
exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists' misuse
of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He
serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill.
Tags
Hillary Clinton
William Barr
Joe Biden
Ed Case
Hunter Biden
Yuriy Lutsenko
Share
Load Comments
The question begs to be asked: Why is the person who came forward with a story about
President Trump and a telephone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky still
being referred to as a whistleblower?
Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson, is a Trump appointee.
Allegedly he found a reason to go forward with a complaint lodged against President Trump
stemming from a conversation with Zelensky in July. The anonymous "whistleblower," as it turns
out, is not, in fact, a whistleblower. The complainant is essentially a gossipmonger. The
person admits no direct
knowledge of the conversation. Doesn't that seem to be an important fact in this whole
story?
The whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed
on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower's concerns came in part from learning
information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have
played a role in the administration's determination that the complaint didn't fit the
reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.
This anonymous person has no direct knowledge of the call and his/her "concerns" come from
information that was not "obtained during the course of their work". Thus, this person doesn't
fit the title of a whistleblower. Yet, that is still the narrative in the media. There is no
whistleblower, there is only a leaker with an agenda to push. This story stinks to high
heaven.
White House and the Justice Department, according to reports, are rightfully advising the
director of national intelligence that the complaint isn't covered by the laws applying to
intelligence whistleblowers. So far, the acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph
Maguire, has not agreed to cooperate in releasing a transcript of the president's conversation.
Maguire will testify before the House Intelligence Committee Thursday behind closed doors.
President Trump looks to be well within his rights to have been speaking honestly to the new
Ukrainian leader about corruption in Ukraine. The concern is over whether or not Trump
threatened Zelensky with withholding military aid as he allegedly demanded Zelensky clean up
the corruption. The $250 million
has been released to Ukraine.
"It was entirely reasonable that the United States spent a couple of months getting to
know him and his administration," Lankford said, adding that he had recently visited Kyiv for
the same purpose. "I think we should have moved faster, but there was due diligence, and the
administration has been active in trying to get lethal aid to the Ukrainians in the
past."
Speaking at a Defense Writers Group event Thursday, R. Clarke Cooper, assistant secretary
of state for political-military affairs, announced that Congress was notified late Wednesday
that $141.5 million in funding was available to Ukraine. That money covers sniper rifles,
grenade launchers and other items.
Why is it considered unusual for President Trump and his administration to go slow with
delivering substantial military aid to Ukraine when Zelensky had only recently come into power
and his allegiance to the United States was uncertain? That sounds like due diligence. But,
this is 2019 and the Mueller Report blew up in the faces of Democrats frothing at the mouth for
the impeachment of President Trump, so this telephone call conveniently emerged as the next
best thing.
Connect the dots. President Trump spoke with Zelensky the day after Mueller testified to
Congress. This "whistleblower" can very likely turn out to be another Trump deranged swamp
creature who is disappointed that the results of the last election are still being honored and
Trump is still the president. This kind of stunt, masquerading as a patriotic whistleblowing
action, may backfire just like the other attempts to bring about impeachment have so far.
The president is entitled to speak with foreign leaders however he deems appropriate. If
Trump felt that Zelensky needed to be pushed to do the right thing and clean up corruption in
his country, then so be it. Trump's motivation looks to be protecting taxpayer money, the
military aid to Ukraine, not some kind of collusion to gain support in the 2020 election.
Didn't the Democrats learn anything from their humiliation after running with Hillary Clinton's
campaign's phony Russian collusion story against Trump? Apparently not.
Let them proceed. Trump should not release the phone transcript to the public. Why would any
world leader speak candidly to him in future phone conversations if he does so? This is the
latest attempt from Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff to satisfy the far left to continue on with
attempts to impeach Trump.
This Ukraine story and the Bidens is only beginning. There will also now be some checking
into the China connection with the younger Biden while his father was vice-president. Biden's
son was a lobbyist, not an energy expert and the big-money contracts are highly suspect. It's
all very swampy and good old Joe is right in the middle. There are many layers to this story.
Most importantly, Ukraine's foreign minister has already come out and denied any pressure from
President Trump on that phone call.
This story all began with tantalizing headlines. This time we have him. Democrats are
falling for yet another trap and I'm here for it.
And this "Biden Admits to Getting Ukraine Prosecutor who Investigated Son Fired." https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J6zFXc_CNR8&time_continue=51
Biden brags about holding hostage a billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine if Prosecutor
Shokin is not fired. Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings which Biden's son was on the
board
ANALYSIS: Does Schiff already know the Trump
whistleblower's story? by Susan Ferrechio | September 21,
2019 06:00 AM
Print
this article Did House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff have the inside details
about the Trump whistleblower two weeks ago?
Earlier this month, the California Democrat announced a
"wide-ranging investigation" into allegations President Trump was trying to pressure Ukraine's
government into aiding his reelection campaign.
Schiff ordered the investigation on Sept. 9, hours before he received
the first of two letters from the intelligence community inspector general revealing the
existence of a whistleblower complaint. Multiple news outlets reported this week that the
complaint involved, at least in part, a phone conversation between Trump and recently elected
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Inspector General Michael K. Atkinson's letter didn't provide Schiff with the details, but
some Republicans say they suspect Schiff knew them already and was orchestrating a
headline-grabbing story from his perch on the intelligence panel.
Earlier on the day the Atkinson letter arrived,
Schiff demanded the Trump administration turn over documents and correspondence related to
Trump's alleged attempts to get Ukraine government officials to investigate Joe Biden and his
son Hunter.
Included in his list was the transcript of Trump's July 25 call with Zelensky, which news
reports say alarmed the whistleblower.
Schiff insisted to reporters Thursday that he doesn't know the details of the complaint and
accused the president of "trying to stifle whistleblower complaints" and blocking the
information from reaching Congress.
Joseph Maguire, Trump's acting director of national intelligence, is restricting Atkinson
from providing any details about the complaint, Schiff charged after he and other intelligence
panel members met privately Thursday with Atkinson.
But news reports soon emerged saying it involved the call with Zelensky and matched Schiff's
comments about the matter Sept. 9.
In a press release that day, Schiff announced an investigation by the intelligence, foreign
affairs, and oversight panels into efforts by Trump and his attorney former New York City mayor
Rudy Giuliani to get Ukraine government officials to turn over information about Joe Biden, the
leading Democratic presidential candidate.
Trump and Giuliani have been seeking data on Biden's role, while he was vice president under
Barack Obama, in pressuring the Ukraine government to fire a prosecutor targeting a Ukrainian
gas company on whose board Biden's son Hunter served.
"While his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani pressures Ukraine to interfere in the 2020
campaign, Trump withholds vital aid Ukraine needs to defend against Russia," Schiff tweeted Sept. 9.
Schiff's representative did not respond to a request for a comment about the fact the
Ukraine investigation was ordered the same day Atkinson sent the letter about the whistleblower
complaint.
The congressman contends he does not know the identity of the whistleblower or the nature of
the complaint and has threatened to take the Trump administration to court to win access to the
information.
In his Sept. 9 letter to White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Schiff demanded the Ukraine call
transcript be turned over to the committee by Sept. 16, a deadline that passed without any
cooperation from the White House.
Two days later, the first leaked whistleblower story appeared in the news.
While Biden now is most often criticized for senility, Biden should be criticized for his
failed policies – support for the Iraq War, Libya, Syria, criminal justice policy etc., as
well as for corruption in Ukraine, that is, for substantive reasons. And he behaviour in Ukraine
alone is enough to dispose his from presidential rrace. Add to this vhis vote on Iraq war and
there is no reason he should be allowed to enter the race.
"... Trump and Rudy Giuliani suspect not, and in that July 25 phone call, Trump urged President Volodymyr Zelensky to reopen the investigation of Hunter Biden and Burisma. ..."
In May 2016, Joe Biden, as Barack Obama's designated point man on Ukraine, flew to Kiev to
inform President Petro Poroshenko that a billion-dollar U.S. loan guarantee had been approved
to enable Kiev to continue to service its mammoth debt.
But, said Biden, the aid was conditional. There was a quid pro quo.
If Poroshenko's regime did not fire its chief prosecutor in six hours, Biden would fly home
and Ukraine would get no loan guarantee. Ukraine capitulated instantly, said Joe, reveling in
his pro-consul role.
Yet, left out of Biden's drama about how he dropped the hammer on a corrupt Ukrainian
prosecutor was this detail.
The prosecutor had been investigating Burisma Holdings, the biggest gas company in
Ukraine. And right after the U.S.-backed coup that ousted the pro-Russian government in Kiev,
and after Joe Biden had been given the lead on foreign aid for Ukraine, Burisma had installed
on its board, at $50,000 a month, Hunter Biden, the son of the vice president.
Joe Biden claims that, though he was point man in the battle on corruption in Ukraine, he
was unaware his son was raking in hundreds of thousands from one of the companies being
investigated.
Said Joe on Saturday, "I have never spoken to my son about his various business
dealings."
Is this credible?
Trump and Rudy Giuliani suspect not, and in that July 25 phone call, Trump urged President
Volodymyr Zelensky to reopen the investigation of Hunter Biden and Burisma.
The media insist there is no story here and the real scandal is that Trump pressed Zelensky
to reopen the investigation to target his strongest 2020 rival. Worse, say Trump's accusers,
would be if the president conditioned the transfer of $250 million in approved military aid to
Kiev on the new regime's acceding to his demands.
The questions raised are several:
Is it wrong to make military aid to a friendly nation conditional on that nation's
compliance with legitimate requests or demands of the United States? Is it illegitimate to
ask a friendly government to look into what may be corrupt conduct by the son of a U.S. vice
president?
Joe Biden has an even bigger problem : This issue has begun to dominate the news at an
especially vulnerable moment for his campaign.
Biden's stumbles and gaffes have already raised alarms among his followers and been seized
upon by rivals such as Cory Booker, who has publicly suggested that the 76-year-old former vice
president is losing it.
Biden's lead in the polls also appears shakier with each month. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has
just taken a narrow lead in a Des Moines Register poll and crusading against Beltway corruption
is central to her campaign.
"Too many politicians in both parties have convinced themselves that playing the
money-for-influence game is the only way to get things done," Warren told her massive rally
in New York City: "No more business as usual. Let's attack the corruption head on."
Soon, it will not only be Trump and Giuliani asking Biden questions abut Ukraine, Burisma
and Hunter, but Democrats, too. Calls are rising for Biden's son to be called to testify before
congressional committees.
With Trump airing new charges daily, Biden will be asked to respond by his traveling press.
The charges and the countercharges will become what the presidential campaign is all about. Bad
news for Joe Biden.
Can he afford to spend weeks, perhaps months, answering for his son's past schemes to enrich
himself through connections to foreign regimes that seem less related to Hunter's talents than
his being the son of a former vice president and possible future president?
"Ukraine-gate" is the latest battle in the death struggle between the "deep state" and a
president empowered by Middle America to go to Washington and break that deep state's grip on
the national destiny.
Another issue is raised here - the matter of whistleblowers listening in to or receiving
readouts of presidential conversations with foreign leaders and having the power to decide for
themselves whether the president is violating his oath and needs to be reported to
Congress.
Eisenhower discussed coups in Iran and Guatemala and the use of nuclear weapons in Korea and
the Taiwan Strait. JFK, through brother Bobby, cut a secret deal with Khrushchev to move U.S.
missiles out of Turkey six months after the Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba.
Who deputized bureaucratic whistleblowers to pass judgment on such conversations and tattle
to Congress if they were offended?
Rudy Giuliani leveled serious new claims at the Bidens in a series of Monday morning tweets.
Chief among them is a claim that $3 million was laundered to former Vice President Joe Biden's
son, Hunter , via a "Ukraine-Latvia-Cyprus-US" route - a revelation he claims was "kept from
you by Swamp Media."
NEW FACT: One $3million payment to Biden's son from Ukraine to Latvia to Cyprus to US.
When Prosecutor asked Cyprus for amount going to son, he was told US embassy (Obama's)
instructed them not to provide the amount. Prosecutor getting too close to son and Biden had
him fired.
Today though it's the $3 million laundered payment, classical proof of guilty knowledge
and intent, that was kept from you by Swamp Media. Ukraine-Latvia-Cyprus-US is a usual route
for laundering money. Obama's US embassy told Cyprus bank not to disclose amount to Biden.
Stinks!
Trump's personal attorney then
mentioned China - where journalist Peter Schweizer reported Joe and Hunter Biden flew in
2013 on Air Force Two. Two weeks later, Hunter's firm inked a private equity deal for $1
billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5
billion , according to an article by Schweizer's in the New
York Post .
Biden scandal only beginning. Lots more evidence on Ukraine like today's money
laundering of $3 million. 4 or 5 big disclosures. Also the $1.5 billion China gave to
Biden's fund while Joe was, as usual, failing in his negotiations with China is worse.
Giuliani then went on to tweet that the Bidens lied about not discussing Hunter's
overseas business .
On Saturday, Joe Biden said he "never" spoke with Hunter about the Ukrainian energy company
that Hunter sat on the board of while being paid $50,000 per month. As you're doubtless
aware by now, the elder Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees from
Ukraine if they didn't fire the investigator probing the company, Burisma.
Biden says he never talked to his son about his overseas business. Do you think we can
prove, with our fact a day disclosures, it's a lie-a false exculpatory statement. Do we have
to prove, or do you already know, it's a lie, and an incriminating statement.
Hunter, however,
admitted in July that the two did speak about his Ukraine business "just once," telling the
New Yorker " Dad said, 'I hope you know what you are doing,' and I said, 'I do' "
Rudy then lashed out at the Democratic party, which he said would "own" Biden's scandals if
hey don't "call for investigation of Bidens' millions from Ukraine and billions from
China."
If Dem party doesn't call for investigation of Bidens' millions from Ukraine and billions
from China, they will own it. Bidens' made big money selling public office. How could Obama
have allowed this to happen? Will Dems continue to condone and enable this kind
pay-for-play?
Here's what we know about Hunter's dealings in China based on Schweizer's
reporting via our
May report :
Hunter Biden and his partners created several LLCs involved in multibillion-dollar
private equity deals with Chinese government-owned entities.
The primary operation was Rosemont Seneca Partners - an investment firm founded in 2009
and controlled by Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz, and Heniz's longtime
associate Devon Archer. The trio began making deals "through a series of overlapping
entities" under Rosemont.
In less than a year, Hunter Biden and Archer met with top Chinese officials in China ,
and partnered with the Thornton Group - a Massachusetts-based consultancy headed by James
Bulger - son nephew of famed mob hitman James "Whitey" Bulger (h/t @Guerrilla_Magoo
for the correction).
According to the Thornton Group's Chinese-language website, Chinese executives "extended
their warm welcome" to the "Thornton Group, with its US partner Rosemont Seneca chairman
Hunter Biden (second son of the now Vice President Joe Biden."
Officially, the China meets were to "explore the possibility of commercial cooperation
and opportunity," however details of the meeting were not published to the English-language
version of the website.
"The timing of this meeting was also notable. It occurred just hours before Hunter
Biden's father, the vice president, met with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington as
part of the Nuclear Security Summit ," according to Schweizer.
Perhaps most damning in terms of timing and optics, just twelve days after Hunter and Joe
Biden flew on Air Force Two to Beijing, Hunter's company signed a "historic deal with the
Bank of China ," described by Schweizer as "the state-owned financial behemoth often used as
a tool of the Chinese government." To accommodate the deal, the Bank of China created a
unique type of investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). According to BHR, Rosemont
Seneca Partners is a founding partner .
It was an unprecedented arrangement: the government of one of America's fiercest
competitors going into business with the son of one of America's most powerful decisionmakers
.
Chris Heinz claims neither he nor Rosemont Seneca Partners, the firm he had part ownership
of, had any role in the deal with Bohai Harvest. Nonetheless, Biden, Archer and the Rosemont
name became increasingly involved with China . Archer became the vice chairman of Bohai
Harvest, helping oversee some of the fund's investments. - New
York Post
And while Hunter Biden had "no experience in China, and little in private equity," the
Chinese government for some reason thought it would be a great idea to give his firm business
opportunities instead of established global banks such as Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs.
Also in December 2014, a Chinese state-backed conglomerate called Gemini Investments
Limited was negotiating and sealing deals with Hunter Biden's Rosemont on several fronts.
That month, it made a $34 million investment into a fund managed by Rosemont.
The following August, Rosemont Realty, another sister company of Rosemont Seneca,
announced that Gemini Investments was buying a 75 percent stake in the compan y. The terms of
the deal included a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese, who were eager to purchase new US
properties. Shortly after the sale, Rosemont Realty was rechristened Gemini Rosemont.
"Rosemont, with its comprehensive real-estate platform and superior performance history, was
precisely the investment opportunity Gemini Investments was looking for in order to invest in
the US real estate market," said Li Ming, chairman of Sino-Ocean Land Holdings Limited and
Gemini Investments. " We look forward to a strong and successful partnership. "
The morning after the car was dropped off, a phone number belonging to a renowned local
"Colon Hydrotherapist" called the Hertz . The caller identified himself as "Joseph McGee," who
told the employees that the keys were located in the gas cap as opposed to the drop box.
Amazing how so many countries would scramble to do business with Hunter - a guy with
virtually no experience who was discharged
from the Navy after testing positive for cocaine - who just happened to be the Vice
President's son.
...investigative journalist and bestselling author Peter Schweizer has unearthed Biden's
history of corruption, and that will prove a major issue in the upcoming election.
Schweizer's book came out in March, but since then new evidence of the Biden family
corruption has come to light. Schweizer told Hilton about a bank account unearthed in a New
York conviction against Devon Hunter, a friend of the former vice president's son, Hunter
Biden.
"A bank account that Hunter Biden drew a lot of money from and that a lot of foreign
entities put a lot of money into," the author noted. "Just to give you an idea, over a 14-month
period, from 2014 through early 2016, while Joe Biden is vice president of the United States, a
Ukrainian company called Burisma -- it's controlled by a very corrupt oligarch -- sends three
million dollars into this account."
"A Chinese government entity called Bohai Harvest -- which is run by the Bank of China --
sends $650,000 into this account," Schweizer added. "There's $1.2 million that comes from an
LLC with a small boutique Swiss bank. We don't know who's behind the LLC. The bank itself has
been charged in six countries for money laundering, so that makes it kind of sketchy."
How does this connect to Joe Biden? Not only was the elder Biden vice president at the time,
but he was directly involved with the countries his son struck deals with.
"If you look at the trajectory of Joe Biden as vice president, he was essentially U.S. point
person on Chinese policy, and he was widely criticized for going very soft on them as it
related to the South China Sea," Schweizer said. "That's at the same time his son is getting
large checks from the Chinese government."
"Joe Biden is also point person on U.S. policy towards Ukraine, at the same time that his
son is getting large checks from the Ukrainian government. And he's accused of looking the
other way at fraudulent behavior and corruption with the government of Ukraine," the author
added.
Even so, all the money is only going to Hunter Biden, right? Why does this implicate his
father?
"We're all familiar with globalization and the phenomenon as it relates to the economy and
corporations. Well, corruption is being globalized as well," Schweizer pointed out. With a more
and more globalized economy, U.S. policy has a direct impact on other countries.
Those countries "look for friends in Washington, and one of the best ways to make friends in
Washington is to do deals with family members," he explained.
He laid out how it works: "Joe Biden, every year he's vice president, he has to disclose his
income. Assuming those disclosures are honest, he can't have a big fat check from the Chinese
government in that disclosure form. But this adult son, Hunter Biden? He doesn't have to
disclose anything."
Schweizer's recent book is a must-read. The investigative journalist documented a great deal
of corruption, but Joe Biden and Barack Obama came under the most scrutiny. Biden's son Hunter
and John Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz
both profited from their father's soft policy towards China. Hunter Biden also
reaped rewards from his father's blind eye to Ukraine corruption.
Obama's policies enriched his best friend -- and now head of the Obama Foundation -- Marty
Nesbitt.
Biden may pose a powerful threat to President Donald Trump in 2020. He appeals to many of
the same blue-collar sentiments, and he has his own macho posturing
against Trump. If Democrats choose Biden, however, they may face the same kind of fundamental
weakness they experienced with Hillary Clinton. The skeletons in Biden's closet may not be as
bad as those in Hillary's -- but they are real, and very serious.
Peter Schweizer has the story, and he won't stop telling it.
"... "Sadly, the country spent over three years and 40 million taxpayer dollars on these investigations," said Lewandowski. "It is now clear the investigation was populated by many Trump haters who had their own agenda -- to try and take down a duly elected president of the United States," Lewandowski said in his opening statement - later adding "We, as a Nation, would be better served if elected officials like you concentrated your efforts to combat the true crises facing our country, as opposed to going down rabbit holes like this hearing." ..."
"... Nadler and Schiff and those in their camp have a single-minded purpose: Never, ever , again allow the unwashed to get away with a successful rebellion. ..."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler last week
over his 'Moby Dick'-like obsession with impeaching President Trump - days before Trump's 2016
campaign manager Corey Lewandowski
wiped the floor with Congressional Democrats during a contentious five-hour hearing on
Tuesday in front of Nadler's panel.
Pelosi's comments came during a closed-door Capitol Hill meeting of Democrats last week,
where she complained that Judiciary Committee aides have advanced the impeachment push "far
beyond where the House Democratic Caucus stands," according to Politico
.
" And you can feel free to leak this ," Pelosi added, according to several people who were
there.
It was the latest sign of the widening schism between Pelosi and Judiciary Committee
Chairman Jerry Nadler, two longtime allies who are increasingly in conflict over where to
guide the party at one of its most critical moments.
Both Pelosi and Nadler, who have served in the House together for more than 25 years,
insist their relationship remains strong. But their rift over impeachment is getting harder
and harder to paper over amid Democrats' flailing messaging on the topic and a growing divide
in the caucus. - Politico
And while Pelosi aides told Politico that Nadler has coordinated with her office on
investigations, legal strategy and messaging - and Pelosi has signed off on all the Judiciary
Committee's court filings against Trump, the House Speaker has been expressing skepticism for
months that a successful impeachment in the House would only lead to "exonerating" Trump on the
campaign trail after the effort dies in the GOP-led Senate.
Pelosi has privately clashed with Nadler over his aggressive impeachment agenda, arguing
the public does not support it and it does not have the 218 votes to pass on the House floor.
So far, about 137 Democrats say they would vote to open an official impeachment inquiry.
...
The relationship between the two veteran lawmakers has become strained . While Pelosi has
blocked the House from formally voting to open an impeachment inquiry, Nadler declared he is
authorized to begin one even without a House vote. -
Washington Examiner
"Am I concerned? The answer is yes!," Florida Democratic Rep. Donna Shalala told the
Washington Examiner . "In my district, I'm not getting asked about impeachment.
I'm being asked about healthcare, I'm being asked about the environment, and about
infrastructure. It's not like around the country they are thinking about impeachment. It's a
Washington phenomenon as far as I can tell."
... ... ...
During Tuesday's 'impeachment' hearing, Corey Lewandowski beat Congressional
Democrats like a red-headed stepchild - starting with his opening statement:
"Sadly, the country spent over three years and 40 million taxpayer dollars on these
investigations," said Lewandowski. "It is now clear the investigation was populated by many
Trump haters who had their own agenda -- to try and take down a duly elected president of the
United States," Lewandowski said in his opening statement - later adding "We, as a Nation,
would be better served if elected officials like you concentrated your efforts to combat the
true crises facing our country, as opposed to going down rabbit holes like this
hearing."
" As for actual 'collusion,' or 'conspiracy,' there was none. What there has been, however,
is harassment of the president from the day he won the election ."
"Corey Lewandowski was very precise," Rep. Matt Gaetz, a member of the House panel, told
Fox News ' Sean Hannity. "And House Democrats looked like a dog that had chased a car
and then caught it and then did not know what to do about it ."
Nadler and Schiff and those in their camp have a single-minded purpose: Never,
ever , again allow the unwashed to get away with a successful rebellion.
That's the reason a now 90% controlled Trump can't be allowed to escape
unscathed, no matter how otherwise useless the exercise -- even by the standards of their own
(apparent) issue agendas.
"... And behind it all, the demonization (demonetization) of Russia (and Putin) still continues. ..."
"... is admittedly so cool (given the advanced technology) to be dropping bombs on women and children for the uncountable time, clearly we now know we are going broke killing the innocent. We are bludgeoning them to the point that we have broken our rifles on their corpses. Time to let off. ..."
Very well written and keeping focus on what's important. Very useful, revealing event with many issues remaining to be fully
considered regarding behaviors of
- the elected officials,
- the "intelligence" "community",
- the media,
- the public.
And behind it all, the demonization (demonetization) of Russia (and Putin) still continues.
There likely are cases where Russia is acting nefariously or in bad faith, but who could tell given all the b/s they are feeding
us.
So it's clear (to anyone interested) that they are misleading us, and (I think) clear why they are misleading us, but that
does stop the the constant stream of crap in the media - "news" and "entertainment".
Is their target audience the most obtuse among us?
While is admittedly so cool (given the advanced technology) to be dropping bombs on women and children for the uncountable
time, clearly we now know we are going broke killing the innocent. We are bludgeoning them to the point that we have broken our
rifles on their corpses. Time to let off.
Leaving aside the need to feed the war machine (particularly in light of slowing economy), many on both sides seemed to fear
that the public had succeeded in electing a populist and that could not be allowed. So they attacked him knowing the technocratic
state would support them. But Trump out-smarted them and went all in deep state, elitest and sooth the worried vested interests
and their owners. So that's all past us now. Still, kind of hard to over-look. Does Shiff take himself seriously?
"... The US elite jump up and down with moral indignation about an evidence-free allegation of foreign interference in its domestic politics, whilst ignoring actual evidenced foreign interference in its domestic affairs, and all the while constantly interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign countries and boasting about it. ..."
"... The Mueller Report is proof positive that the US is equally adept as Blair and Campbell in producing Dodgy Dossiers. ..."
"... It was a novel idea to outsource the investigation to Crowdstrike. There's a lot to be said for privatisation. Most commendable. Maybe the next time there's a high profile criminal investigation the FBI will outsource the murder investigation to Sam Spade, Ace Gumshoe. ..."
"... The fundamental flaw in the whole "Russiagate" thing is the failure to differentiate between Russia, the state and its government, and Russians, individuals who are Russian nationals. This failure is a direct result of an inability to recognize that the Cold War finished 30 years ago, a failure highlighted by the breathless Tom Clancy style of reporting and reinforced by a huge military/industrial complex that recognizes that in the absence of war or threats or war their business is a bust. ..."
At a May press conference capping his tenure as special counsel, Robert Mueller emphasized what he called "the
central allegation" of the two-year Russia probe. The Russian government, Mueller sternly declared, engaged in
"multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election, and that allegation deserves the attention of every
American." Mueller's comments echoed a January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) asserting with "high
confidence" that Russia conducted a sweeping 2016 election influence campaign. "I don't think we've ever encountered
a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process," then-Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper told a Senate hearing.
While the
448-page
Mueller report
found no conspiracy between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia, it offered voluminous details to
support the sweeping conclusion that the Kremlin worked to secure Trump's victory. The report claims that the
interference operation occurred "principally" on two fronts: Russian military intelligence officers hacked and leaked
embarrassing Democratic Party documents, and a government-linked troll farm orchestrated a sophisticated and
far-reaching social media campaign that denigrated Hillary Clinton and promoted Trump.
But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report's
evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the
conflicts of interest of key players involved:
The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his
investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party
emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before
he even communicated with the source that provided them.
There is strong reason to doubt Mueller's suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0
supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
Mueller's decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack –
suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National
Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the
forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as "Russian dossier"
compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired
contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted
records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of
hacking.
Mueller's report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media
campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the
Internet Research Agency (IRA).
Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than
minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic
officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became
Mueller's investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian
interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan
himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a
neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a
deep animus
toward Trump.
None of this means that the Mueller report's core finding of "sweeping and systematic" Russian government election
interference is necessarily false. But his report does not present sufficient evidence to substantiate it. This
shortcoming has gone overlooked in the partisan battle over two more highly charged aspects of Mueller's report:
potential Trump-Russia collusion and Trump's potential obstruction of the resulting investigation. As Mueller
prepares to testify before House committees later this month, the questions surrounding his claims of a far-reaching
Russian influence campaign are no less important. They raise doubts about the genesis and perpetuation of Russiagate
and the performance of those tasked with investigating it.
Uncertainty Over Who Stole the Emails
The Mueller report's narrative of Russian hacking and leaking was initially laid out in a July 2018 indictment of
12 Russian intelligence officers and is detailed further in the report. According to Mueller, operatives at Russia's
main intelligence agency, the GRU, broke into Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta's emails in March 2016. The
hackers infiltrated Podesta's account with a common tactic called spear-phishing, duping him with a phony security
alert that led him to enter his password. The GRU then used stolen Democratic Party credentials to hack into the DNC
and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) servers beginning in April 2016. Beginning in June 2016, the
report claims, the GRU created two online personas, "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0," to begin releasing the stolen
material. After making contact later that month, Guccifer 2.0 apparently transferred the DNC emails to the
whistleblowing, anti-secrecy publisher WikiLeaks, which released the first batch on July 22 ahead of the Democratic
National Convention.
The report presents this narrative with remarkable specificity: It describes in detail how GRU officers installed
malware, leased U.S.-based computers, and used cryptocurrencies to carry out their hacking operation. The
intelligence that caught the GRU hackers is portrayed as so invasive and precise that it even captured the keystrokes
of individual Russian officers, including their use of search engines.
In fact, the report contains crucial gaps in the evidence that might support that authoritative account. Here is
how it describes the core crime under investigation, the alleged GRU theft of DNC emails:
Between approximately May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, GRU officers accessed the DNC's mail server from a
GRU-controlled computer leased inside the United States. During these connections, Unit 26165 officers
appear
to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments, which were later released by WikiLeaks in July 2016. [
Italics
added for emphasis.]
The report's use of that one word, "appear," undercuts its suggestions that Mueller possesses convincing evidence
that GRU officers stole "thousands of emails and attachments" from DNC servers. It is a departure from the language
used in his
July
2018 indictment
, which contained no such qualifier:
"It's certainly curious as to why this discrepancy exists between the language of Mueller's indictment and the extra
wiggle room inserted into his report a year later," says former FBI Special Agent Coleen Rowley. "It may be an
example of this and other existing gaps that are inherent with the use of circumstantial information. With Mueller's
exercise of quite unprecedented (but politically expedient) extraterritorial jurisdiction to indict foreign
intelligence operatives who were never expected to contest his conclusing assertions in court, he didn't have to
worry about precision. I would guess, however, that even though NSA may be able to track some hacking operations, it
would be inherently difficult, if not impossible, to connect specific individuals to the computer transfer operations
in question."
The report also concedes that Mueller's team did not determine another critical component of the crime it alleges:
how the stolen Democratic material was transferred to WikiLeaks. The July 2018 indictment of GRU officers suggested –
without stating outright – that WikiLeaks published the Democratic Party emails after receiving them from Guccifer
2.0 in a file named "wk dnc linkI .txt.gpg" on or around July 14, 2016. But now the report acknowledges that Mueller
has not actually established how WikiLeaks acquired the stolen information: "The Office cannot rule out that stolen
documents were transferred to WikiLeaks through intermediaries who visited during the summer of 2016."
Another partially redacted passage also suggests that Mueller cannot trace exactly how WikiLeaks received the stolen
emails. Given how the sentence is formulated, the redacted portion could reflect Mueller's uncertainty:
Contrary to Mueller's sweeping conclusions, the report itself is, at best,
suggesting
that the GRU, via its
purported cutout Guccifer 2.0,
may have
transferred the stolen emails to WikiLeaks.
A Questionable Timeline
Mueller's uncertainty over the theft and transfer of Democratic Party emails isn't the only gap in his case.
Another is his timeline of events – a critical component of any criminal investigation. The report's timeline defies
logic: According to its account, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of the emails not only
before he received the documents, but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
As the Mueller report confirms, on
June 12, 2016, Assange told an interviewer,
"We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton, which is
great." But Mueller reports that "WikiLeaks's First Contact With Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks" comes two days after that
announcement:
If Assange's "First Contact" with DC Leaks came on June 14, and with Guccifer 2.0 on June 22, then what was Assange
talking about on June 12? It is possible that Assange heard from another supposed Russian source before then; but if
so, Mueller doesn't know it. Instead the report offers the implausible scenario that their first contact came after
Assange's announcement.
There is another issue with the report's Guccifer 2.0-WikiLeaks timeline. Assange would have been announcing the
pending release of stolen emails not just
before he heard from the source
, but also
before he received
the stolen emails
. As noted earlier, Mueller suggested that WikiLeaks received the stolen material from Guccifer
2.0 "on or around" July 14 – a full month after Assange publicly announced that he had them.
In yet one more significant inconsistency, Mueller asserts that the two Russian outfits running the Kremlin-backed
operation -- Guccifer 2.0 and DC Leaks – communicated about their covert activities over Twitter. Mueller reports that
on Sept. 15, 2016:
The Twitter account@guccifer_2 sent @dcleaks_ a direct message, which is the first known contact between the
personas. During subsequent communications, the Guccifer 2.0 persona informed DCLeaks that WikiLeaks was trying to
contact DCLeaks and arrange for a way to speak through encrypted emails.
Why would Russian intelligence cutouts running a sophisticated interference campaign communicate over an easily
monitored social media platform? In one of many such instances throughout the report, Mueller shows no curiosity in
pursuing this obvious question.
For his part, Assange has repeatedly claimed that Russia was not his source and that the U.S. government does not
know who was. "The U.S. intelligence community is not aware of when WikiLeaks obtained its material or when the
sequencing of our material was done or how we obtained our material directly," Assange said in January 2017.
"WikiLeaks sources in relation to the Podesta emails and the DNC leak are not members of any government. They are not
state parties. They do not come from the Russian government."
Guccifer 2.0: A Sketchy Source
While Mueller admits he does not know for certain how the DNC emails were stolen or how they were transmitted to
WikiLeaks, the report creates the impression that Russian intelligence cutout Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen
material to Assange.
In fact, there are strong grounds for doubt. To begin with, Guccifer 2.0 – who was unknown until June 2016 –
burst onto the scene to demand credit as WikiLeaks' source. This publicity-seeking is not standard spycraft.
More important, as Raffi Khatchadourian
has reported
for The New Yorker,
the documents Guccifer 2.0 released directly were nowhere near the quality of the material published by WikiLeaks.
For example, on June 18, Guccifer 2.0 released documents that it claimed were from the DNC, "but which were almost
surely not," Khatchadourian notes. Neither was the material Guccifer 2.0 teased as a "dossier on Hillary Clinton from
DNC." The material Guccifer 2.0 initially promoted in June also contained easily discoverable Russian metadata. The
computer that created it was configured for the Russian language, and the username was "Felix Dzerzhinsky," the
Bolshevik-era founder of the first Soviet secret police.
WikiLeaks only made contact with Guccifer 2.0 after the latter publicly invited journalists "to send me their
questions via Twitter Direct Messages." And, more problematic given the central role the report assigned to Guccifer
2.0, there is no direct evidence that WikiLeaks actually released anything that Guccifer 2.0 provided. In a 2017
interview, Assange said he "didn't publish" any material from that source because much of it had been published
elsewhere and because "we didn't have the resources to independently verify."
Mueller Didn't Speak With Assange
Some of these issues might have been resolved had Mueller not declined to interview Assange, despite Assange's
multiple efforts.
According to a 2018 report by John Solomon in The Hill, Assange
told the Justice Department
the previous year that he "was willing to discuss technical evidence ruling out
certain parties" in the leaking of Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks. Given Assange's previous denials of Russia's
involvement, that seems to indicate he was willing to provide evidence that Moscow was not his source. But he never
got the chance. According to Solomon, FBI Director James Comey personally intervened with an order that U.S.
officials "stand down," setting off a chain of events that scuttled the talks.
Assange also made public offers to testify before Congress. The Mueller report makes no mention of these
overtures, though it does cite and dismiss "media reports" that "Assange told a U.S. congressman that the DNC hack
was an 'inside job,' and purported to have 'physical proof' that Russians did not give materials to Assange."
Mueller does not explain why he included Assange's comments as reported by media outlets in his report but decided
not to speak with Assange directly, or ask to see his "physical proof," during a two-year investigation.
No Server Inspection, Reliance on CrowdStrike
Before he nixed U.S. government contacts with Assange, Comey was implicated in another key investigative lapse –
the FBI's failure to conduct its own investigation of the DNC's servers, which housed the record of alleged
intrusions and malware used to steal information. As Comey told Congress in March 2017, the FBI "never got direct
access to the machines themselves." Instead, he explained, the bureau relied on CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm
hired by the DNC, which "shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."
While acknowledging that the FBI would "always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves, if that's possible,"
Comey emphasized his confidence in the information provided by CrowdStrike, which he called "a highly respected
private company" and "a high-class entity."
CrowdStrike's accuracy is far from a given. Days after Comey's testimony, CrowdStrike was
forced to retract
its claim that Russian software was used to hack Ukrainian military hardware. CrowdStrike's error is especially
relevant because it had accused the GRU of using that same software in hacking the DNC.
There is also reason to question CrowdStrike's impartiality. Its co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a nonresident
senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the preeminent Washington think tank that aggressively promotes a hawkish
posture towards Russia. CrowdStrike executive Shawn Henry, who led the forensics team that ultimately blamed Russia
for the DNC breach, previously served as assistant director at the FBI under Mueller.
And CrowdStrike was hired to perform the analysis of the DNC servers by Perkins Coie – the law firm that also was
responsible for contracting Fusion GPS, the Washington, D.C.-based opposition research firm that produced the now
discredited Steele dossier alleging salacious misconduct by Trump in Russia and his susceptibility to blackmail.
A CrowdStrike spokesperson declined a request for comment on its role in the Russia investigation.
The picture is further clouded by the conflicting accounts regarding the servers. A DNC spokesperson told BuzzFeed
in early January 2017 that "the FBI never requested access to the DNC's computer servers." But Comey told the Senate
Select Intelligence Committee days later that the FBI made "multiple requests at different levels," but for unknown
reasons, he explained, those requests were denied.
While failing to identify the "different levels" he consulted, Comey never explained why the FBI took no for an
answer. As part of a criminal investigation, the FBI could have seized the servers to ensure a proper chain of
evidentiary custody. In investigating a crime, alleged victims do not get to dictate to law enforcement how they can
inspect the crime scene.
The report fails to address any of this, suggesting a lack of interest in even fundamental questions if they might
reflect poorly on the FBI.
The Mueller report states that "as part of its investigation, the FBI later received images of DNC servers and
copies of relevant traffic logs." But it does not specify how much "later" it received those server images or who
provided them. Based on the statements of Comey and other U.S. officials, it is quite likely that they came from
CrowdStrike, though the company gets only passing mention in the redacted report.
Asked for comment, Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr declined to answer whether the Mueller team relied on
CrowdStrike for its allegations against the GRU. Carr referred queries to the Justice Department's National Security
Division, which declined to comment, and to the U.S. Western District of Pennsylvania, which did not respond.
If CrowdStrike's role in the investigation raises a red flag, the potential exclusion of another entity raises an
equally glaring one. According to former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney, the NSA is the only U.S. agency that
could conclusively determine the source of the alleged DNC email hacks. "If this was really an internet hack, the NSA
could easily tell us when the information was taken and the route it took after being removed from the [DNC] server,"
Binney says. But given Mueller's qualified language and his repeated use of "in or around" rather than outlining
specific, down-to-the-second timestamps – which the NSA could provide -- Binney is skeptical that NSA intelligence was
included in the GRU indictment and the report.
There has been no public confirmation that intelligence acquired by the NSA was used in the Mueller probe. Asked
whether any of its information had been used in the allegations against the GRU, or had been declassified for public
release in Mueller's investigation, a spokesperson for the National Security Agency declined to comment.
Redacted CrowdStrike Reports
While the extent of the FBI's reliance on CrowdStrike remains unclear, critical details are beginning to emerge
via an unlikely source: the legal case of Roger Stone – the Trump adviser Mueller indicted for, among other things,
allegedly lying to Congress about his failed efforts to learn about WikiLeaks' plans regarding Clinton's emails.
Lawyers for Stone discovered that CrowdStrike submitted three forensic reports to the FBI that were redacted and
in draft form. When Stone asked to see CrowdStrike's un-redacted versions, prosecutors made the explosive admission
that the U.S. government does not have them. "The government does not possess the information the defendant seeks,"
prosecutor Jessie Liu wrote. This is because, Liu
explained
, CrowdStrike
itself
redacted the reports that it provided to the government:
At the direction of the DNC and DCCC's legal counsel, CrowdStrike prepared three draft reports. Copies of these
reports were subsequently produced voluntarily to the government by counsel for the DNC and DCCC. At the time of
the voluntary production, counsel for the DNC told the government that the redacted material concerned steps taken
to remediate the attack and to harden the DNC and DCCC systems against future attack. According to counsel, no
redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors.
In other words, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to decide what it
could and could not see in reports on Russian hacking, thereby surrendering the ability to independently vet their
claims. The government also took CrowdStrike's word that "no redacted information concerned the attribution of the
attack to Russian actors."
According to an affidavit filed for Stone's defense by Binney, the speed transfer rate and the file formatting of
the DNC data indicate that they were moved on to a storage device, not hacked over the Internet. In a rebuttal,
Stone's prosecutors said that the file information flagged by Binney "would be equally consistent with Russia
intelligence officers using a thumb drive to transfer hacked materials among themselves after the hack took place."
In an interview with RealClearInvestigations, Binney could not rule out that possibility. But conversely, the
evidence laid out by Mueller is so incomplete and uncertain that Binney's theory cannot be ruled out either. The very
fact that DoJ prosecutors, in their response to Binney, do not rule out his theory that a thumb drive was used to
transfer the material is an acknowledgment in that direction.
The lack of clarity around Mueller's intelligence community sourcing might appear inconsequential given the level
of detail in his account of alleged Russian hacking. But in light of the presence of potentially biased and
politically conflicted sources like CrowdStrike, and the absence of certainty revealed in Mueller's lengthy account,
the fact that his sourcing remains an open question makes it difficult to accept that he has delivered definitive
answers. If Mueller had the invasive window into Russian intelligence that he claims to, it seems incongruous that he
would temper his purported descriptions of their actions with tentative, qualified language. Mueller's hedging
suggests a broader conclusion at odds with the report's own findings: that the U.S. government does not have ironclad
proof about who hacked the DNC.
Social Media Campaign
Mueller's other "central allegation" regards a "Russian 'Active Measures' Social Media Campaign" with the aim of
"sowing discord" and helping to elect Trump.
In fact, Mueller does not directly attribute that campaign to the Russian government, and makes only the barest
attempt to imply a Kremlin connection. According to Mueller, the social media "form of Russian election influence
came principally from the Internet Research Agency, LLC (IRA), a Russian organization funded by Yevgeniy Viktorovich
Prigozhin and companies he controlled."
After two years and $35 million, Mueller apparently failed to uncover any direct evidence linking the
Prigozhin-controlled IRA's activities to the Kremlin. His best evidence is that "[n]umerous media sources have
reported on Prigozhin's ties to Putin, and the two have appeared together in public photographs." The footnote for
this references a lone article in the New York Times. (Both the Times and the Washington Post are cited frequently
throughout the report. The two outlets received and published intelligence community leaks throughout the Russia
probe.)
Further, in a newly unsealed
July 1 ruling
, a federal judge rebuked Mueller and the Justice Department for having "improperly suggested a
link" between the IRA and the Russian government. U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich said Mueller's February 2018
indictment "does not link the [IRA] to the Russian government" and alleges "only private conduct by private actors."
The judge added the government's statements violate a prohibiting lawyers from making claims that would prejudice a
case.
Even putting aside the complete absence of a Kremlin role, the case that the Russian government sought to
influence the U.S. election via a social media campaign is hard to grasp given how minuscule it was. Mueller says the
IRA spent $100,000 between 2015 and 2017. Of that, just $46,000 was spent on Russian-linked Facebook ads before the
2016 election. That amounts to about 0.05% of the $81 million spent on Facebook ads by the Clinton and Trump
campaigns combined -- which is itself a tiny fraction of the estimated $2 billion spent by the candidates and their
supporting PACS.
Then there is the fact that so little of this supposed election interference campaign content actually concerned
the election. Mueller himself cites a review by Twitter of tweets from "accounts associated with the IRA" in the 10
weeks before the 2016 election, which found that "approximately 8.4% were election-related." This tracks with a
report commissioned by the U.S. Senate that found that "explicitly political content was a small percentage" of the
content attributed to the IRA. The IRA's posts "were minimally about the candidates," with "roughly 6% of tweets, 18%
of Instagram posts, and 7% of Facebook posts" having "mentioned Trump or Clinton by name."
Yet Mueller circumvents this with what sound like impressive figures:
IRA-controlled Twitter accounts separately had tens of thousands of followers, including multiple U.S.
political figures who retweeted IRA-created content. In November 2017, a Facebook representative testified that
Facebook had identified 470 IRA-controlled Facebook accounts that collectively made 80,000 posts between January
2015 and August 2017. Facebook estimated the IRA reached as many as 126 million persons through its Facebook
accounts. In January 2018, Twitter announced that it had identified 3,814 IRA-controlled Twitter accounts and
notified approximately 1.4 million people Twitter believed may have been in contact with an IRA-controlled
account.
Upon scrutiny, Mueller's figures are exaggerated, to say the least. Take Mueller's claim that Russian posts
reached "as many as 126 million" Facebook users. That figure is in fact a spin on Facebook's own guess, as
articulated by Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch's
congressional testimony
in October 2017. "Our best
estimate
," Stretch told lawmakers, "is that
approximately
126 million people
may
have been served content from a page
associated
with the
IRA
at some point
during the
two-year period
." And the "two-year period" extends far beyond the
2016 election, to August 2017. Overall, Stretch added, posts from suspected Russian accounts showing up in Facebook's
News Feed comprised "approximately 1 out of [every] 23,000 pieces of content."
Yet another reason to question the Russian operation's sophistication is the quality of its content. The IRA's
most shared pre-election Facebook post was a cartoon of a
gun-wielding
Yosemite Sam
. On Instagram, the best-received image
urged
users to give it a "Like" if they believe in Jesus. The top IRA post on Facebook before the election that mentioned
Hillary Clinton was a
conspiratorial
screed about voter fraud
. Another
ad
featured Jesus
consoling a dejected young man by telling him: "Struggling with the addiction to masturbation?
Reach out to me and we will beat it together."
Far from exposing a sophisticated propaganda campaign, the reports suggest that Russian troll farm workers engaged
in futile efforts to spark contentious rallies in a handful of states. When it comes to the ads, they may have been
engaging in clickbait capitalism: targeting unique demographics like African Americans or evangelicals in a bid to
attract large audiences for commercial purposes. Reporters who have profiled the IRA have commonly described it as "
a
social media marketing campaign
." Mueller's February 2018 indictment of the IRA disclosed that it sold
"promotions and advertisements" on its pages that generally sold in the $25-$50 range. "This strategy," a Senate
report from Oxford University's Computational Propaganda Project observes, "is not an invention for politics and
foreign intrigue, it is consistent with techniques used in digital marketing."
That, in fact, was Facebook's initial conclusion. As the
Washington Post first reported
, Facebook's initial review of Russian social media activity in late 2016 and early
2017 found that the troll farm's pages "had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren't working for a
foreign government." That view only changed, the Post added, after "aides to Hillary Clinton and Obama" developed
"theories" to help them "explain what they saw as an unnatural turn of events" in their loss of the 2016 election.
Among these theories: "Russian operatives who were directed by the Kremlin to support Trump may have taken advantage
of Facebook and other social media platforms to direct their messages to American voters in key demographic areas."
Despite the fact that "these former advisers didn't have hard evidence," the Democratic aides found a receptive
audience in both congressional intelligence committees. Democrat Mark Warner, the Senate intel vice chairman,
personally flew out to Facebook headquarters in California to press the case. Not long after, in the summer of 2017,
Facebook went public with its new "findings" about Russian trolls. Mueller has followed their lead – just as the FBI
followed the leads of other Democratic sources in pursuing both the collusion (Fusion GPS) and Russian hacking
(CrowdStrike) allegations.
John Brennan and the ICA
As it falls short of proving its case for a "sweeping and systematic" Russian interference campaign, the Mueller
report also fails to support its claim regarding the motive behind such efforts. In the introduction to Volume I,
Mueller states that "the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a
Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome." But nowhere in the ensuing 440 pages does Mueller produce any
evidence to substantiate that central claim.
Instead Mueller appears to be relying on the intelligence community assessment (ICA) released in January 2017 –
four months before his appointment – that accused the Russian government of running an "influence campaign" that
aimed "to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process," and hurt Hillary Clinton's "electability and
potential presidency" as part of what it called Russia's "clear preference for President-elect Trump."
But the ICA itself produced no evidence for any of these assertions. Its equivocation is even more blunt than
Mueller's: The ICA report's conclusions, it states, are "not intended to imply that we have proof that shows
something to be a fact."
On the core conclusion that Russia aimed to help Trump, there is not even uniformity: While the FBI and CIA claim
to have "high confidence" in that judgment, the NSA makes a conspicuous deviation in expressing that it has only
"moderate confidence."
As it casts doubt on a core allegation of Russia's alleged motives, the NSA's dissent debunks the oft-repeated
claim that the ICA represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.
Moreover, it would even be misleading to portray the ICA as the product of the three agencies that produced it –
the CIA, FBI, and NSA. Instead, there are multiple indications that the ICA is primarily the work of one person, who
would spend the next two years accusing Trump of treason: then-CIA Director John Brennan.
A March 2018 report from Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee says that Brennan personally oversaw the
entire ICA process from start to finish. In December 2016, the GOP report recounts, President Obama "directed
Brennan to conduct a review of all intelligence relating to Russian involvement in the 2016 elections." The resulting
ICA "was
drafted
by CIA analysts" and merely "
coordinated
with the NSA and the FBI." The GOP report
observes that Brennan's CIA analysts were "subjected to an
unusually constrained review and coordination process,
which deviated from established CIA practice
."[
Italics
added for emphasis.] A lengthy Democratic
rebuttal to the GOP members' report does not refute any of these findings.
Echoing the NSA's dissent, the House GOP questions the ICA's conclusion that Putin interfered to secure Trump's
victory. The committee, they write, "identified
significant intelligence tradecraft failings
that undermine
confidence in the ICA judgments regarding Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategic objectives for disrupting the
U.S. election." [
Italics
added for emphasis.]
The Brennan-run process may have also excluded dissenting views from other agencies. Jack Matlock, the former U.S.
Ambassador to Russia,
has claimed
that a "senior official" from the State Department's intelligence wing, the Bureau of Intelligence
and Research (INR), informed him that it had reached a different conclusion about alleged Russian meddling, "but was
not allowed to express it." An INR spokesperson declined a request for comment.
The ICA's production schedule also raises a red flag: The outgoing Obama administration tasked Brennan with
churning it out in seemingly unprecedented time. "Ordinarily, the kind of assessment that you're talking about, there
would be something that would take well over a year to do, certainly many months to do," former federal prosecutor
Andrew McCarthy told the House Intelligence Committee in June. " [S]eems to me, in this instance, there was a rush to
get that out within a matter of days."
But even if Brennan had been given all the time in the world, the very fact that he was placed in charge of the
intelligence assessment was a massive conflict of interest. Brennan was handed the opportunity to validate, without
independent scrutiny or oversight from unbiased sources, serious allegations that he himself helped generate.
Efforts to reach Brennan through MSNBC, where he is a commentator, were unsuccessful.
Months before he oversaw the intelligence assessment, Brennan played a critical role in the FBI's decision to open
the probe of Trump-Russia collusion. "I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian
officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating
with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," Brennan told Congress in March 2017, "and it served as
the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion-cooperation occurred."
On top of his self-described role in generating the investigation of possible Trump-Russia collusion, Brennan also
played a critical role in generating the claim that the Russian government was waging an influence campaign.
According to the book "The Apprentice" by the Washington Post's Greg Miller, the CIA unit known as "Russia House" was
"the point of origin" for the U.S. intelligence community's conclusion during the presidential campaign that "the
Kremlin was actively seeking to elect Trump." Brennan sequestered himself in his office to
pore over the CIA's material
,
"staying so late that the glow through his office windows remained visible deep into the night." Brennan "ordered
up," not just vetted, "'finished' assessments – analytic reports that had gone through layers of review and
revision," Miller adds, but also "what agency veterans call the 'raw stuff' – the unprocessed underlying material."
Anyone familiar with how cherry-picked, false intelligence made the case for the Iraq War will recognize "raw
material" as a red flag. Here's another: According to Miller, one piece of intelligence that was "a particular source
of alarm to Brennan," was the "bombshell" from "sourcing deep inside the Kremlin" that Putin himself had "authorized
a covert operation" in order to, "in his own words damage Clinton and help elect Trump" via "a cyber campaign to
disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race." A former CIA operative described that sourcing as "the espionage
equivalent of 'the Holy Grail.'"
Undoubtedly, a mole within Putin's inner circle – able to capture his exact orders – would indeed fit that
description. But that raises the obvious question: If such a crown jewel of espionage exists, why would anyone in
U.S. intelligence allow it to be revealed? And why hadn't that "Holy Grail" source been able to forewarn its American
intelligence handlers of any number of Putin's actions that have caught the U.S. off-guard, from the annexation of
Crimea to the Russian intervention in Syria?
Brennan was the first to alert President Obama of a Russian interference campaign, and subsequently oversaw the
U.S. intelligence response.
Since leaving office, Brennan has laid bare his personal animus towards Trump, going so far as to call him
"treasonous" – an unprecedented charge for a former top intelligence official to make about a sitting president. In
the weeks before Mueller issued his final report, Brennan was still predicting that members of Trump's inner circle,
including family members, would be indicted. Given Brennan's bias and consistent patterns of errors, Mueller's
unquestioning, apparent reliance on a Brennan-run process is suspect.
Although Mueller seemed to accept the ICA's explosive claims at face value, Brennan's work product is now facing
Justice Department scrutiny. The
New York Times
reported on June 12 that Attorney General William Barr is "interested in how the C.I.A. drew its
conclusions about Russia's election sabotage, particularly the judgment that Mr. Putin ordered that operatives help
Mr. Trump." In what is most likely a direct reference to Brennan, the Times adds that Barr "wants to know more about
the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference campaign," as well
as about "the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016."
Until Barr completes his review of the Russia probe, the April 2018 report from GOP members of the House
Intelligence Committee remains the only publicly available assessment of the Brennan-controlled ICA's methodology.
One reason for this is the fact that President Obama personally quashed a proposed bipartisan commission of inquiry
into alleged Russian interference that would have inevitably subjected Brennan and other top intelligence officials
to scrutiny. According to the Washington Post, in the aftermath of the November election, Obama administration
officials discussed forming such a commission to conduct a sweeping probe of the alleged Russian interference effort
and the U.S. response. But after Obama's then chief-of-staff, Denis McDonough, introduced the proposal, he:
began criticizing it, arguing that it would be perceived as partisan and almost certainly blocked by Congress.
Obama then echoed McDonough's critique, effectively killing any chance that a Russia commission would be formed.
With Obama having killed "any chance that a Russia commission would be formed," there has been no thorough,
independent oversight of the intelligence process that alleged an interference campaign by Russia and triggered an
all-consuming investigation of the Trump campaign's potential complicity.
New Opportunities to Answer Unresolved Questions
Barr's ongoing review, and Mueller's pending appearance before Congress, offer fresh opportunities to re-examine
the affair's fundamental inconsistencies. Authorized by the president to declassify documents, Barr could shed light
on the role that CrowdStrike and other sources played in informing Mueller and the Brennan-directed ICA's claims of a
Russian interference campaign. When he appears before lawmakers, Mueller will likely face questions on other matters:
from Democrats, his decision to punt on obstruction; from Republicans, his decision to carry out a prolonged
investigation of Trump-Russia collusion despite likely knowing quite early on that there was no such case to make.
If the U.S. government does not have a solid case to make against Russia, then the origins of Russiagate, and its
subsequent predominance of U.S. political and media focus, are potentially even more suspect. Given that allegation's
importance, and Mueller's own uncertainty and inconsistencies, the special counsel and his aides deserve scrutiny for
making a "central allegation" that they have yet to substantiate.
Correction:
July 5, 2019, 7:40 PM Eastern
An earlier version of this article misstated the month of FBI Director James Comey's testimony in 2017 to Congress
about the bureau's handling of Democratic National Committee servers. It was in March, not January.
The US elite jump up and down with moral indignation about an evidence-free allegation of foreign
interference in its domestic politics, whilst ignoring actual evidenced foreign interference in its
domestic affairs, and all the while constantly interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign
countries and boasting about it.
Tim Jenkins
That's an excellent brief summary description of events ongoing, Steve & very telling.
I have the feeling that most of the moral indignation is from those with most to hide !
Roberto
The takeaway of 2 1/2 years of nonsense, succinct version:
The congressman asks:
"When you talk about the firm that produced the Steele reporting, the name of the firm that produced
that was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?"
"I am not familiar with – with that," Mueller replied.
"It was. It's not a trick question. It was Fusion GPS," Chabot retorted.
The Congressman then asked whether Mueller was familiar with the owner of Fusion GPS.
"That's outside my purview," Mueller replied."
Tim Jenkins
It seems likely, that Trump planned to discredit Robert Mueller's integrity, from the very beginning.
Think about it: Robert (d'Mule) Mueller and his history:-
1) Heavy involvement in Uranium One deal,
with the Russians.
2) Cover up of all investigations 9/11, as FBI Boss.
3) Clean up of Epstein's abhorrent dealings, last time around.
4) The Great Russia-Hoax, by Magic Mueller & Co.
For my mind, I can imagine BTO -"You ain't seen nothin', yet "
GRAFT
But the lunatics still believe millions upon millions of people believe it still
Cesca
This is just one of the events where the psychopathic scum show how divorced they are from humane
consciousness.
They are thick as sh.t when it comes to hiding what they do, have the power to make it hard to find
the truth tho.
Tim Jenkins
Coulter was calling for him to be in solitary in a 'SuperMax', as if that would protect him.
Meanwhile, Priti Patel wants to bring back the death sentence
(stoooopid woman, not interested in learning, better said, in others learning) 😉
Off with their heads: Final Solutions ? Judge Priti Patel ?
Personally, i'd love to see Epstein in a safe cell, in between Cardinal sinner George d'Pedo
Pell & Harvey Weinstein: all with webcams & wifi LIVE & pay per view:-
VIP Big Bro. Chokey & the Bandits,
(online Live 🙂 )
I would actually pay to view that, even if only briefly on the BBC, though I've never given a
penny to the BBC, since 1979 I swear m8 🙂
mark
The Mueller Report is proof positive that the US is equally adept as Blair and Campbell in
producing Dodgy Dossiers.
The poor chap is obviously suffering from advanced Alzheimer's. You'd think they
could come up with a better front man for their conspiracy theory.
It was a novel idea to outsource the investigation to Crowdstrike.
There's a lot to be said for privatisation.
Most commendable.
Maybe the next time there's a high profile criminal investigation the FBI will outsource the murder
investigation to Sam Spade, Ace Gumshoe.
Roberto
It wasn't [the dreaded, one-day] Alzheimer's.
It's a Modified Limited Hangout version of 'I don't recall', 'What page is that on?', 'What page?',
'Oh I see it now', 'Can you repeat the question?', and 'It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is'
(well, OK, everything except that – it's copyrighted).
Add dozens of 'That's not my purview' or some variation of it, and 5 hours magically shrinks.
Question This
Why not write an article why so much time, effort & money has been wasted on this subject.
Is it a
surprise to anyone that competing super powers (I use the term loosely) attempt to interfere in
election results? Frankly i take it as given that Russia, USA & US of Europe do so at any & all
possible opportunity.
And asking if politicians are corrupt is like asking what colors the sky, we all know the answer.
The lie accuses its own sin in the other – as intent at sustainability of power by deceit.
Unravelling to source is the nature of a true harvest.
Each unto its own.
UreKismet
Well IMO you'd be wrong. English elites have been saying "the evil russian other" for at
least 200 years. Even in the islands no one sees as a good earner, Aotearoa, has an
'anti russian fort"
It was built in the 1880's when some pommie pols beat up a "Russia is
trying to steal our empire" scare.
Tim Jenkins
Get Mifsud, Now !
****************
"Mueller does not explain why he included Assange's comments as reported by media
outlets in his report but decided not to speak with Assange directly, or ask to see his "physical
proof," during a two-year investigation." with an unlimited budget to investigate !
What more than that did you need to know ? Alles Klar and if you are still unsure, then just ask
yourself why Bill Binney & Kurt Weibe, ex NSA programmers of "Parallel Platforms", have NOT been
called to testify, either ! The technical end 'stuff' proves that Mueller has been lying all along on
his 'Witch Hunt' & Russia-Hoax and has NOT been addressing any one of the most important questions &
problems that lead to further investigations & indictments of many key figures: which include
potentially prosecuting the murderer of Seth Rich and why Mueller charged all others for lying to him
during his pathetic investigation, but
NOT Jo' MIFSUD !
Mueller
himself should be prosecuted for his omissions & failure to prosecute Mifsud & question Richard
Dearlove more intensively !
Get Mifsud under Oath immediately: he started all this who the hell is
MIFSUD?
Why is MIFSUD being protected? What the Fuck were Steele & Mifsud & Dearlove thinking to conspire &
concoct on behalf of Deep State Governors & Operatives, who transcend both the USUK Governments
combined ! ? !
This is an old article that helps you comprehend something of the background of the lies &
deceptions of Mueller's pathetic efforts, & yesterday's statements confirm that he never intended to
reveal anything at all, including yesterday, but why do we not have some brief qualification of
Mueller's Testimony just yesterday, as an addendum here @OffG ?
How does OffG expect the Brits. to keep up to speed ? Especially, what will happen next with Boris
Johnson and his dilemmas @home with GCHQ ?
Coz' GCHQ were wholly involved in this TREASON USA attempt & Russia-Hoax,
as were Italian Secret Services and the Ukrainian S.S. !
These matters can no longer be resolved behind closed doors, unless you wish to live continuously &
forever onwards, under a corporate Fascist Dictatorship of "Parallel Platforms" & Pedophile
Politicians ! it's that simple, so take 5 minutes and listen to Jim Jordan cross question Mueller,
just yesterday, and you'll begin to see that Mifsud is being protected and
we need to know WHY? HOW? & What from ? & by whom
Logic, the wholly zionist owned &
controlled mainstream media, surely! Coz' the ball is still rolling and it will not stop @Mifsud's
desk, nor the boss of GCHQ's desk heads are gonna' roll, when this ball gets finally kicked into the
annals of a very pissy secret service "History of the National Security State" and BoJo has some
serious thinking to do about how he deals with the nameless cnuts in the British not so civil service,
who used orphans kids in Ireland to entrap politicians and leverage any future political discussions
with British Pedophile Politicians fully
controlled !!!
E.G. GARY HOY !
It should be noted that yesterday, before Bill Barr stepped into his bullet proof vehicle, after
answering a few questions to journalists, he beamed the biggest smile I ever saw on his public face
and uttered the words "it goes with the territory". Bill Barr has clearly grown more comfortable with
where he stands, today and he has no intention of kicking this can of worms down the road, including
Jeffrey Epstein & Ghislaine Maxwell, charges will be brought, thankfully finally and Boris Johnson
will be forced to reveal much more than he would likely wish regarding "The History of the National
Security State" and it will help mask his inevitable blunders, down the road.
I have pasted three links deliberately so that Admin must read this 😉
DunGroanin
Superb post Tim and a great catch! I missed David Nunes bit yesterday. The PM of GB and Mifsud in
full colour! Lol
The Guardian live reporting missed every mention of Steele, Dearlove, a
'Russian' how very suspicious! Lol
I do believe the Russian State is capable of hacking – as is every such capable state in the
world. I surmise they did hack – that is the most likely source of the Integrity Initiative /
Institute of Statecraft material.
We will see how many independent news sites and bloggers actually exist by their journalism and
blogging on this revealed conspiracy.
Tim Jenkins
My pleasure, thanks DG & I honestly 'almost choked' early morning, when sifting through the
guardian script writers & their video editing efforts for today's 'damage limitation': (no
doubt, on command of GCHQ), just how much key info. was truly omitted, scandalous clearly,
'The Lobby' is working hard on distractions, for not just all the government politicians, but
also all journalists & editors: and therefore, Operation Charlemagne never gets mentioned, so
that the 'Mifsud confusion' prevails and a disconnect is established from GCHQ, Steele & Treason
USA & Epstein Island & Ghislaine Maxwell's historic sexual endeavours to control key political
figures' future decision making: which includes Judges, down the line, as well as key figures
working on "Parallel Platforms" of computing, within the National Security State throughout NATO
nations !
And this all presents a prime opportunity for OffGuardian. 🙂
It will be a tough ole' cookie for Kit to crack: maybe in bite sized pieces, step by step
It's a very real tangled web that transcends borders of governance and forces one to not shy
away from the words Corporate Fascist Dictatorship, with zero privacy & total control of all
flows of Knowledge,
Not just Scientific . . .
Mercer & Cambridge Analytica ? the tip of the iceberg,
as UreKismet rightly points out below, Carole d'Cad certainly has much to answer for, in the
biggest internet Psyop sting & string of distractions from the Key issues of programming our
futures, collectively.
UreKismet
AFAIK there is zero evidence that the russian state was involved in the pathetic beauty contest which
the US elites use to distract the more credulous citizens every 4 years. Why would they? They know
damn well this quadrennial farce is a crooked game from start to finish. A game that only allows the
same two contestants, the republican tweedledee and the democrat tweedledum to compete – both sides
cheat like f++k on a massive scale so whatever skullduggery the Russian state could insert into that
rigged crapshoot would have two chances of success,
Buckley's
and none.
But more important than even that is, even if the Russian State – oops sorry. . . "Putin" {said
quickly with all emphasis on vowels none on consonants so it sounds more like a hoick & spit than a
word} by some miracle did succeed so what? You cannot push a decent spliff skin between the dems &
rethugs on the stuff which really matters.
Disagree? Check out the Tufts alumni
diary entry for yesterday
. The article tells us how the Senate Foreign Relations committee, who
are the mob allegedly responsible for devising and implementing amerika's foreign policy, actually had
a falling out on monday, a disagreement between a dem senator and a rethug member of the old boys
steamroom and bar club.
This was the first public contretemps in decades. Wow I bet that was over something vital!
Nah, the dispute was over the murder of that Kashoggi creep, they reckon the dems wanted to slap
Saudi with a wet bus ticket, whereas the rethugs preferred a damp feather as the instrument of
corporal punishment.
Why on earth would anyone who hadn't bought a seat at the table e.g. the invaders of occupied
Palestine waste energy, let alone the $30,000 that crowdstrike claimed Russia had spent on a forlorn
hope of trying to get something up like sanctions relief, when everyone knows the correct way to do it
is to bribe both sides with tens of millions?
Now "tens of millions" may seem a lot until you understand you will get it all back plus a lot
extra for the hassle. Yep the amerikan pols become dependent on your 'donation' real quick. So from
then on out, they find a way to give you money for some nonsense program which you then give back to
'em all as donations – less about 95% for expenses natch – but everyone is cool with that, they know
there are considerable overheads in the lobbying biz.
That is why just about all of them plan on getting into lobbying themselves – just as soon as their
little black books are chocka with the foibles of all the other congress-creeps and senate-slugs.
I watched the netflix doco "The Great Hack" which tries a camera eye view of the Cambridge
Analytica investigation. IMO It reveals graun contractor Carole Cadwalladr to be the sort of deeply
dedicated journo not too proud to let the facts stand in the way of a good beat up/fit up.
Shockingly for the graun, the target of this character assassination is a 'sister', yep another
member of the victimised by patriarchy club.
A young woman by the name of Brittany Kaiser whose parents were financially destroyed by the cfc.
After the family home was seized in 2014 she had to quit being an unpaid worker for the dems in DC &
took an extremely well paid gig (VP) with CA. Apparently her conscience got the better of her so when
the stories about what they and facebook had been doing came out she whistle blew in the US inquiry
and the english parliament enquiry.
Too bad Cadwalladr decided she (Kaiser) would be useful in yet another graun attack on Julian
Assange.
Kaiser had sent Wikileaks a couple bit coins back in the noughties when she was an idealistic Obama
intern and bit coins weren't worth much. Years later she visited Julian at the Ecuador embassy on CA
business and she insists that neither Russia or H Clinton's email were discussed, but Cadwalladr ran
this article
claiming she did both, without a scintalla of watchamacallit – evidence, proof
whatsoever.
Of course in reality Kaiser may be nothing like the possum trapped in the headlights she presents
as; this is a TV show (all over the torrent and usenet sites if like me, people prefer not to pay for
the fibs they are told) in which both Cadwalladr & Kaiser get lots of time. For me Kaiser came across
as someone acting more like a human than, the bigger the front, the smaller the back, Cadwalladr did.
None of us can ever know for sure who did what to whom during prez 2016, so we are left with
considering the mountains of bulldust using our sense of humanity mixed with the few facts we can be
sure of. In that light IMO, it makes zero sense for the Russian state to try on something that is so
obviously doomed to fail, so they didn't.
Antonym
Good to see a factually well informed author here ATL void of ideology or theory. Mueller has bended
truth when ordered since decades while looking like Eliot Ness. A good fella.
Martin Usher
The fundamental flaw in the whole "Russiagate" thing is the failure to differentiate between Russia,
the state and its government, and Russians, individuals who are Russian nationals. This failure is a
direct result of an inability to recognize that the Cold War finished 30 years ago, a failure
highlighted by the breathless Tom Clancy style of reporting and reinforced by a huge
military/industrial complex that recognizes that in the absence of war or threats or war their
business is a bust.
I've always maintained that any connections Trump has with Russia are going to
be based on money. As in "there are people who have lots of money who need some kind of investment
vehicle to launder it" and "a tangled web of casinos and real estate holdings is a perfect laundromat
for money of dubious origins". This doesn't automatically suggest that Trump's a money launderer for
the Russian mob but rather there's no clear cut line between what's clearly criminal and what's
clearly totally legal and a lot of businesses operate in the gray between the two.
(Politically, though, the last word on Trump support was spoken to me by a Hungarian/American
colleague who intended to vote for him. He lived in Budapest and his interest wasn't in US domestic
politics so much as not being caught in WW3. He thought Hilary was going to start a war, Trump would
keep us out. I thought he was being a bit naive (and have been proven right) but you couldn't blame
him for exercising an abundance of caution.)
Ukraine became a geopolitical pawn. In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
Notable quotes:
"... His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the Donbass rebels and with Moscow, ..."
"... But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian citizens. ..."
"... Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence. ..."
"... Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question -- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold War. ..."
"... This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the host of The John Batchelor Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com . ..."
The election of Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who won decisively throughout
most of the country, represents the possibility of peace with Russia, if it -- and he -- are
given a chance. His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters
in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the
Donbass rebels and with Moscow, notably provisions associated with the European-sponsored Minsk
Accords. Zelensky, on the other hand, has made peace (along with corruption) his top priority
and indeed spoke directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, on July 11. The nearly
six-year war having become a political, diplomatic, and financial drain on his leadership,
Putin welcomed the overture.
But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in
Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say
quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a
Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian
citizens. (Washington has previously had some shameful episodes of
collusion with these Ukrainian neo-Nazis .) As for Putin, who does not fully control the
Donbass rebels or its leaders, he "can never be seen at home," as
I pointed out more than two years ago , "as 'selling out' Russia's 'brethren' anywhere in
southeast Ukraine." Indeed, his own implacable nationalists have made this a litmus test of his
leadership.
Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his
would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now
Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary
Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point
man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over
Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their
hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it
eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence.
Our hope should be that Trump breaks with that long-standing bipartisan policy, as he did
with policy toward North Korea, and puts America squarely on the side of peace in Ukraine. (For
now, Zelensky has set aside Moscow's professed irreversible "reunification" with Crimea, as
should Washington.) A new US policy must include recognition, previously lacking, that the
citizens of war-ravaged Donbass are not primarily "Putin's stooges" but people with their own
legitimate interests and preferences, even if they favor Russia. Here too Zelensky is embarking
on a new course. Poroshenko waged an "anti-terrorist" war against Donbass: the new president is
reaching out to its citizens even though most of them were unable to vote in the election.
Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably
architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the
Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking
regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question
-- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the
views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more
important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold
War.
This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the
host of The John Batchelor
Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com .
"... Maybe you saw this recent headline. The Democratic National Committee famously "rebuffed" a request from the FBI to examine its email server after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election. You probably remember that, but you've probably forgotten this ..."
"... Do private companies normally withhold access from the FBI to a crime scene, when that company already contracts with the FBI? What would be their motivation? ..."
"... Ignoring that for a moment, look at how competent Crowdstrike is since the DNC hack ..."
"... So in the past three years Crowdstrike: ..."
"... a) detected the DNC server hack, but failed to stop it b) falsely accused the Russians of hacking Ukrainian artillery c) failed to prevent the NRCC from being hacked, even though that was why they were hired ..."
"... In other words, Crowdstrike is really bad at their job. In addition, Crowdstrike is really bad at business too. CrowdStrike recorded a net loss last year of $140 million on revenue of $249.8 million, and negative free cash flow of roughly $59 million. ..."
"... CS denied the FBI access to their DNC paid for "analysis" without redaction. Why redact their own document? I cannot conceive of even a stupid reason to do this, let alone a plausible one ..."
"... Wonder if they were worried they would have to explain and testify under oath for or be asked if they could actually prove something ..."
"... It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good job." ..."
"... If you tell the right people what they want to hear, the money will take care of itself. ..."
Maybe you saw
this recent headline. The Democratic National Committee famously
"rebuffed"
a request from the FBI to examine its email server after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election. You probably
remember that, but you've probably forgotten
this.
TYT can report that at the same time CrowdStrike was working on behalf of the DNC, the company was also under contract with
the FBI for unspecified technical services. According to a US federal government spending database, CrowdStrike's "period of
performance" on behalf of the FBI was between July 2015 and July 2016. CrowdStrike's findings regarding the DNC server breach
-- which continue to this day to be cited as authoritative by everyone from former FBI Director James Comey, to NBC anchor
Megyn Kelly -- were issued in June 2016, when the contract was still active.
OK. Nothing suspicious here. Just a harmless coincidence. NOT! Do private companies normally withhold access from the FBI
to a crime scene, when that company already contracts with the FBI? What would be their motivation?
Ignoring that for a moment, look at how
competent Crowdstrike is since the
DNC hack.
The National Republican Congressional Committee was hacked during the 2018 election after hiring CrowdStrike, the cyber-firm
that the Democratic National Committee employed that allowed DNC emails to be stolen even after the 2016 hack was detected.
The emails of four top NRCC officials were stolen in a major hack that was detected in April -- eight months ago, Politico
reported Tuesday.
So in the past three years Crowdstrike:
a) detected the DNC server hack, but failed to stop it
b) falsely accused
the Russians of hacking Ukrainian artillery
c) failed to prevent the NRCC from being hacked, even though that was why they were hired
In other words, Crowdstrike is really bad at their job. In addition, Crowdstrike is really bad at
business
too. CrowdStrike recorded a net loss last year of $140 million on revenue of $249.8 million, and negative free cash flow of roughly
$59 million.
So what does a cybersecurity company that is hemorrhaging money and can't protect it's clients do? It does an
IPO .
It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good job." If you tell the right people what
they want to hear, the money will take care of itself.
CS denied the FBI access to their DNC paid for "analysis" without redaction. Why redact their own document? I cannot conceive
of even a stupid reason to do this, let alone a plausible one.
gj, with your trove of sources, why do you think CS redacted their own report--it's all fiction anyway?
Inquiring gators want to know.
Dalum Woulu on Tue, 07/09/2019 - 2:47am
Wonder if they were worried
they would have to explain and testify under oath for or be asked if they could actually prove something.
It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good job."
If you tell the right people what they want to hear, the money will take care of itself.
It's all about making the people at the top feel smart for having hired you and assuring them they don't need to waste their
beautiful minds trying to understand what it is you do.
Whoops, you got hacked? Gee, nothing we could have done. More money please!
"... a) detected the DNC server hack, but failed to stop it b) falsely accused the Russians of hacking Ukrainian artillery c) failed to prevent the NRCC from being hacked, even though that was why they were hired ..."
"... In other words, Crowdstrike is really bad at their job. In addition, Crowdstrike is really bad at business too. CrowdStrike recorded a net loss last year of $140 million on revenue of $249.8 million, and negative free cash flow of roughly $59 million. ..."
a) detected the DNC server hack, but failed to stop it
b) falsely
accused the Russians of hacking Ukrainian artillery
c) failed to prevent the NRCC from being hacked, even though that was why they were
hired
In other words, Crowdstrike is really bad at their job. In addition, Crowdstrike is
really bad at business
too. CrowdStrike recorded a net loss last year of $140 million on revenue of $249.8 million,
and negative free cash flow of roughly $59 million.
So what does a cybersecurity company that is hemorrhaging money and can't protect it's
clients do? It does an IPO
.
It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good job." If
you tell the right people what they want to hear, the money will take care of itself.
It just goes to show that "getting it right" is not the same thing as "doing a good
job."
If you tell the right people what they want to hear, the money will take care of
itself.
It's all about making the people at the top feel smart for having hired you and assuring
them they don't need to waste their beautiful minds trying to understand what it is you do.
Whoops, you got hacked? Gee, nothing we could have done. More money please!
Probably more accurate would be the left wing of the MICV
Notable quotes:
"... He may be a fake progressive, but he is a genuine Zionist. ..."
"... Schiff's description of Iran is one of the best examples of the cosmically hypocritical US technique of projecting its own (criminally unfavorable) description onto others. ..."
"... " xxxxxx is a thoroughly malign actor, a cause of deep instability in the region, a profound contributor to the violence and misery in Yemen, and one of the most dangerous regimes in the world. . it is also a state sponsor of terror. The threat it poses is real." ..."
"... "No responsibility of government is more fundamental than the responsibility of maintaining the highest standard of ethical behavior for those who conduct the public business." ~ President John F. Kennedy ..."
"... Exactly. That word–like "American Exceptionalism" – has always seemed nothing more than a verbal gimmick meant to slip one past the listener, the way "freedom and democracy" are routinely used to justify any manner of moral atrocities. All these examples are undoubtedly found in the American Newspeak Dictionary, available for perusal only by members of the Inner Party. ..."
"... Schiff represents the left wing of the pro-Israel Lobby in the United States. Schiff's stated positions reflect the "special relationship" between the Israel and the U.S. military-industrial complex. ..."
"... Schiff is every bit as much a pro-Israel "tool" as Bolton, Pompeo, and Trump, not to mention Hilary Rodham Clinton. ..."
"... "The U.S.-Israel special relationship is rooted in preferential arms trade agreements as a way to subsidize the U.S. military industry and reinforce support for Israeli colonialism. This special relationship is locked into an arms trade cycle where both the Israeli and American elite class benefits, at the expense of the indigenous population. ..."
"... Schiff is also a likely Zionist, as opposed to just being an American Jew. The ideology of Zionism is to provide 100% support for any activity, worldwide, that provides support for the State of Israel over that of an individual irrespective of whether it involves human rights, international law or war crimes. ..."
"... Schiff plays the media well because the level of intellectual debate has been brought to the lowest level ..."
"... There is a precedent: Joe McCarthy, who also became an anti-Russian demagogue out of opportunism, was taken seriously by Irving Kristol at the CIA-funded Encounter Magazine. A shame that the media and political classes appear to have learned nothing. ..."
"... I would only add that Schiff – akin to very many in Congress and elsewhere throughout the corridors of power and in both (so-called) parties – is beloved by AIPAC-Israel. Indeed I would suggest that underlying his deep antagonism to Iran lies his pro-Zionist affiliations. I don't doubt that that antagonism also derives from the American sentiments toward 1979 and oil, but his support for Zionism and Israel is at least an equal cause of his hatred of Iran as the former. ..."
"... Being the chairman of the Intelligence Committee Schiff either gets the straight stuff from the spooks and then twists it to deceive the American public, or he is directly fed bushwah by the spooks, believes it and dutifully passes it on to you. But there is no way that his dangerous assertions and demands are accurate or in the best interests of anyone but those entrenched in the Washington power structure. ..."
"... Schiff is projecting: "[The US] is a thoroughly malign actor, a cause of deep instability in the region, a profound contributor to the violence and misery in Yemen, and one of the most dangerous regimes in the world. Through the [Pentagon and CIA] and its proxies, it is also a state sponsor of terror. The threat it poses is real." ..."
"... Let's face it, America's government is run by organized criminals (otherwise known as wealthy businessmen) in it to milk the system for all its worth and they pay goons like Schiff to lie, cheat and steal at their behest. The con should be well understood by just about anyone with an IQ above room temperature. ..."
"... Constantly provoke and demonize the other major powers on our planet, stage a few false flag incidents in which innocent civilians are killed or injured and much property is destroyed, invade and attack their allies either directly with American troops or by proxy and then loudly and incessantly blame the other side for creating the mess. Dominate the American air waves with propaganda supporting the charade and shut off all access to the truth or any other version of actual events because the same organized criminals also hold a monopoly on the media. Finally claim the only remedy is to send out more carrier task forces, to station more missile batteries on Russia's borders and to build billions of dollars worth of new weapons, much of which America strong arms its putative "allies" to purchase. (With friends like us our vassals don't need enemies.) ..."
Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, is as big a hawk as any member of the Trump administration,
says John Kirikaou.
Neoliberal, fake progressive Rep. Adam Schiff (D-C) showed his true colors yet again last week. He said
in response to President
Donald Trump's saber-rattling and threats to attack Iran that,
" Iran is a thoroughly malign actor, a cause of deep instability in the region, a profound contributor to the violence and
misery in Yemen, and one of the most dangerous regimes in the world. Through the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) and
its proxies, it is also a state sponsor of terror. The threat it poses is real."
That certainly wasn't the position of the Obama Administration. Schiff instead has decided to jump into the Trump foreign policy
with both feet. He's made similar threatening statements about Venezuela and China, too.
Let's look at this one issue at a time. First, Schiff is the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That's the committee that's supposed to oversee the CIA and other intelligence services, but which acts more as a clubhouse for CIA
cheerleaders.
Schiff has watched Trump tear up the Iran nuclear deal, or JCPOA; he's watched the U.S. send additional troops to the Middle East
to step up pressure on Teheran; he's watched war-lovers John Bolton, national security adviser, and Mike Pompeo, the secretary of
state, promise in public to violate international law by attacking Iran. Schiff has also watched a naked U.S. coup attempt in Venezuela.
And what is his response? It's to tell us, "I've read classified documents. If you've seen what I've seen you would want to attack
Iran too. You would want to overthrow Venezuela too. Just take my word for it." Thanks, but no thanks. I know from first-hand experience
how much the CIA lies. I don't believe a word they say.
Second, Schiff has indeed maintained just as hard a line on
Venezuela as he has on Iran. Just two months
ago, he called President Nicolas Maduro an "authoritarian" and a "
disastrous dictator ," and
said he, Schiff, "stands with the opposition in calling for free and fair elections and the restoration of democracy. Maduro must
refrain from escalating the situation through violence, which will only further the suffering of the Venezuelan people."
What the esteemed chairman decided to utterly ignore was the fact that Venezuela had free and fair elections that the opposition
boycotted in order to try to delegitimize them; Venezuela already is a functioning democracy; and it was actually the Trump Administration
and the self-appointed "president," Juan Guaidó, who resorted to violence by initiating a coup attempt against Maduro that failed.
Schiff is either dangerously misinformed here or he's a tool of Bolton's foreign policy.
Dangerous China
Third, Schiff is as staunchly anti-China as any Republican hawk. In a recent on-the-record talk before the
Council on Foreign Relations , he said,
" China's a very dangerous and influential part of that (antidemocratic) trend. It's certainly true that, you know, Russia
has been undermining democracies in Europe and elsewhere. But China has been undermining democracy in a very different way. China's
been undermining democracy in a -- in a powerful, technological way, with the promulgation of these so-called safe cities and
the safe-city technology where CCTV cameras are ubiquitous. And Chinese citizens now are facially recognized by the software in
these cameras. That ties into a database that includes information about their social scores, their credit history, their use
of social media. It is big brother come to life. And this is obviously not only a grave threat to the freedom and privacy of the
Chinese people and their ability to associate or communicate their freedom, but it also -- to the degree that China is now exporting
this technology to other authoritarian countries -- allows them to perpetuate their autocratic rule. And this, under the masquerade
of safety and security."
The funny thing is that Schiff never bothered to mention that it is actually the UK that is the most surveilled country in the
world, with London having more CCTV cameras than any city, anywhere, in any period of human history. He never brought up the fact
that China, in its entire history, has never promoted an imperialist foreign policy, like the U.S. and U.K. It doesn't invade other
countries, like the U.S. and U.K. It doesn't interfere in foreign elections, like the U.S., U.K., Russia, and others. But the position
does say a lot about Schiff. It says that he doesn't care about facts, relying instead on pseudo-patriotic stereotypes. Remember,
this guy is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
If there was any doubt at all that Schiff is in the grip of the military-industrial complex, one doesn't have to rely just on
his stated positions on Iran, Venezuela, and China to make the situation any clearer. Just take a look at his
donors . The
defense contractors love him. Northrop Grumman ($16,217), SAIC ($11,005), Lockheed Martin ($10,298), Boeing ($10,208), Honeywell
($10,025), Raytheon ($7,040), and General Dynamics ($7,038) are all among his major donors.
The sad truth, though, is that we're stuck with him. Schiff represents Hollywood, California in the House. He usually runs unopposed,
and when he does have opposition, he wins with more than 75 percent every time. Another sad truth is that this is the Democratic
Party of 2019. Its leadership is neoliberal. It's interventionist. It ensures that, come election time, none of us has a real choice.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies.
He served 23 months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture program.
If you enjoyed this original article, please consider making
a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one.
Thanks John, for the heads up. I have never liked Schiff; I always thought he seemed smarmy, but the MSM loves him. Yet try
as I would to like him, I just couldn't. So thank you for telling me why my gut feeling was accurate. Your list of military industrial
donors is enough to give a thinking person reason enough to start wondering who he is. It also makes one wonder once again about
the MSM who so wholeheartedly praise him.
vinnieoh , June 29, 2019 at 15:06
But he's so sweet and cuddwy! Like a caricature of a caricature of a caricature. Who doesn't believe him?! Born to be a liar,
er I mean, a politician.
Put that POS in fatigues and an empty parachute on his back and kick him out of the plane! It wasn't lost on me at least that
his district is Hollywood, CA. Are there any humans there or just more caricatures? Sorry, couldn't resist that cheap and all-to-easy
shot.
SteveK9 , June 29, 2019 at 13:27
He may be a fake progressive, but he is a genuine Zionist.
John Puma , June 29, 2019 at 05:08
Schiff's description of Iran is one of the best examples of the cosmically hypocritical US technique of projecting its
own (criminally unfavorable) description onto others.
The quote follows but put sensitive electronics safely out of the way of likely projectile vomiting:
" xxxxxx is a thoroughly malign actor, a cause of deep instability in the region, a profound contributor to the violence
and misery in Yemen, and one of the most dangerous regimes in the world. . it is also a state sponsor of terror. The threat
it poses is real."
Zhu , June 29, 2019 at 01:07
Ds and Rs are the left and right wings of the hawk. Both have waged constant warfare for the whole of my lifetime
Fran Macadam , June 29, 2019 at 03:14
It's hard to further parody what's already absurd. Schiff himself is a caricature of his type, the leftist warmonger with Trump
Derangement Syndrome.
"The funny thing is that Schiff never bothered to mention that it is actually the UK that is the most surveilled country in
the world, with London having more CCTV cameras than any city, anywhere, in any period of human history." It blows me away that
John Kiriakou would brush off China's terrifying social credit system this way. And it has nothing to do with the fact that Londoners
are crazily surveilled in public (a bad thing). Does the UK use a social credit system? (Maybe it does things that are tantamount
to that, Still ) Only the US empire is rampaging all around the planet, which it acts as though it owns. But that doesn't mean
that the Corporatocracy States that the US leads don't do their own imperialism. (Canada certainly does. Read Todd Gordon't "Imperialist
Canada.") I don't believe for a minute that Russia and China don't do some limited imperialism. That's because those are not righteous
actors. They are just far less powerful than the US and have to step carefully because, although less powerful than the US, the
US ruling class sees those (relatively powerful) powers as being rivals, within the globe-straddling Corporatocracy, for dominance.
This dark world's operating principle, or organizing principle (heartily embraced by neoconservatives) is: Riches For The Strongest.
That 'strongest', not 'second strongest'.
"No responsibility of government is more fundamental than the responsibility of maintaining the highest standard of ethical
behavior for those who conduct the public business." ~ President John F. Kennedy
"Let them see what they've done." ~Mrs. Jacqueline B. Kennedy
KiwiAntz , June 28, 2019 at 19:41
Adam Shiff(ty) is just another "Pay for Play" crooked American Politician with his hand out like a Mafia don, waiting for his
tribute payment from his Corporate Masters? Be they Republicans or Democrats, this immoral, Corporatised, Privatised Political
System masquerading as a Democracy & its corrupt Politicians epitomises Cronyism in its purest form? Public service? What a joke?
Its personal enrichment service not Public service by these crooks who claim they serve the People?
LarcoMarco , June 29, 2019 at 00:40
Peace O'Schiff gets his (fake) progressive image the same way as Killery (and many "enlightened" corporate CEOs) do: by using
Identity Politics to burnish his image and get the Love from the MIC and MSM.
quantumdrone , June 28, 2019 at 19:11
John Kiriakou is an honorable and insightful professional who knows the ways of the CIA better than almost anyone else. Yet,
he is putting Russia on the same list with the US and UK when it comes to interference in other nations' elections. Too much credit!
We know thanks to Snowden's revelations that the CIA can attribute all kinds of malware to any enemy of its choosing, but it
didn't even demonstrate any such "finds" to prove Russian interference.
All we were presented with is some obscure Petersburg-based internet farm, which posted some lame political material in 2016-2018
on the world-wide-web. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know nobody volunteered any specific evidence that these postings
were done to advance any particular candidate, or that they had any other intentions other than click-baiting, or that they were
posted on the orders of Russian government officials.
Wikipedia: " Schiff had made 227 television appearances from January 2017 to February 2018, totaling over 26 hours of airtime.[62]
Schiff logged 111 MSNBC appearances and 87 CNN appearances. In 2017, Schiff spoke on the House floor ten times for about 36 minutes
total. "
Apparently, wannabe watchdog can watch Rep. Schiff for days too bad (or a blessing?) he is out of energy when back in the House.
"He never brought up the fact that China, in its entire history, has never promoted an imperialist foreign policy, like the
U.S. and U.K. It doesn't invade other countries, like the U.S. and U.K. It doesn't interfere in foreign elections, like the U.S.,
U.K., Russia, and others."
In an otherwise fine piece Kir fumbles the ball in succumbing to the group-think on the Kremlin interfering in the U.S. election.
Nothing of the sort occurred. It's hardening into such orthodoxy that we now have Jimmy Carter asserting that Russia put Trump
in the White House.
DeBlasio gets the biggest cheers of the night from the Maddow deluded audience on Wednesday when he declared that Russia's
the biggest threat that America faces.
This is all outrageous madness and claptrap that must stop!
DH Fabian , June 28, 2019 at 19:40
Yes, but who needs facts when we have memes? That is the real tragedy of this era. When Democrats lose 2020, as they are certain
to do (for several reasons that party loyalists steadfastly ignore), we're going to go through this all over again.
DW Bartoo , June 28, 2019 at 14:56
When members of Congress say, "If you knew what I know." They should be immediately asked. "Why don't we know? If what
you claim to know, is sufficient to take the nation to war, then the people have every right to learn what it is you claim to
know. Otherwise, you have to explain, and justify, why it remains "secret".
Now, of course I realize that both "the adults in the room" and the media mesmerized, will say, "It is secret for a reason."
"Okay, then what IS the reason?"
The point is, that for far too long, power has never been "truthed" sufficiently, either by the pitiful, compliant, complicit
cheerleading "Fourth Estate" or, even more importantly and critically, BY the people. No wonder the public are treated like
children, when they continue to behave as credulous children.
My appreciation, John, for your continuing exposure of idiots, thugs, buffoons, and murderous psychopaths.
DW
Skip Scott , June 28, 2019 at 16:25
Another thing the Oligarchy never explains is what it means by "National Security". They throw the word around endlessly without
ever defining it. From their actions it apparently involves the USA being boss of the entire planet. It is another useful propaganda
tool to discourage thought and manufacture consent.
LarcoMarco , June 29, 2019 at 00:50
"Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order declaring
a national emergency with respect to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United
States posed by the situation in Venezuela." -- Barack Obomber
Realist , June 29, 2019 at 16:20
Exactly. That word–like "American Exceptionalism" – has always seemed nothing more than a verbal gimmick meant to slip
one past the listener, the way "freedom and democracy" are routinely used to justify any manner of moral atrocities. All these
examples are undoubtedly found in the American Newspeak Dictionary, available for perusal only by members of the Inner Party.
Mark Redhorse , June 28, 2019 at 14:45
Love how you remove my comments because I called the author a moron, and the article a hack job full of the author's opinion
and not fact. Also love how the commentators call the neo leftists in their parties conservatives because they see them for the
idiots they are and god forbid they be connected to their out of control party. The real sickness in this country is people who
blindly follow a party that thrives on the misery of it's constituents, and propagates open borders and encourages people to enter
this country illegally, then when they can use the death of a man and his daughter as fodder for a reason to claim this country
needs no borders only to push their "control" agenda is straight bs. Wake the hell up, the democratic party is dead the rise of
the socialist party is here. As for you that don't see iran for the enemy it is, I say talk to the families of those held as hostages
and murdered back in the70's and 80's and see what they have to say. P.S. ; Jimmy Carter was and still is a moron.
Abe , June 28, 2019 at 14:44
"Why exactly does the US government go to war with so many of Israel's enemies? Why has the US destroyed Iraq and half of Syria?
The costs were enormous, the results horrible, the rewards imperceptible. The Iraq war not an outlier; it was the second in a
long series of US invasions, bombings and destructions of majority-Muslim states. It's still going on now, with Israel the only
obvious beneficiary. How does this happen? Is the Israel lobby that powerful, and even if it is, why has the rest of the US establishment
gone along?
"The explanation lies in the MIC and a deeply sinister marriage that has grown between them and Israel. Israel's wars have
become major parts of the MIC's business plan. Every bomb Israel drops; every missile the US fires, every Muslim country the US
invades makes money for the MIC. Israel receives over $3 billion in military aid from Washington every year. Most of this money
immediately returns to US military corporations to buy weapons. They're partners. [ ]
"The alliance is now lying the US into attacking Syria and Iran, along with Venezuela, using the same strategy used in Iraq,
demonizing a country's rulers and grossly underestimating the difficulties. After Iran, perhaps Russia? The corporate media present
whatever pro-war forces say as facts. No matter how many times their predictions turn out absurdly wrong or their facts are exposed
as lies, they keep being hired as commentators, experts, or pundits on corporate media platforms including NPR and PBS. This is
true for retired Generals as well as Zionist intellectuals.
"Their linked goals of American world dominance, Israeli regional dominance, and MIC profits are moving ahead. The US military
and the IDF hold joint military maneuvers. Each new American administration deepens US connection with and support for Israel
and its wars. The neocon playbook for regime change is being applied in Latin America as well. What will it take to stop them?"
Excellent points. Here's a fascinating analysis of the financial relationship between Israel and the U.S., by former financial
investigator Jake Morphonios. (It's a scam.) "The Perfect Explanation of How the War Industry Works" https://www.bitchute.com/video/tYJpzNrSsQY/
Note: Morphonios is such a good investigator that he is being savaged on YouTube in an effort to discredit him.
Abe , June 28, 2019 at 14:35
Schiff represents the left wing of the pro-Israel Lobby in the United States. Schiff's stated positions reflect the "special
relationship" between the Israel and the U.S. military-industrial complex.
Schiff is every bit as much a pro-Israel "tool" as Bolton, Pompeo, and Trump, not to mention Hilary Rodham Clinton.
The "funny thing" that Kirikaou and all these other veteran intelligence professional never bother to mention:
"The U.S.-Israel special relationship is rooted in preferential arms trade agreements as a way to subsidize the U.S. military
industry and reinforce support for Israeli colonialism. This special relationship is locked into an arms trade cycle where both
the Israeli and American elite class benefits, at the expense of the indigenous population.
"The U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over occupied territories provides a boost for Israeli colonialism."
While at interesting article, the esteemed Mr. Kirakou failed to provide any evidence for one point. That Schiff is in anyway
"left" or "progressive". Of course to me, Hillary and Obama slandered the term "progressive" away from any real meaning. They
redefined "progressive" as to be people in the banker's employ who love to kill people and maintain kill list. The word progressive
came back into popular use when the Clintons and the DLC slandered the word "liberal" into uselessness by also redefining it as
people in the banker's employ who love to kill people.
I do know that in all the times I've ever seen Schiff's name in the news, nothing about him or his positions has ever struck
me as anything to do with progressive, and I wouldn't even put him into the general category of "Left-of-Reagan", which these
days is of course a minority among Democrats, and exceedingly rare among Democratic leaders.
Skip Scott , June 28, 2019 at 14:47
It is part and parcel of propaganda to hijack the meaning of words. "Progressive" has been hijacked. "Democracy" has been hijacked.
It is one of the tricks they use to keep people from thinking.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Robert Wortman , June 28, 2019 at 13:50
Schiff is also a likely Zionist, as opposed to just being an American Jew. The ideology of Zionism is to provide 100% support
for any activity, worldwide, that provides support for the State of Israel over that of an individual irrespective of whether
it involves human rights, international law or war crimes.
Kevin Eubanks , June 28, 2019 at 13:47
I commend you for the clarity, power, and timelines of this piece! In this era of neo-fascism and proto-totalitarianism
that we are suffering, it's important, imo, to be reminded what the Democratic party has become in recent decades!
Anne Jaclard , June 28, 2019 at 13:34
Schiff plays the media well because the level of intellectual debate has been brought to the lowest level.
Any praise or concern for the "liberal rules-based international order" or condemnation of "authoritarianism" is seen as Serious
Thinking, which is why the New York Review of Books, at one time in its history a journal of serious thought that supported the
the New Left and put instructions for a Molotov on its cover, actually had a Daily Beast writer as one of their print contributors
praise Schiff. They're so gullible and stupid I almost don't blame him for taking advantage of the grift the way he did. He's
not very intelligent, any other person with a similar lack of morality could have done the same thing.
There is a precedent: Joe McCarthy, who also became an anti-Russian demagogue out of opportunism, was taken seriously by
Irving Kristol at the CIA-funded Encounter Magazine. A shame that the media and political classes appear to have learned nothing.
There has *not* been a left wing in American politics since Ronald Reagan took office back in '80-something. Bill Clinton and
his minions are all right-wing politicians. Yes, Obama and HillBillary and Joe Biden too.
After his performance on the Russian collusion theory, and all the threats with contempt of court, it's hard to believe anything
he rattles on about
Richard Burt , June 28, 2019 at 13:05
Thank you very much for writing this illuminating article on Schiff. You have added very forcefully, if sadly, to a history
of a time when neoliberals and neoconservatives joined forces with the military industrial corporate media infotainment complex,
the only difference being over who was the more hawkish party.
Donald Turner , June 28, 2019 at 12:51
well said, John!
grateful for a sane voice in this bad theater, we call the us government. bad scripted neoliberal theater.
The RNC and DNC, like the corporate state media, equally, mere illusions, projections of force: the force of global generational
wealth and power.
The Mont Pelerin Society's (Austria 1940's) favorite "economist" F. v Hayek proposed path of "liberty" and "freedom" [only
for the inbred 1% (Neoliberalism)] (Friedman, Buchanan, "Chicago School", were later disciples)
1) Deregulate global financial markets – DONE
2) Deregulate global trade – DONE
3) Create the illusion and urgency of national bankruptcy with fake (fiat) debt (thereby neuter a nation's capability to enforce
laws – eliminate the people's ability to defend against being overwhelmed and consumed by the 1%) – DONE
then lastly, the kill shot:
4) Privatize Everything. recreate us ALL as permanent rent payers of even the most basic necessities of life (Air, water, food,
shelter). – Almost COMPLETE
#PrivatizationIsTheft – privatization today is STRICTLY about prioritizing money away from the commons and general welfare
and giving it to the inbred 1% rent-seeking parasites (Extreme Redistribution of wealth from the people TO the Billionaires, NOTHING
for the people)
the use of "liberal" in this context, describes the "liberal" (freely used, as one would "liberally" spread butter on toast)
projection of any and all force available to maintain, enhance, and grow, a condition of monopolized wealth and power, in the
hands of a small group of generational feudal lords.
Ml , June 28, 2019 at 21:54
Donald Turner, thank you for a concise and cogent comment on the grand scale theft from the common man and woman. You nailed
it.
rosemerry , June 28, 2019 at 12:50
It is hard for a foreigner to understand how such a warped, wicked, disastrous liar can be elected by sane citizens and actually
get to head any "intelligence" group in a modern country (I cannot pretend to believe the USA is a democracy). Evey word he says
is full of venom and hatred, none of it is true.
The only disagreement I have is with John's inclusion of Russia as interfering in others' elections.
Zhu , June 29, 2019 at 01:34
Russiagate is as fictional and stupid as Birthergate or Flat Earth belief.
David Otness , June 28, 2019 at 15:13
Well. rosemerry, any nation worth its salt has at least some stake in hoping to influence other nations in their interests.
The fact the Dems went hog-wild in promoting this conflated Red-Scare scenario to the extent they did does not mean there were
not efforts expended by Russia, but relative to Israel and likely (formerly) Great Britain? And how many others? Statecraft such
as it is, such as all nations practice it.
The U.S. has been running unipolar wild and so much more egregiously in toppling governments for so long now has bred a haughty
and tragically undeserved contempt for Russia, and our "Exceptionalism" so touted incessantly that in our advanced state of *perfection*
(as per propagandized perception) and as self-appointed purveyors of democracy er, neoliberal capitalism, it's little wonder the
masses fell to the assault of the msm upon our nation's collective 'senses' such as it has proven to be. And of course, shitbirds
like Schiff are ever-opportunists and indeed it does deflect attention from Israel, his pet like so many others of his ilk in
Congress.
For Clinton Inc and the DNC had to keep their narrative aflame and hysteria propped up as it fit both Hillary's butt-hurt excuse-making
and the neoliberal/neocon long range plan of continuing the 100 year ongoing attempt to bring first the USSR and then Russia down
for its multiple treasures of resources. Wall Street and British 'lebensraum,' as it were. After all, they started WW II for that
purpose by financing and propping up the Nazis in the 30s and into the 40s.
But since Obama and the neocon wing of the Dem party re-invented the Cold War -- following in the footsteps of the previous
Presidents going back to GHWBush/James Baker's blatant double-cross as articulated by Bill Clinton's, 'W's', then Obama's NATO-Go-East
policy, I fear the American public has slid right back into being so easily fear-mongered and overbrimming with falsely-held notions
of self-righteousness that even minor, 'normal' foreign actorship was turned into "This is war! by idiots from Rob Reiner to Gimme
a break–Morgan Freeman!
And along with the WaPo, NYT and every other "Putin! Russia!"snot rag came that pompous blowhard Keith Olbermann and Rrrrrrachel
being the highly-paid reinforcing embalming fluid for the American mind.
I didn't mean to run off the tracks here, but my point is, John is right, it's how it's played. But only "we" can do it anywhere
near as grossly as we have up until now. And I think Trump's little cheap shot to Putin in Japan was essentially meaningless and
of course, a political currying of opportunism in itself.
All told, the Dems have done the world a great disservice by their antics, but hey -- like their Republican counterparts, it's
mostly about them as long as they keep getting elected. But this time the Dems have gone way out of bounds. Indeed, pushing up
against a nuclear nightmare.
David Otness , June 28, 2019 at 17:10
It appears what Trump's comment was as I first heard it was out of context as I first heard it on CBC early this morning:
What citizens? John just explained that Schiff runs unopposed, so he is in even only 5 dead cats show up to vote for him. He
is elected by MIC and AIPAC.
AnneR , June 28, 2019 at 12:26
Thank you, Mr Kiriakou, for this timely reminder about the realities of the individual members of the ruling elites. While
here you focus on the allegiances of single Congressman, he is representative of the majority in his profound neo-liberalism,
warmongering – lusting even, MIC comradeship.
I would only add that Schiff – akin to very many in Congress and elsewhere throughout the corridors of power and in both
(so-called) parties – is beloved by AIPAC-Israel. Indeed I would suggest that underlying his deep antagonism to Iran lies his
pro-Zionist affiliations. I don't doubt that that antagonism also derives from the American sentiments toward 1979 and oil, but
his support for Zionism and Israel is at least an equal cause of his hatred of Iran as the former.
And one might posit that the Iran business is not unrelated – at this precise moment in time – to China and its BRI.
JimG , June 28, 2019 at 12:08
Wow! well said, short and too the point. The democratic party and corporate media will never allow the public to choose a non
interventionist anti imperialist leader. That is American democracy. As the biosphere collapses the last card of the power structure
will be world war. I hope I have the courage to join the group stopping this future.
Earnest , June 28, 2019 at 12:03
Schiff's Military Industrial trash mouth sounds more like John McCain every day with one exception, he Schiff had no credibility
at anything!
John Hawk , June 28, 2019 at 12:02
Schiff and his ilk are all owned not only by the MIC, but also by the terrorist state of Israel. Is Schiff a duali?
Glennn , June 28, 2019 at 11:20
Great article about an extremely dangerous man who personifies the degradation of the Democratic Party. Another betrayal from
Shiff was encouraging the social networking sites to censor alternative health sites as well as anyone challenging pharma lies
about their horrible products. Hopefully someone will mount a powerful challenge against him in the next election.
Realist , June 28, 2019 at 15:58
Being the chairman of the Intelligence Committee Schiff either gets the straight stuff from the spooks and then twists
it to deceive the American public, or he is directly fed bushwah by the spooks, believes it and dutifully passes it on to you.
But there is no way that his dangerous assertions and demands are accurate or in the best interests of anyone but those entrenched
in the Washington power structure.
I want to see his head on a pike, among plenty of others, when the people finally storm the Capitol Building to topple the
oligarchy. He seems to take a special glee in shafting the people and usurping their rights. He's in the club with every fascist
in DC, whether identifying as a Dem or a GOPer. I vote the full Najibullah treatment for Mr. Schiff. He's earned it.
Skip Scott , June 28, 2019 at 14:35
Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard are at least non-interventionist. That's all I can think of. Kucinich when he was around.
vinnieoh , June 29, 2019 at 14:41
Here in Ohio ours was gerrymandered out of office. Dennis Kucinich.
Surveillance I think surveillance is great I wish I had more cameras on my farm to find out where all my belongings have gone
to.
America needs more cameras just like the UK If you're doing nothing wrong what are you afraid of
AnneR , June 28, 2019 at 12:34
Ah, the old (mindless) riposte: "if you've nothing to hide, why are you afraid of the government watching you?"
Are you absolutely certain that you have *never* broken even the most minor of laws? (Or minor so far as you are concerned?)
So far as I know I've not broken any laws – however, I have NO interest, wish, desire to have government in *any* of its guises
monitoring me and my behavior, actions, life. And my late husband was the same. Nor did we want corporate capitalists doing it
either – adblockers, the more the merrier and so on.
In the UK it isn't the farmers (agri-business these days – very few "farmers") with CCTV all over the shop, it's the government
and its forces of so-called "law and order." They're the ones watching you.
WHO is watching the watchers?????
vinnieoh , June 29, 2019 at 14:49
Just as importantly AnneR (and you're comments are great) is who is deciding what is "wrong." And when constitutionally protected
– nay, guaranteed – rights become wrongs. When will the dictates of the Sultan of Oman become the new normal? The social credit
scheme in China is just an intermediate measure.
Skip Scott , June 28, 2019 at 09:10
It is all too believable in this day and age that someone so obviously beholden to the MIC serves on a committee charged with
overseeing our "Intelligence" agencies. "Industry capture" strikes again. The FDA allows dangerous drugs into the market, the
FAA allows planes to crash due to lack of oversight, the EPA is toothless against continued air and water pollution, and on and
on. Corruption has become so rampant it is the norm.
Washington DC is a cesspool. The rest of the country would be better off if it were removed from the map.
Bob Van Noy , June 28, 2019 at 11:08
"Washington DC is a cesspool. The rest of the country would be better off if it were removed from the map."
Sadly, true, Skip Scott And we, as members of a post-Democracy, are left with sorting out the motivation of each member of
our new non-democracy's body politic. Adam Shiff is a particularly odious such member, but at least he"s transparent enough to
instantly recognize. It is the more practiced members that are truly harmful. It will probably be necessary to break the whole
dysfunctional system?
As always thanks to John Kiriakou and Consortiumnews for highlighting Adam Shiff, in the cesspool
Sally Snyder , June 28, 2019 at 08:07
Here is an article that looks at one key incident in Iranian history that the Western media seems to have conveniently forgotten:
Iran knows that it stands alone when it comes to protecting itself from Washington.
Stephen Morrell , June 28, 2019 at 06:08
Schiff is projecting: "[The US] is a thoroughly malign actor, a cause of deep instability in the region, a profound
contributor to the violence and misery in Yemen, and one of the most dangerous regimes in the world. Through the [Pentagon and
CIA] and its proxies, it is also a state sponsor of terror. The threat it poses is real."
Schiff's from the party of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so it's all OK.
AnneR , June 28, 2019 at 12:41
Absolutely right on Stephen Morrell. I would only add the party also of: the Gulf of Tonkin and deepening the war against Vietnam,
destroying Yugoslavia and Libya, the murderous economic sanctions against Iraq, economic warfare against Venezuela, North Korea
(they certainly have never done anything to alleviate that, nor to end the Korean War). And I'm sure that one could go on The
USA is a rogue terror state – one with far too much global power.
Realist , June 28, 2019 at 04:05
Let's face it, America's government is run by organized criminals (otherwise known as wealthy businessmen) in it to milk
the system for all its worth and they pay goons like Schiff to lie, cheat and steal at their behest. The con should be well understood
by just about anyone with an IQ above room temperature.
Constantly provoke and demonize the other major powers on our planet, stage a few false flag incidents in which innocent
civilians are killed or injured and much property is destroyed, invade and attack their allies either directly with American troops
or by proxy and then loudly and incessantly blame the other side for creating the mess. Dominate the American air waves with propaganda
supporting the charade and shut off all access to the truth or any other version of actual events because the same organized criminals
also hold a monopoly on the media. Finally claim the only remedy is to send out more carrier task forces, to station more missile
batteries on Russia's borders and to build billions of dollars worth of new weapons, much of which America strong arms its putative
"allies" to purchase. (With friends like us our vassals don't need enemies.)
Schiff is but one cog in a large elaborate mechanism composed of many such goons. If he were run over in traffic tomorrow his
replacement would be mouthing the same lies on the House floor within hours. This system is not going to be broken by defeating
these assholes individually in "fair" elections. They are going to have to crash and burn as the organized mafia they represent,
sort of like La Cosa Nostra did fifty years ago. (Actually, the Scicilian mob probably had more integrity than these guys and
gals do.) It will take either a vast scandal that envelopes most of these scoundrels, or they will be forced to take the blame
when their catastrophic policies either crash the economy or finally administer the major defeat the military so richly deserves.
Is it any wonder that the likes of Hillary Clinton rose to the top of an organization made up of moral wretches like Schiff. That's
never to say that the likes of McConnell and McCain were ever paragons of virtue either.
What may make this impossible even if every member of Congress is as dirty as a grazed cow pasture is who is empowered to investigate
these guys? Probably only fellow congress critters. Sometimes we would see a single miscreant exposed and excoriated by the group.
(Adam Clayton Powell anyone with a memory?) Sometimes we used to see the Dems and GOPers taking pot shots at the other side's
pecadilloes without really sanctioning them (Wilbur Mills in the Tidal Basin anyone?) You never see that anymore. Robert Menendez
as filthy as sin doesn't even get a cross look from his colleagues. The two parties are so in cahoots they will never investigate
one of their own or from the other side of the aisle. The only way this swamp gets drained is pursuant to a failed economy or
a military route.
Curious , June 28, 2019 at 02:46
John,
To take a narrow point of your good article around what 'Schiffty' says I might add something which I haven't seen often repeated.
Forget the mass news, they are now a version of sheep about to become lemmings, but let me quote something about Venezuela which
is often overlooked.
_________________________________________________________
Here I quote our ex-president Carter who spent a lot of time looking at elections in other countries over the years.
Quote: Former US President Jimmy Carter claimed Venezuela's electoral system is "the best in the world" (agencies).
Mérida, 21st September 2012 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Former US President Jimmy Carter has declared that Venezuela's electoral
system is the best in the world.
Speaking at an annual event last week in Atlanta for his Carter Centre foundation, the politician-turned philanthropist stated,
"As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in
the world."
Venezuela has developed a fully automated touch-screen voting system, which now uses thumbprint recognition technology and
prints off a receipt to confirm voters' choices.
______________________________________________________________________
This is much more of an advanced system than even the US citadel on the hill boasting of "Democracy". I know the CIA lies and
Schaffer's is no exception, but how does one take Carters' view of the best system I the world and turn it around to a dictator
with nothing to do with democracy except for the person 80% of the country had never heard about declaring himself president,
when he wasn't even on the election ballot to begin with. Just because of oil?
Lies I understand, but Bolton and Pompous can get away from hard facts proven since 2012 and no one seems to question them. I
continue to be baffled at the arrogance combined with sheer falsehoods in a world where the internet was supposed to educate people
rather than narrow their thinking down to garbage beliefs.
Surly the 'enlightenment' of the net has become a myth, especially when the paper editors continue the lies. It's all very troubling.
rosemerry , June 28, 2019 at 13:58
I suppose nobody in the US establishment would consider that the Brazilian election, which also took place last year, deserved
any sort of mention, although it was obvious to fair observers that the whole thing was completely corrupt, and the people in
Brazil are now rising up in huge numbers against the draconian measures now being taken by the "elected government" which is supported,
of course, by Trump and Netanyahu. Venezuela is targeted because the population is generally supporting and supported by the elected
government. This will never do for the USA, Dems or Repugs.
With regard to ongoing US threats directed against Iran:
Whereas a "bloody nose" missile attack directed against specific targets in Iran cannot be
ruled out, a conventional war theatre including ground war operations directed against Iran is
almost an impossibility without the support of Turkey and Pakistan, both of which are "sleeping
with the enemy".
Turkey is a NATO heavyweight which is allied with Iran and Russia. Pakistan is allied with
China and Iran. Both Turkey and Pakistan have borders with Iran.
The Pentagon's policy of "encirclement" of Iran formulated in the wake of the 2003 Iraq War
is defunct. Iran has good relations with neighbouring countries including Turkey, Iraq and
Pakistan. All three countries have refused to collaborate with Washington.
Needless to say the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is also in crisis. America can no no
longer rely on its staunchest allies.
But this is just the tip of the iceberg.
America's largest military facility in the Middle East the Al-Udeid military base in Qatar
is now situated in a country which is (unofficially) a partner and de facto ally of Iran. Qatar
has switched sides. It has broken its relations with Saudi Arabia. While retaining good
bilateral relations with the US, Qatar is nonetheless aligned with Iran (and Turkey).
Moreover, since 2016, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is in jeopardy. The Sultanate of
Oman which together with Iran guards the Strait of Hormuz entry into the Persian Gulf is also
unofficially aligned with Iran.
US Central Command (USCENTCOM) in Enemy Territory
Moreover, while the US air force has relocated part of its capabilities to Saudi Arabia, the
Al-Udeid military base in Qatar still "officially" hosts the Middle East "forward headquarters"
of US Central Command (USCENTCOM) in a country which is de facto aligned with an enemy of the
United States of America.
The United States welcomed Qatar's generous offer to expand critical facilities at bases
used by US forces in the country and to align operating procedures at these bases with Nato
standards, thereby increasing the operational capability of US and coalition forces based in
Qatar.
Ironically, the US and Qatar signed an Memorandum of Understanding "enabling deeper
co-ordination on potential expansion at Al Udeid Air Base."
Not withstanding the rhetoric underlying official US-Qatar ties, The Atlantic Council, a
think tank, which has close ties to both the Pentagon and NATO confirms that Qatar is now a
firm ally of both Turkey and Iran:
Put simply, for Qatar to maintain its independence, Doha will have essentially no choice
but to maintain its strong partnership with Turkey, which has been an important ally from the
perspective of military support and food security, as well as Iran. The odds are good that
Iranian-Qatari ties will continue to strengthen even if Tehran and Doha agree to disagree on
certain issues On June 15, President Hassan Rouhani emphasized
that improving relations with Qatar is a high priority for Iranian policymakers. Rouhani
told the
Qatari emir that "stability and security of regional countries are intertwined" and Qatar's
head of state, in turn, stressed
that Doha seeks a stronger partnership with the Islamic Republic. (Atlantic Council, June
2019)
The structure of alliances is in jeopardy. The US cannot reasonably wage a full-fledged
conventional theatre war on Iran without the support of its longstanding allies which are now
sleeping with the enemy.
This of course does not exclude other forms of warfare, including
targeted missile attacks which could lead to escalation,
economic warfare and sanctions,
cyber warfare,
political destabilization and regime change,
the selective use of advanced weapons systems (e.g. electromagnetic warfare,
environmental modification techniques (ENMOD), climatic warfare, the use of biological and
chemical weapons)
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 22, 2019
***
A major and far-reaching shift in military alliances is unfolding.
While Turkey is still "officially" a member of NATO, president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
has been developing "friendly relations" with two of America's staunchest enemies, namely Iran
and Russia. (see image right).
US-Turkey military cooperation (including US air force bases in Turkey) dates back to the
Cold War. Today Turkey is sleeping with the enemy. And Trump has ("rhetorically") declared war
on Turkey.
We are ready for war, says President Erdogan.
"The secret to successful states is their readiness for war. We are ready with everything
we have," (Erdogan's statement on August 12, 2018 meeting with ambassadors in Ankara)
Erdogan also accuses the US of waging a "financial warfare" against Turkey. Turkish banks are under attack. In turn, a banking crisis is unfolding in the European Union
largely hitting EU banks which hold substantial portions of Turkey's debt.
According to Turkey's president:
"It is everyone's observation that the developments in foreign currency exchange have no
financial basis and they are an attack on our country On the one hand you are a strategic
ally and the other you shoot (the country) in the foot. Is something like this acceptable?" (
Ahvalnews
)
While the media has its eyes riveted on the collapse of the Turkish Lira (which so far in
2018 has lost approximately 40 percent of its value in relation to the US dollar), NATO is in a
state of disarray, with one of its member states "at war" with another member state, namely the
United States of America.
Turkey by a long shot has the largest conventional forces (after the US) within NATO
outpacing France, Britain and Germany, (not to mention its tactical B61 nuclear weapons
capabilities).
#NATOExit
https://www.youtube.com/embed/7ib4syl7rno
Broadly speaking, the US-Turkey rift and its implications for the Atlantic Alliance are
either ignored or trivialized by the media. The entire structure of military alliances is
defunct. NATO is in a shambles.
Turkey is to acquire Russia's state of the art S-400 air defense system. Why?
Does this mean that Turkey which is a NATO member state will withdraw from the integrated
US-NATO-Israel air defense system? Such a decision is tantamount to NATOExit.
"On July 26, the US Congress decided to ban the shipment of F-35 aircraft to Turkey unless
Ankara refused to purchase S-400 anti-aircraft systems from Russia." (Pravda)
The US-Turkey-Israel "Triple Alliance" is Also Defunct
In 1993, Israel and Turkey signed a Memorandum of Understanding leading to the
creation of (Israeli-Turkish) "joint committees" to handle so-called regional threats. Under
the terms of the Memorandum, Turkey and Israel agreed "to cooperate in gathering intelligence
on Syria, Iran, and Iraq and to meet regularly to share assessments pertaining to terrorism and
these countries' military capabilities."
Image on the right: Sharon and Erdogan in 2004
The triple alliance was also coupled with a 2005 NATO-Israeli military cooperation agreement
which included "many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism and joint
military exercises." These military cooperation ties with NATO were viewed by the Israeli
military as a means to "enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding potential enemies
threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria."
The "triple alliance" linking the US, Israel and Turkey was coordinated by the US Joint
Chiefs of Staff. It was an integrated and coordinated military command structure pertaining to
the broader Middle East. It was based on close bilateral US military ties respectively with
Israel and Turkey, coupled with a strong bilateral military relationship between Tel Aviv and
Ankara. In this regard, Israel and Turkey have been close partners with the US in planned
aerial attacks on Iran since 2005. (
See Michel Chossudovsky, May 2005 )
Needless to say, that triple alliance is defunct. With Turkey siding with Iran and Russia,
it would be "suicide" for US-Israel to even consider waging aerial attacks on Iran.
Moreover, the NATO-Israel 2005 military cooperation agreement which relied heavily on the
role of Turkey is dysfunctional.
What this means is that US-Israeli threats directed against Iran are no longer supported by
Turkey which has entered into an alliance of convenience with Iran.
The broader Realignment of Military alliances
The shift in military alliances is not limited to Turkey. Following the rift between Qatar
and Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is in disarray with Qatar siding with Iran
and Turkey against Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Qatar is of utmost strategic significance because
it shares with Iran the world's largest maritime gas fields in the Persian Gulf. (see map
below)
The Al-Udeid military base near Doha is America's largest military base in the Middle East.
In turn, Turkey has now established its own military facility in Qatar.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
A profound shift in geopolitical alliances is also occurring in South Asia with the
instatement in 2017 of both India and Pakistan as full members of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO). Inevitably, this historic shift constitutes a blow against Washington,
which has defense and trade agreements with both Pakistan and India. "While India remains
firmly aligned with Washington, America's political stranglehold on Pakistan (through military
and intelligence agreements) has been weakened as a result of Pakistan's trade and investment
deals with China." (
Michel Chossudovsky , August 1, 2017)
In other words, this enlargement of the SCO weakens America's hegemonic ambitions in both
South Asia and the broader Eurasian region. It has a bearing on energy pipeline routes,
transport corridors, borders and mutual security and maritime rights.
Pakistan is the gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia, where US influence has been
weakened to the benefit of China, Iran and Turkey. China is involved in major investments in
mining, not to mention the development of transport routes which seek the integration of
Afghanistan into Western China.
Where does Turkey fit in? Turkey is increasingly part of the Eurasian project dominated by
China and Russia. In 2017-18, Erdogan had several meetings with both president Xi-Jingping and
Vladimir Putin. Erdogan has been contemplating becoming a member of the SCO since 2016 but
sofar nothing concrete has emerged.
The Antiwar Movement: #NATOExit People's Movement
Of crucial significance, the crisis within NATO constitutes a historic opportunity to
develop a #NATOExit people's movement across Europe and North America , a people's movement
pressuring governments to withdraw from the Atlantic Alliance, a movement to eventually
dismantle and abolish the military and political apparatus of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization.
The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global
Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged
together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global
Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
[email protected]
"... Yes, but in this particular witch hunt there were no "blind assumptions", as the process was agenda driven from the get-go. The task: Keep/Get Trump out of the White House by any means possible, blame the Russians, divert attention away from the leaked documents, and while you're at it, bury all the crime scene evidence we left lying around because we were so sure Hillary was going to be president. ..."
"... "In total, the amount of new controversies specifically exposed by Guccifer2.0's actions – was very little. The documents he posted online were a mixture of some from the public domain (eg. already been published by OpenSecrets.org in 2009), were manipulated copies of research documents originally created by Lauren Dillon (see attachments) and others or were legitimate, unique documents that were of little significant damage to the DNC. (Such as the DCCC documents) ..."
"... Of particular importance in this regard are the Forensicator's brilliant deductions that G2.0 has at various times been working in time zones corresponding to the US East Coast, West Coast, and Central Zone. (I note that Crowdstrike has facilities in Sunnyvale, CA, St.Louis and Minneapolis – and that the DNC servers are of course on the East Coast.) These findings are complementary to – and in my judgment, more compellingly definitive in dismissing the notion that G2.0 is Russian – than the discoveries highlighted by Bill Binney pointing to transferals by G2.0 and the source of the DNC Wikileaks emails passing through thumbdrives. ..."
"... You emphasize the important fact that G2.0 himself – supposedly a Russian hacker bent on destroying Hillary – posted nothing truly harmful to Hillary's campaign. ..."
"... Adam's linguistic analyses – endorsed by a professor who is expert in this regard – indicate that G2.0 has done a very poor and inconsistent job of mimicking the grammatical errors one would expect from a native Russian speaker communicating in English. ..."
1) The available metadata on the email files showing
Hillary/Democrat election corruption that Wikileaks received indicates an in-office leak (maybe
copying to a USB thumb drive drive), not an internet hack. That's what Binney is talking about, and he
points out that as such, there is no EVIDENCE of Russian intelligence passing the email files showing
Hillary/Demo party election corruption to Wikileaks.
Therefore, there is no EVIDENCE of Russia and evil Putin doing this "act of war on the US", as
numerous media and politicized fools have claimed.
In normal human dealings, EVIDENCE, not just an accusation, is required before making judgments of
guilt and invoking punishments.
2) If that metadata on the subject email files was faked to make it look like an in-office leak (by
the Russians), then the FBI could request that NSA make available its data on hacked internet trace
routes of packets of data from DNC servers to Russia, then show internet trace routes of packets of
data from Russia to Wikileaks.
But apparently, Comey's FBI "investigation" didn't want to do that.
3) The subject DNC computer(s) were never turned over to the FBI. The first thing done in most
investigations nowadays by local police, Federal authorities etc., is to seize relevant computers or
any other comm. devices for forensic analysis.
No valid FBI investigation dealing with matters of national security, election hacking, validity of
the election of a President, would hand off the computer forensics analysis to a company paid by and
subject to retaliation by an entity (the Clinton machine, Democrat party) with a huge political stake
in the results of the investigation, as was done in this "investigation".
4) The FBI wants leverage over the people they interview in criminal investigations – they have had
enormous leverage over Assange, but they never interviewed Assange, who knew how the emails came into
Wikileak's hands. They never interviewed Craig Murray, who says he knows a lot of what went on in the
matter.
5) Hillary Clinton, the Democrat party, the FBI, the CIA had roles in paying British intelligence
agent Steele (and others?), generate a fake dossier about Trump having Russian prostitues urinate on a
bed the Obamas had used during a visit Russia, and depravely rolling around in it.
Top level FBI people used that fake dossier to get a FISA court judge to issue surrveilance warrants
on Trump campaign/administration personnel in order to spy on them in hope of getting incriminating
evidence. Among other things, that's a felony – that is, unless we live in a degenerated police state.
That dossier was also leaked to the information media, which then widely gave it wide airing.
6) The attempted destruction of George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign adviser, by assorted
intelligence operatives and the FBI, brings things down to an individual level.
Papadopoulos has been doing some interesting interviews. Here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggNWpNZJjNg
hetro
,
June 19, 2019 at 20:21
Thank you for this:
We have Comey, close to the Crowdstrike chief forensics man (ex-FBI), we have
Brennan pushing the Steele Dossier as THE evidence. And we have Mueller using these as main sources
while being highly selective with witnesses. And we have FBI agents with Russian origin/double
agents working people like Papadoupolis. Given Mueller must have known it was all going nowhere two
years ago why the delay? Well, for one thing that delay certainly assisted brainwashing the
American public into this hoax.
Bill
,
June 19, 2019 at 02:59
It looks like Mueller used the Crowdstrike report and just assumed it to be true.
John
,
June 19, 2019 at 14:57
The crowdstrike report was reviewer and verified by many IT security firms, and their conclusions
were collaborated by the CIA, NSA, and every other national security agency in the country. What
reason would he have had to doubt it?
Skip Scott
,
June 20, 2019 at 08:30
You're still trying to sell the "17 agencies" lie too? Unbelievable.
CitizenOne
,
June 19, 2019 at 01:11
Yup. In the game of disinformation what single characteristic of electronic documents would purveyors
of disinformation make sure they did? Would it be to make sure they spell checked the document?
Perhaps but more importantly they would be concerned about the ability to test the document by
exploring the metadata. In fact since metadata is seldom questioned and is used as evidence for a
documents origin it would naturally be a chief concern of the purveyors of disinformation. To not care
about it would be the same possible misstep of a person that used a gun in some capacity which
required forensic analysis of the weapon to determine who fired it.
Since everybody and their grandma knows that law enforcement looks for fingerprints on the
recovered weapon there is generally not anybody who commits an illegal act with a gun who also does
not scrupulously wipe down the weapon so it is sure to be free of any fingerprints. The actual
occurrence of finding fingerprints on a weapon used in a crime is extremely low approaching zero.
The reason is everybody knows they have to wipe off the gun after firing it to remove their
fingerprints. It is the same with metadata which are the electronic fingerprints on a document. Before
publishing a document to be attributed to another party everybody knows that the metadata must be
dealt with to pull off the con job. To leave this step out is the same thing as leaving ones
fingerprints all over the document. Thus it would be a priority in any protocol to deal with this
problem and I am sure there are folks in the government intelligence agencies that are skilled at
manipulating the metadata on a bit by bit level to wipe off the real origin and to place fake
electronic "fingerprints" on the document in order to attribute it to some other author or source.
Any investigation that concludes that a document comes from one source versus another based on
metadata overlooks the similar capacity of a man with a gun that shoots another man killing him and
then wipes off his fingerprints from the weapon, places the gun in the hands of the victim and claims
after a "careful investigation" that the death was a suicide based on the fingerprints found on the
gun.
Knowing this is possible the conclusions based on the metadata either assume that the author was an
ignorant idiot lacking even the most basic understanding of criminal investigations not even knowing
that the electronic fingerprints would get them in trouble or vastly more likely would have known such
basic information about how electronic documents are tagged and would do their best to hide the truth
by messing with the little ones and zeroes in the document to hide their involvement. They would even
likely try to frame the victim as the perpetrator.
We call these situations kangaroo trials or witch hunts. They ignore the plausible reasons for the
observed facts and just railroad the process with blind assumptions that the evidence presented is
factual like believing a child that accuses the defendant "the bad witch" who cast a spell on her
instead of looking at the possible ability and motives of the child to lie and then place appropriate
weight on what are essentially unprovable accusations for what they are; impossible to prove.
Maxwell Quest
,
June 19, 2019 at 13:28
Yes, but in this particular witch hunt there were no "blind assumptions", as the process was agenda
driven from the get-go. The task: Keep/Get Trump out of the White House by any means possible,
blame the Russians, divert attention away from the leaked documents, and while you're at it, bury
all the crime scene evidence we left lying around because we were so sure Hillary was going to be
president.
Just like the evening news, this requires the expertise of keeping any facts which do
not support your goals safely locked away, while others are manipulated or created out of thin air.
Curious
,
June 19, 2019 at 00:38
I am no fan of Mr Stone, but I wonder if his attorneys have the authority as a defense, to bring in
Crowdstrike personnel and talk about their funding (I can hear the judge say 'inadmissible) and their
full unredacted report. To whom did they give their research? Are the FBI that stupid or are they part
of the plan?
While they are at it, bring in William Binney as a witness to talk about hacking in general, and the
DNC servers in specific. Bring in Guccifer 2.0 himself as a witness, what the heck. Have a witness
clarify on the record the very people Mueller never interviewed and make some very valid points as to
why he didn't.
If Mr Stone wanted to spend some of his ill-gotten gains by blowing this ruse wide open I'm for it. He
would probably recoup a lot of his money on a GoFundMe account if he did it correctly.
Of course he is against a corrupt judge who probably will not let it get that far, but why not try?
hetro
,
June 18, 2019 at 15:36
Many thanks to Ray's persistence; plus to Norumbega and Mark McCarty in comments below.
Particularly important (updated June 9, 2019), thanks for this link Mark McCarty!
As to the puzzle of Guccifer 2.0 as false GRU hacker revealing damaging info on Clinton (a seeming
inconsistency) I found the following (from the link just sited) helpful:
"In total, the amount of new controversies specifically exposed by Guccifer2.0's actions – was very
little.
The documents he posted online were a mixture of some from the public domain (eg. already been
published by OpenSecrets.org in 2009), were manipulated copies of research documents originally
created by Lauren Dillon (see attachments) and others or were legitimate, unique documents that were
of little significant damage to the DNC. (Such as the DCCC documents)
"The DCCC documents didn't reveal anything particularly damaging. It did include a list of
fundraisers/bundlers but that wasn't likely to cause controversy (the fundraising totals, etc. are
likely to end up on sites like OpenSecrets, etc within a year anyway). – It did however trigger 4chan
to investigate and a correlation was found between the DNC's best performing bundlers and
ambassadorships. – This revelation though, is to be credited to 4chan. – The leaked financial data
wasn't, in itself, damaging – and some of the key data will be disclosed publicly in future anyway.
"All of his 'leaks' have been over-hyped non-controversies or were already in the public domain –
the only exception being the apparent leaking of personal contact numbers and email addresses of 200
Democrats – and really that was more damaging to the reputation of Wikileaks than causing any real
problems for Democrats. – Ultimately, it only really served to give the mainstream press the
opportunity to announce that 'leaked emails include personal details of 200 Democrats', again,
seemingly an effort to undermine other leaks being released at the same time by legitimate leak
publishers."
Thanks for drawing further attention to Adam Carter's work and wonderful website – he has done a
really heroic job of cataloging multiple lines of evidence pointing to Guccifer 2.0 being the
furthest thing from a GRU hacker.
Of particular importance in this regard are the Forensicator's brilliant deductions that G2.0
has at various times been working in time zones corresponding to the US East Coast, West Coast, and
Central Zone. (I note that Crowdstrike has facilities in Sunnyvale, CA, St.Louis and Minneapolis –
and that the DNC servers are of course on the East Coast.) These findings are complementary to –
and in my judgment, more compellingly definitive in dismissing the notion that G2.0 is Russian –
than the discoveries highlighted by Bill Binney pointing to transferals by G2.0 and the source of
the DNC Wikileaks emails passing through thumbdrives.
You emphasize the important fact that G2.0 himself – supposedly a Russian hacker bent on
destroying Hillary – posted nothing truly harmful to Hillary's campaign.
Adam's linguistic analyses
– endorsed by a professor who is expert in this regard – indicate that G2.0 has done a very poor
and inconsistent job of mimicking the grammatical errors one would expect from a native Russian
speaker communicating in English.
Adams' website also includes the Forensicator's discoveries
showing that G2.0 intentionally placed "Russian fingerprints" in the meta-data of some of his
postings. Beyond all this, if a GRU hacker were responsible for the Wikileaks releases, why on
earth would he emerge publicly to brag about his exploit while intentionally leaving clues of his
Russian origin? Would the GRU employ total nutcases?! Whereas G2.0's behavior makes perfect sense
if his intention was to falsely incriminate Russia as the source of the Wikileaks releases.
I have to confess that I have little expertise in computer science, and hence would be
susceptible to being bamboozled in this regard by propagandists. It's therefore important to note
that I have gained the impression that both Adam Carter and Forensicator are functioning as honest
scientific analysts, ready and indeed eager to disavow any of their previous conclusions when they
realize they have erred. Intellectual integrity is a very valuable commodity, and my sad
observation over the last several years is that it is far, far rarer than intelligence. So I
commend Adam's website to those who seek an in-depth understanding on these matters, and are
willing to cope with a measure of technical complexity.
John
,
June 19, 2019 at 00:42
Adam Carter and Foresnicator are frauds.
– "Forensicator" and Adam carter are both fake ID's created by created by a right-wing activist
named Tim Leonard with a long history of working on disinformation campaigns.
– The "analysis" he did was gobbledygook to any seasoned IT engineer: Presumption of use of
methods, tools and techniques nobody actually uses; essential variables glossed over, etc.
– The data file he "analyzed" was fabricated after the fact
– its creator also posted instructions on how to use it to "prove it wasn't a hack".
– The website where Leonard got the file from was managed by the GRU.
hetro
,
June 19, 2019 at 12:32
I would be very interested in following you information on this matter, so no need to
hesitate longer on presenting whatever it is you have with the details we need to evaluate
what you're saying, including links to authoritative sources. And–just a suggestion–leaving
off the name-calling and overall emotional presentation you're offering would be a tad more
persuasive. At this point, sorry to say, your arguments are thin and unconvincing.
You're citing debunked bullshit invented by Duncan Campbell.
1. I'm left-libertarian, not
right-wing.
2. Foreniscator is an American, I am a Brit. Although I write for a US audience, British
spellings do sometimes slip into my articles. This doesn't happen in Foreniscator's work. An
objective analysis of corpuses of both our work will make clear we're separate people.
3. Campbell is yet to actually debunk Forensicator's work as where Forensicator has debunked
Campbell's "Forensicator Fraud" conspiracy theory and just recently dismantled Campbell's
"Timestamp Tampering" technical theory too.
4. The NGP-VAN archive has long been available as a torrent (since the time the files were
announced/released at a security conference in London), you're reference to "fabricated" here
can only relate to Guccifer 2.0's releasing that evidence (though Campbell does try to engage
in wordplay to mislead readers into thinking Forensicator or I may have fabricated something
and even distorts Binney's testimony to try to make it look like Binney was accusing me of
that – it's not true and, thankfully, Binney has cleared this up in an interview for anyone
interested in reality.)
5. I got my copy of the NGP-VAN archive from a torrent posted to PirateBay, I don't think the
GRU operate TPB.
Yes, it is saddening to see the intellectual integrity you speak of disappearing. In this
respect I would like to acknowledge one more commenter below, deep in this thread–Eric32.
Seems to me Eric's statement here pierces the façade we've been discussing very well:
"No valid FBI investigation dealing with matters of national security, election hacking,
validity of election of a President, would hand off the computer forensics analysis to a company
paid by and subject to retaliation by the entity (the Democrat party) with a huge political
stake in the results of the investigation."
geeyp
,
June 18, 2019 at 19:36
hetro – I just got to this material. Does any of it mention what happened to the man who was
originally arrested as Guccifer 1.0?
hetro
,
June 19, 2019 at 12:33
It's my understanding that the original "Guccifer"–at just that, Guccifer, there is no 1.0 on
it–, a Romanian, has been in jail for several years and is about to be released, or perhaps has
been released. Someone may know.
As an aside (for some amusement only) I can't help noticing
in studying this site indications the impersonator G2 was behaving a lot like David Atlee
Philips, for those of you who have been looking into the JFK murder, and realize the
significance of that name. Philips was fond of theatrics, as was G2 here according to the info
on the site. This might suggest CIA creativity in play for this persona.
hetro – Yes, I know there is no 1.0 on the original Guccifer's name. I only put it that way
to make clear the individual I was timelining (look, I also just made up a new word).
geeyp
,
June 20, 2019 at 00:19
And ahh, yes. David Atlee Philips. A name that I recall quite well. I started my research
into the JFK assassination in 1966.
DW Bartoo
,
June 18, 2019 at 15:15
The many excellent, informed and very educational, comments on this thread are much appreciated.
Reasoned, comprehensive, and thorough comments, fashioned by articulate, considerate commenters are
stellar hallmarks of this site.
My deepest respect to all who contribute to maintaining such standards.
DW Bartoo
,
June 18, 2019 at 16:15
Especially, I thank, Adam Carter, Mark McCarty, and Norumbega for the education and insights you
have provided on this thread and through other links.
And I add my thanks to what you have just expressed for the excellent,
data-filled comments appearing under my article. I find the comments rich and instructive and, not
for the first time, have learned a lot from them. Even most of the technical info comes through
loud and clear to what Bill Binney calls, with sympathy, a "history major."
Dare I express -- again -- my frustration that we cannot get this story into any media that most
folks access for their "news" about what's going on. Clearly, there are a lot of smart,
knowledgeable people commenting here. Are none of us smart enough to figure out a way to get this
story up and out?
I mean, DOJ, in an official Court filing, has just soaked James Comey in deep kimchi; THERE IS
NO EVIDENCE THE RUSSIANS HACKED THE DNC. And we can't get that info out? Forgive me, but I fear the
fault may not be so much in the stars, as in ourselves.
Let's address this key challenge like right here.
Ray
DW Bartoo
,
June 19, 2019 at 08:03
Ray, I read your response to my comment rather late last evening, well after eleven, and decided
that although I quite agree with you, that the fault may very well be in ourselves and not our
stars, that I ought sleep on it.
Odd as this may seem, for well over a decade, I have been
chastising myself for having failed in the task I set for myself some sixty years ago.
I have long held it my responsibility to encourage people to think, not what to think or even
how, but why, as human beings, living a finite life, on a planet that, for our purposes is
paradise, we must engage in thought and consideration, not occasionally, not simply while in
school or at work, but as our fundamental expression of consciousness.
Many of us, of a certain age have witnessed the harm our species may inflict upon the air,
the water, the very soil around us.
Yet many are unable or unwilling to consider the the inner terrain may be as readily savaged,
as callously ignored, as superficially dismissed as extraneous, as some internal "externality",
if the thrust of society is dominance, unfettered acquisition, and narcissistic egoism.
Yes, you are absolutely correct, the current "narrative" that Russian hordes, genetically
warped and mindlessly indifferent to all that is good, noble, and exceptional, have wrest
"control" away from our natural betters, have infiltrated the empty minds of the deplorable,
susceptible many, and hijacked the throne away from the anointed one, has led to a plethora of
outrageous consequences.
Clearly, to some of us, this is obviously absurdity, but to those whose paychecks depend upon
maintaining the tottering status quo, of Full Spectrum Dominance, over all aspects of life and
especially over the thought processes of the many, this canard is as necessary as breathing if
they are to go on with the comforts and perks of life they have come to depend upon, not merely
for bodily well-being, but as proof that they are special, that they deserve to rule and lord it
over the many.
So pervasive is this "sensibility", so deliberately inculcated is this sense of
righteousness, this "right" to dominate and control,that it is nothing less than pathological.
That means that the larger narratives are shaped by a media owned by a handful of
corporations, not just in the U$, but over much of the world, even as corporations, again a
small and shrinking number, "own" and control governments, including the legal systems of those
governments, readily control institutions of higher learning and so on.
Corporations control the voting systems of our pretend democracy making mock of the very
notion of democracy itself, permitting a rising chorus to sing that the very idea of democracy
is foolish.
In other words, our culture, our very language is being used to circumscribe thought, to
delimit imagination and the formation of new, different, or alternative narratives of how to
construct and maintain a sane, humane, and sustainable human future.
Frankly, in the U$, we have no longer even the pretense of an intellectual heritage, of any
true openness to new thoughts or perspectives, and those who would dare expose the larger, more
pervasive corruption that permits and sustains false narratives such as "Russia did it!", such
as Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, and others, not least the members of VIPS and the commenters
here are, at worst, hounded, threatened, imprisioned, at best ignored, maligned, and dismissed
as "too negative", or "conspiracy theorists".
Nonetheless.
I see few give up or knuckle under.
I have known more than a few who have died, while still trying.
Yet we still are, overall, a few.
So, what shall we do?
Realizing that our task is neither financially nor socially rewarding, how shall we become
more effective at getting some necessary messages across or through walls of fear, indifference
and, frankly, induced ignorance?
What, specifically, is our goal?
Is it "simply" to find some way past Mark Twain's observation that it is easier to fool
people than to convince them they have been fooled, about some specific narrative?
Or does it require some broader examination of the means by which such narratives are
induced, promulgated, and enforced?
Is it both these things and more?
If the inner terrain of consciousness is exploited, savaged, and ravaged, then how shall
there be healing sufficient to combat the "learned helplessness" which is the overall intent of
those who seek to control, generally not with outward brutality, but with subtle psychological
coercion, the many?
It would seem, it would appear, that what we face, the manipulation of consciousness, the
internalization of submission, dressed up to appear like patriotism or "common sense" that
cannot, rationally, be argued with, an inculcated mesmerization of compliance and diminished
curiosity, these things require far more than simply pointing out fallacious narratives to a
society convinced that it is so special that it is beyond question of any sort, no matter what
might be done in the name of the many.
What do we do?
Perhaps we should try to actually get together, meet each other, sit down and talk to one
another.
For are we not vulnerable if we use an electronic, digital media subject to the control of
those who may "ban" us, "de-platform" us, determine that we are unworthy of even having a voice,
especially as larger "authority" moves to undercut the rule of law to such a degree as to render
"law" into an empty form with which it may bludgeon any or all of us into silence whenever it
feels like doing so?
Further, if we debunk narratives that need such debunking, what narratives of a better future
have we prepared, have we honed, that might inspire a willingness to explore the possibilities
of meaningful and vitally necessary change?
Who has coherent ideas about creating a more healthy and rewarding society based on something
more like common empathy and mutual support?
Who is articulating visions that might encourage the young to feel that this world that we
bequeath them is not royally fucked for the dubious benefit of a mere handful of individuals who
care about nothing but themselves.
Certainly it must be appallingly obvious that those who seek dominance and wealth at the
expense of others are not the best and brightest, that they are among the least able and least
compassionate, in fact, the very ones whose pathology is detrimental to the continued existence
of the human species, and that of many other species, as well.
How do we undo the madness, disarm the learned hostility and violence?
Do we simply TALK LOUDER?
Do we simply TOOT OUR OWN HORNS or BEAT OUR OWN DRUMS more obnoxiously?
Or, do we dare continue on, seeking ever more effective connection, ever more opportunities
of one to one conversations, where we not only talk, but also, listen?
I agree, let us not curse our stars.
Let us not blame fickle fate, as so often do those who lead the many into war or privation,
into precarity, or famine.
Let us not claim that the deteriorating environment is caused by Sun Spots or desperate
peoples driven to the brink by exploitation and avarice.
However, let us not imagine that the many who still are comfortable, who still believe the
nonsense, may not yet succumb to the siren calls for war, for punishment, however brutal, of
those who would expose the secrets of power while exposing the comfortable to their own
complicity – which might well be what the still-comfortable might consider to be the greater
"crime".
Do I have answers?
No. However I do have questions that might suggest some ideas.
I am very certain that the same is true for most every one of us.
Let us share these ideas, even as we seek to debunk the deceits, as we provide the elite with
opportunities to expose and reveal their lies and corruption.
No single one of us will solve much of anything. No one has all the answers.
Those who await saviors, wait in vain.
Our future is very iffy.
If someone has a theory or a plan, beyond keeping on, then please share it.
Do not prattle on about "hope".
Do not say, "Well, we have always muddled through before, and shall do so again."
For we are in territory, outwardly, because of our "abilities" to destroy ourselves unlike
anything our species has confronted heretofore.
Yes, "Russiagate" must be debunked before it leads to war.
Yes, humanity is fast approaching a place where it can take no more ..,
for granted and without thought, from a finite world.
Neither can our species long endure further empires of brute power or subtle manipulation.
Do not say, "Well, that is just human nature", for it is learned attitude and prejudice to
claim so.
To continue such excuse, for that is what it is, ensures extinction, even for the idiots who
"get off" the First Strike.
Now, my intent is not to depress, nor to impress, merely to suggest that such future as we
might have is up to us.
So, it might be of worth to not spend too much time cursing ourselves for failing to make
much headway.
It might take calamity to shake the complacent from their happy stupor, it may well require
catastrophe.
Perhaps, just perhaps, patient reason might prepare the way for changing minds.
It is the internal terrain that must be pondered, quite as much as the outer manifestations
of behavioral absurdity.
Why do so many believe absolute nonsense?
Perhaps they simply cannot access enough imagination to consider anything else, especially if
the external mythologies bolster their internal emptiness?
The challenge we face, Ray, is that most MSM simply will refuse to report FACTS that contradict
the official Russophobic Deep State-driven narrative. Note, for example, that the recent
revelation that the OPCW censored its own technical experts in preparing its politically-biased
conclusions on the Douma "gassing" incident, simply isn't being reported in MSM. Our MSM are now
practicing a type of criminality that one would have expected from the "journalists" in Nazi
Germany.
There may be one small ray of hope. Tucker Carlson at Fox has been notably contrarian
on some issues, and has featured such luminaries as Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald, Michael Tracey,
and Tulsi Gabbard. Tucker is definitely skeptical about arguments driving us into needless wars
and conflicts – he got Iraq wrong, and, unlike most of the journalists who did, he is sincerely
penitent – and just a couple of nights ago he actually dared to question whether there is real
evidence supporting the "Russian meddling" claim, reporting the essence of THIS ESSAY of YOURS!
It is not inconceivable to me that you or Bill Binney might be able to get onto his show. And
this might become more likely if prosecutor John Durham begins to look seriously at the
"evidence" which Brennan, Clapper, and Comey used to justify their fraudulent ICA.
Tucker's show has the highest ratings on Fox, and he is very skeptical of the rampant
Russophobia of our day – he views China as a truer rival. I have no idea how you might get
through to him, but perhaps Mate, Greenwald, or Tracey – all major Russiagate skeptics – might
have some insights.
And let me take his opportunity to offer my heartfelt thanks for your wonderful essays and
your political activism over the years. I've been following your work diligently ever since VIPS
emerged in the run up to the Iraq catastrophe.
Fazsha
,
June 18, 2019 at 13:54
The corruption is well documented on the internet- Comey is immoral.
Carolyn
,
June 18, 2019 at 09:24
Guccifer 2.0 was another trick of the Dems, created to provide substantiation of Russian hacking of
DNC computers. It was the Democrats who produced Guccifer 2.0.
John
,
June 18, 2019 at 09:51
By that logic, it was the Democrats who sabotaged Hillary Clinton's Convention by releasing
supposedly anti-Clinton documents on Wikileaks a day before. That makes no sense.
Skip Scott
,
June 18, 2019 at 12:41
It makes complete sense, and is the origin of "RussiaGate". They knew Wikileaks was going to
release the data they got from a LEAK, so they made up G2 to shift the story and blame it on
Russia. With their MSM lackeys playing along it worked like a charm. No MSM ever mentions the
damning CONTENTS of the DNC and Podesta emails, just RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA! Only I think it was
Brennan's baby, with DNC complicity.
DW Bartoo
,
June 18, 2019 at 16:50
Guccifer 2.0 may well have been Brennan's baby, Skip Scott, although I am more inclined to
consider 'twas Crowdstrike which hatched the wee tyke, though Brennan could well have been
Godfather.
John
,
June 19, 2019 at 00:22
Does anyone here have any evidence that Crowdstrike or Brennan created G2?
Stygg
,
June 19, 2019 at 15:15
Does anyone have any evidence that they didn't? If he's real, surely his existence rests
on solid ground.
CrowdStrike claimed Russians hacked in and grabbed opposition research from DNC. Next
day Guccifer 2.0 turns up with the opposition research (with files apparently tainted by
Russian metadata).
However we learned that the research (and the other document it was mangled with)
really came from Podesta's attachments rather than the DNC and we know the Cyrillic
metadata/stylesheet entries/etc were introduced through a process that was deliberate and
not the result of simply mishandling the files.
So we know Guccifer 2.0 was fabricating evidence and doing so in accordance with the
claims CrowdStrike had made the previous day.
Not hard proof but certainly a strange symbiosis.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8343f58fddad1153baafd2f05fa5c098?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8343f58fddad1153baafd2f05fa5c098?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
Fazsha
,
June 18, 2019 at 13:56
Two words: Seth Rich.
Bob Van Noy
,
June 18, 2019 at 11:08
You're right Carolyn, and Bill Binney can prove it. See video in previous post
DW Bartoo
,
June 18, 2019 at 16:40
Clearly, Carolyn, Guccifer 2.0 was a confection. If not of the DNC, then, most likely, of
CrowdStrike.
Just as clearly, Guccifer 2.0's announcement of being the "hacker" would be mightily
useful for those claiming Russia did it, especially if incriminating little identity clues pointing
toward unprofessional clumsiness, "Oh my Gawd! The Russians are hacking!", could be strewn about.
Determining such things, seizing upon contrived "sloppiness" and such things, is well beyond my
knowledge base. However, imagining the means, the subterfuge that would be used to psychologically
manipulate the many, especially considering both "manufactured consent" and "learned helplessness"
are both part of the "methodology", we have all long observed, comes far more readily to mind.
Bob Van Noy
,
June 18, 2019 at 08:34
This article is also available at information clearinghouse and accompanied by a valuable video
presentation and exchange that further clarifies what has happened. It also includes yet more insight
by William Binney
Bill Binney, in that video, makes two very important points 1) That it's important to realize that
when this began the opposition research assembled by the Hillary team was being assembled against
all possible opposition including the Democrats own Bernie Sanders. And 2) Bill Binney extends the
ultimate blame way back to President Ford pardoning Richard Nixon for his Crimes, thus creating the
concept of pardoning all previous administrations of guilt. Keep in mind that Cheney and Rumsfeld
were on that staff
DW Bartoo
,
June 18, 2019 at 13:24
Thank you for the link to that Bill Binney – Larry Johnson interview, Bob Van Noy.
It is
absolutely a must-view history of what occurred around the Russiagate idiocy that was intentionally
contrived to mislead, not only US citizens, but also British subjects and Europeans generally, with
the deliberate intention of rekindling the Cold War and building a lock-step willingness among the
people to engage in official hostile behavior by the governments involved toward Russia,
specifically, but China as well, from the imposition of sanctions and tariffs, to the claims of the
"necessity" of First Strike "options", all the way to nuclear warfare.
Beyond that, there are substantive questions that raise issues of criminal behavior, on the part
of US intelligence officers, and others, ranging from the sedition of an attempted coup to outright
treason.
Yes, it is that serious.
The CIA, the FBI, Brit intelligence, and possibly other "friendly" foreign intelligence
agencies, "very likely", conspired to undermine the US election process of 2016 to ensure the
election of Hillary Clinton, which many of the actors obviously considered would be a "slam dunk".
Meaning simply that their illegal and unConstitutional activities would never be discovered or held
to account.
My continuing appreciation to the members of VIPS, to Consortium News, and to other sites that
have consistently dared examine, consider, and seek to hold to account those, including members of
the political class, who have sought to undermine truth, justice, democracy, and trust for
political power and financial gain. The degree of corruption, which must be exposed, held to
account, AND punished, is of such a level and destructiveness that, were our society to fail to do
these things, we would guarantee the likelihood of our future being nasty, brutish, and short.
OlyaPola
,
June 18, 2019 at 01:24
" the unintended consequence of poorly executed foreign policy could be the potential end of the U.S.
dollar as the world's currency of choice in international trade as nations around the world attempt to
minimize the impact of Washington's sanctions."
Unintended consequences are functions of both
formulation and implementation both of which do not necessarily restrict the unintended consequences
to the " the potential end of the U.S. dollar as the world's currency of choice", a component part of
formulation being predicated on notions that " the U.S. dollar (was/is) as the world's currency of
choice (rather than a function of coercion in myriad forms).
"Unintended consequences" are consequently functions of intended consequences – an example of the
mantra that "The United States sometimes does bad things, but always with good intentions".
John Drake
,
June 17, 2019 at 21:03
Good follow up on your previous revelations Ray.
"I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next
president."(Comey) Certainly demonstrates the FBI director's lack of integrity and objectivity. A
ladder climber not a real cop, only interested in his career trajectory; willing to fix the
intelligence to get along.
So much for serving his country; but it speaks also to the incredible negative influence the Clintons
have had on our nation.
David G
,
June 17, 2019 at 20:51
Has anyone ever asked Comey whether he sought, or why he didn't seek, a court order to seize the DNC
server and other relevant hardware? Even the members of Congress who seem inclined to interrogate him
a little on this subject are content to let him act like some helpless guy who would've liked to have
gotten the computers, but aw shucks, he just couldn't swing it.
(I'm not sure a court order would
even have been necessary: cops and the FBI take custody of evidence at crime scenes all the time on
their own authority.)
jeffmontanye
,
June 17, 2019 at 22:46
the fbi also claims, to this day, that it never looked at seth rich's phone or computer.
John
,
June 18, 2019 at 09:16
You mean, "Why didn't the FBI try to cripple the DNC, but not the RNC, several weeks before a
Presidential election, by seizing all the computer systems the national party uses to coordinate
political activity and communicate with state party workers?"
Or do you mean seize them after the
election, when the systems were already cleaned and/or wiped and rebuilt, all viable evidence long
gone?
David G
,
June 18, 2019 at 12:06
I mean what I asked: why has no one ever put the question directly to Comey?
I'm not sure if
your answers to the question I would like to see put to Comey make sense, but they're not an
explanation of why he has been spared the effort of supplying such rationales (or possibly
better ones) on his own.
David G
,
June 18, 2019 at 12:42
While you evaded the question I actually asked, your answers might be something like what Comey
would say if he were ever confronted on the subject. Of course the only way to find out for sure
In any case, while they're not ridiculous answers, especially compared to what Russia-gate
has accustomed us, I'm not ready to buy them either.
The Clinton campaign in its final weeks wasn't being run out of the DNC HQ in DC. It was
being run from – brace yourself – the Clinton campaign HQ in Brooklyn (albeit dysfunctionally).
The DNC fulfilled its key role months earlier when they rigged the race against Sanders. If you
think some disruption at the DNC in the final weeks of the race would have unfairly crippled
Hillary's campaign, you should explain exactly how.
For your second point, part of what one might ask Comey is why he didn't get a court order
forbidding the DNC from having their systems "cleaned and/or wiped and rebuilt" before the FBI
could get a look at them. I don't suppose any operation wants to keep malware (assuming such
actually was present) on the premises, but law enforcement isn't known for being super
solicitous about such inconveniences when conducting investigations, and the DNC are big boys
and girls with more resources than most would have had to draw on to keep the lights on in a
pinch – especially if it was for the *patriotic* cause of gathering evidence of the dastardly
attack on Democracy Itself by the nefarious, onion-domed, Muscovite menace bearing down on every
apple pie and baseball game in the land!
John
,
June 18, 2019 at 23:46
I didn't evade squat. I answered your implied comment, because your explicit "why didn't
Comey" question had no explicit answer.
– No third-party can realistically know "why" anyone does anything, unless that person tells
you. Comey didn't. And you asked the question at US, not him.
– Since the explicit question was unanswerable, that meant your question only had implicit
answers.
When you asked why didn't Comey try to get a court order to seize the DNC
computers, you implied he SHOULD HAVE attempted to seize them, (with a lesser implication
that only some guilt or nefarious purpose was behind Comey's decision not to.)
– I simply provided some of the very realistic reasons why the FBI should NOT have atttempted
the acts you implied Comey should have done.
John
,
June 19, 2019 at 00:00
And let me remind you – the DNC was not just assisting with the Clinton campaign.
– They were supporting Congressional, State and even local elections up-and-down the ticket.
– They were coordinating canvasing groups, running polls and supplying resources to all sorts
of down-ticket efforts.
So your FBI seizing the DNC computers would have hamstrung EVERY
Democratic candidate, not just Clinton.
And all your "big boys and girls" comments disregards the big problem – the DNC would have
be DOWN. For a while.
DW Bartoo
,
June 19, 2019 at 11:40
Interesting assertion, John, that Hillary and the DNC were supporting local and state
committees and candidates.
Likely you have neither seen nor heard of FEC (Federal
Election Commission) records which paint a rather different picture?
The "Hillary Victory Fund" claimed that Clinton raised big "bundled" checks of
$350,000.00, and more, some $84 million in total, of which the states got to keep 1% (such
an elite number), according to the FEC, which regarded this money as "laundered" through
"legal loopholes", using the state committees to pass the cash on to the Clinton Campaign.
Further, the FEC, revealed that the DNC has paid Clinton $1.65 million to rent access
to her email list, voter data, and software produced by "Hillary For America" during her
2016 presidential campaign.
Now, you can argue an number of things.
You can just say, "It ain't so!", offering nothing to support your contentions, thus
implying that the Legacy Political Parties AND the status quo are simply above question or
reproach. That such parties are not only above the law, but owe no allegiance, in any way,
to the many, that these two parties are Private Clubs, not public institutions, and can
do, or not do, anything that they wish.
Or, you could say that the DNC owes Hillary because she financed the DNC, in 2016, and
that the "Victory" funds and the "rental fee" are merely her due.
Of course, were you to claim the latter, then you would have to make clear that such
financing involved neither control nor guid pro quo, that it was simple generosity in
theone instance and merely "business", in the other.
Following on with quo, do you imagine, "looking forward", that Biden will win in 2020?
Should the Dems seriously fight for medical care (not insurance) for all?
Should the Dems call for an end to endless war, or go all in for drone, AI, and robots
to further "humanitarian interevention" (of course, we have to kill some folks, how else
to ensure peace)?
Should the Dems have interest in preserving the environment (you know, for the kids)?
Should the Dems be for an actual, functioning rule of law (not lip service; think
Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, are the receiving justice)?
Or, should the Dems just run on, "We ain't him!"
I realize that you would likely not wish to presume what the Dems should or should not
do, that being speculative and not "normal"
procedure.
Having said all that, John, and realizing that your perspective differs greatly from
the perspectives of many, here, I appreciate the civility of your comments.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a9461a080acb5ce5be55f471100a9e?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a9461a080acb5ce5be55f471100a9e?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
John
,
June 19, 2019 at 12:49
Nice cherry picking and misrepresentation, DW Bartoo.
The DNC did a whole bunch of other
fundrasing besides the "Hillary Victory Fund".
– The "Hillary Victory Fund" was setup to take money excplicitly just for Clinton, and
raise ~$85 million.
– However the DNC in total raised about $350 million for the 2016 campaign. The rest of
the money went elsewhere.
– You cherry-picked the "Hillary Victory Fund" spending and made it look like it
represented the entire DNC spending, when it didn't.
Misrepresnetations like this do nothing to boost your credibility.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
DW Bartoo
,
June 19, 2019 at 14:01
So, John, you are going with, "It just ain't so!".
Yet you have nothing to say about the
Democrats being a Private Club which has no allegiance, of any sort, to the many?
That is the essential aspect which 2016 revealed.
2020 presents a perfect vision of total failure for the Di$mal Dollar Dem$.
A rallying cry of, "We ain't Trump, we Biden!",
will take you, all, down and out.
The Dustbin of History awaits, truly s most well-deserved, well-earned fate.
BTW, your accusatory comment, some distance up-thread, reveals not skill in honest
debate, the factual refutation of or challenge to the perspective of others, but the
slander of
ad-hominem assault.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b6aff30e494a12fc94f4a2e6847c27b0?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b6aff30e494a12fc94f4a2e6847c27b0?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
Skip Scott
,
June 19, 2019 at 14:24
With the resources the DNC had at its disposal, the down time could have been minimal.
Your telling me they couldn't afford to replace the equipment and have it set up and keep
the down time to a matter of hours or less?
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/113284c81cd9a82e0d194ce5f7039233?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/113284c81cd9a82e0d194ce5f7039233?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
philnc
,
June 19, 2019 at 18:31
" the DNC would have been DOWN. FOr a while." Doubtful. Any enterprise of the DNC's size,
whatever e-mail service it uses, should maintain (or contract for) regular backups of
their data and have a DR (Disaster Recovery) plan to restore service in the event the
existing servers go offline without warning. If they failed to take those measures then it
should raise questions about whether there was anything "big" about the people running
that operation.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e4ddc63bb6791a32d847a14c7f904a41?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/e4ddc63bb6791a32d847a14c7f904a41?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
Pissedoffalese
,
June 20, 2019 at 03:35
I love you, the way you write anyway. Yer probably a one-toothed old shit living out in the
middle of Kentucky, but you turn a nice phrase.
With respect to the creation of the Marble Framework program, I would like to ask: What can be the
legal or ethical basis of creation of a tool that enables hacks to be falsely attributable to others?
Such an action, even if used against a foe, would be intolerably vile. I suggest that anyone who
engaged in the creation of this program should be fired, stripped of all pensions, indicted, tried,
and sentenced to a lengthy prison term. Indeed, anyone in our government who would tolerate such
conduct should be finding another line of work.
jeffmontanye
,
June 17, 2019 at 22:48
i'm willing to wait on that trial if we can expedite the mass murder trials of 9-11. trump has said
it was bombs not planes that destroyed the wtc.
geeyp
,
June 18, 2019 at 19:43
Good one, Jeff. We should start where this all started.
Norumbega
,
June 18, 2019 at 06:08
To my understanding Marble Framework was a subset of tools within the what has been called Vault 7.
One of the tools within that subset, I forget what its name actually is, is the language
"obfuscation" tool that everybody talks about.
I would say "it just goes with the territory". Hacking as such is illegal by definition and it
stands to reason that hackers will take what steps they can to disguise their own identity.
Conversely, solid attribution to particular actors is said to be generally very difficult.
But see my reply to John, below, reporting a new discovery of fraud in the malware samples
CrowdStrike put in its report. If confirmed, that would indeed be vile and shocking conduct. We're
talking about ratcheting up tensions toward war as a result of this, and fundamentally deceiving
the American people.
And see my reply to John A giving my opinion that the focus on Vault 7 misdirects attention that
would better be directed toward the actual steps that were used to put those "Russian fingerprints"
into some Guccifer 2.0 metadata, as already fairly well understood by analysts like Adam Carter.
Well this helps explain why Pelosi knows that Impeachment of Trump will not only fail but blow up in
their face.
Andrew Thomas
,
June 17, 2019 at 18:53
Only because of their utterly imbecilic reliance on this made-up scenario. The Dems are obviously
convinced that the made up crap about Muslims that has led to the outrage of the Muslim ban, the
lies about the border emergency, the savaging of all of our laws by ICE on the border, the
self-dealing, etc. etc. ad infinitum, though obviously impeachable offenses, wouldn't play well
among soccer moms or hockey dads or whatever group it is counting on in 2020.
jeffmontanye
,
June 17, 2019 at 22:50
donald trump is a lucky man, but perhaps his greatest good fortune is history's choice of his
opponents.
Eric32
,
June 17, 2019 at 16:29
The Federal "justice" system can create crimes that never happened, avoid collecting evidence that
would prove these crimes didn't happen, issue subpoenas and warrants, force people into bankruptcy
hiring lawyers, interrogate people until they can entrap them in statements and actions that they can
pretend are lies or obstructions to "justice", put innocent people in lockups with violent street
criminals, into solitary confinement to debilitate them mentally and physically.
And why not? If you
can publicly murder a President and then obviously cover it up and pin it on a patsy, with no
consequences, then the Clinton coverups and political destruction operations are a small thing.
Washington networks have long deep histories.
Or is it just a coincidence that Mueller's wife is from the Cabell family – one of whom was the
assistant CIA director who John Kennedy fired after the failed Bay of Pigs operation, and whose
brother was mayor of Dallas when Kennedy was ambushed in rifle attacks, and was revealed in FOIA
document releases to have been a CIA associate.
jaycee
,
June 17, 2019 at 16:26
From manufacturing consent to manufacturing reality There's been a determined effort to use portions
of the Mueller Report to not just buttress the notion that an official Russian government operation
indeed "hacked" the DNC to support the opposition candidate, but to assume this information as
Established Fact. The revelation that the US government investigators relied entirely on a redacted
draft from a private firm with huge conflicts of interest severely challenges this concept, and this
obvious weak link now joins the sad list of unprofessional conduct including use of the Steele dossier
to establish surveillance on a political campaign, and the description of a State Dept informant as a
GRU agent even though Mueller's office had the proper information.
As exhibited in comments below, the partisan divide in America is as wide as it has ever been, with
two camps hurling insults while believing only what they want to believe irregardless of factual
evidence, and a third camp just trying to navigate through what can be objectively determined. In my
observation, commentary over the past three years on this story by groups like VIPS have held up
pretty well, while most of the legacy media and partisan bloggers such as empty wheel have embarrassed
themselves.
Abby
,
June 18, 2019 at 01:53
The funny thing is that people who buy into this Russian propaganda nonsense is that they excuse
Hillary for actually working with people from foreign countries. Steele who wrote the dossier is
from the U.K.. He worked with people in Russia and elsewhere to create it. Hillary paid for him to
get 'dirt' on her opponent which is against the law. Taking information or anything from a foreign
country to advance her campaign. But the biggest stink here is that she used her party's
intelligence agencies to spy on her opponent. This sure seems like shades of what Nixon did
But
her supporters don't have any problem with that
Abe
,
June 17, 2019 at 16:18
Google has a cozy $100 million "shared kindred spirit" with "best in class" Crowdstrike.
In this
video, Google Capital's Gene Frantz and Dmitri Alperovitch's buddy George Kurtz discuss what led to
Google's decision to back Alperovitch and the Keystone Cops at Crowdstrike.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRMPZp70WVI
CrowdStrike received funding of $156 million from Google Capital, Accel Partners, and private
equity firm Warburg Pincus.
According to the company, CrowdStrike customers include three of the 10 largest global companies by
revenue, five of the 10 largest financial institutions, three of the top 10 health care providers, and
three of the top 10 energy companies. CrowdStrike also keeps "Partners" like Amazon Web Services (AWS)
and Google Cloud Platform out of the clutches of invisible bears.
CrowdStrike still "stands fully by its analysis and findings" (aka evidence-free allegations) of
"Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network" in 2016.
Crowdstrike and Bellingcat benefactor Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the
world, the company that owns YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US
military-industrial-surveillance complex.
In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military contractors like SAIC,
Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.
Meanwhile, Crowdstrike is growing very fast. It achieved $250 million in revenue in fiscal year
2019 compared to $119 million in fiscal year 2018, 110% year-over-year growth.
In May 2019, Crowdstrike, filed a SEC Form S-1 to raise $100 million for their initial public
offering. It is the first American cybersecurity company to file and IPO in 2019 and second overall
after the Israeli company Tufin.
Crowdstrike believes it is creating a new category called the "security cloud."
Given the enormous cloud of smoke blown by Alperovitch and Crowdstrike, there definitely is truth
in advertising.
David Otness
,
June 17, 2019 at 23:53
Thanks, Abe. Keep the truth coming -- while we are yet able.
"The funding of "The Trust Project" --
coming largely from big tech companies like Google; government-connected tech oligarchs like Pierre
Omidyar; and the Knight Foundation, a key Newsguard investor -- suggests that an ulterior motive in
its tireless promotion of "traditional" mainstream media outlets is to limit the success of
dissenting alternatives.
Of particular importance is the fact that the Trust Project's "trust indicators" are already being
used to control what news is promoted and suppressed by top search engines like Google and Bing and
massive social-media networks like Facebook. Though the descriptions of these "trust indicators" --
eight of which are currently in use -- are publicly available, the way they are being used by major
tech and social media companies is not."
" .Even if its effort to promote "trust" in establishment media fail, its embedded-code hidden
within participating news sites allow those establishment outlets to skirt the same algorithms
currently targeting their independent competition, making such issues of "trust" largely irrelevant
as it moves to homogenize the online media landscape in favor of mainstream media."
https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-trust-project-big-media-and-silicon-valleys-weaponized-algorithms-silence-dissent/259030/?fbclid=IwAR26cfboaHlUptEt4Lnt4NToqFRRLfmC5xzqqJx6DAAgZTqZD8PDSJADwvQ
The trolls/propagandists are arriving again with their silly BS about being patriots and not
"communists" etc. plus assuming they're in a nest of Trump supporters and Putin lovers. Their
ignorance of CN, and the pathetic, childlike quality of these comments, resembles the five year old
disappointed with his birthday party.
I'm looking forward to a complete narrative of details on what has been revealed, piece by piece,
going back to at least when Assange announced he had a leak on the Podesta emails and the DNC.
The case, in general, and putting it mildly, indicates Official Bias to discredit Trump–clung to,
expanded, drummed home in the daily news, and given the semblance of seriousness by an already
compromised Mueller investigation.
I realize that to want this case detailed, as part of the question what US official credibility is
left, if any? is to be a horrible commie freak SOB supporter of Putin, when I should be saluting the
flag and genuflecting toward Washington.
Abe
,
June 17, 2019 at 15:50
Actual espionage and infiltration of election systems by Israeli intelligence, not to mention direct
interference in US electoral politics by the pro-Israel Lobby organizations backed by the Israeli
government is being assiduously ignored by most mainstream and independent journalists, as well as
veteran intelligence professionals.
Not a peep, nary a whisper from our vaunted VIPS about such
matters as this:
"Following the 2016 election and the heavily promoted concerns about 'Russian hackers' infiltrating
election systems, federal agencies like the NSA have used that threat to lobby for greater control
over American democracy. For instance, during a 2017 hearing then-NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers
stated:
"'If we define election infrastructure as critical to the nation and we are directed by the
president or the secretary, I can apply our capabilities in partnership with others – because we won't
be the only ones, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI – I can apply those capabilities
proactively with some of the owners of those systems.'
"With Rogers – who is now employed by the Microsoft-funded and Israeli military
intelligence-connected company Team8 – having lobbied for the direct involvement of U.S. government
agencies, including the NSA and DHS, in supervising elections, it seems likely that ElectionGuard will
help enable those agencies to surveill U.S. elections with particular ease, especially given
Microsoft's past of behind-the-scenes collaboration with the NSA.
"Given that ElectionGuard's system as currently described is neither as 'secure' nor as
'verifiable' as Microsoft is claiming, it seems clear that the conflicts of interests of its
developers, particularly their connections to the U.S. and Israeli militaries, are a recipe for
disaster and tantamount to a takeover of the American election system by the military-industrial
complex."
Remember when Karl Rove (aka turd blossom) had his meltdown on fox news over the Ohio vote count.
He just knew Romney was going to win that state, but somehow his fix got "unfixed" by the counter
hacking group "anonymous". Well, now our so-called "Intelligence" agencies and their corporate
sidekicks are going to make sure there are no more surprises. Elections are going to be even more
of a useless show than they already are. Zappa was truly prescient when he said "politics is the
entertainment division of the Military Industrial Complex."
Good recollection, Skip. I had completely forgotten that little nugget, as probably did most
other people. Our brains are so slipshod, we create our own memory holes big enough for the
villains to drive a dumptruck through.
I can also appreciate your caution about all further
elections. Will they be entirely orchestrated by the string pullers who make the final choice by
simply creating the numbers out of thin air? If so, will the candidates themselves also be clued
in to prevent a meltdown like Hillary Clinton's never-ending tirade?
John Hawk
,
June 17, 2019 at 15:06
Comey: lying through his butthole!, longtime bagman for the Demorat elites and a traitor to boot!
Abe
,
June 17, 2019 at 15:02
"Thousands of emails from the DNC server were published by WikiLeaks in July 2016 revealing that the
DNC interfered in the Democratic primary process to favor former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
over Senator Bernie Sanders for the party's presidential nomination" notes veteran intelligence
professional Ray McGovern.
Can't Say Why:
Two weeks ahead of the Democratic National Convention, celebrating a "revolution" worthy of the
CIA, sheepdog Bernie pledged his fealty to Hillary: "I intend to do everything I can to make certain
she will be the next president of the United States."
Hillary crowed, "Senator Sanders has brought people off the sidelines and into the political
process. He has energized and inspired a generation of young people who care deeply about our
country."
She imperiously declared, "To everyone here and everyone cross the country who poured your heart
and soul into Senator Sanders' campaign: Thank you."
Bernie had performed his sheepdog function by exciting the Democratic Party's liberal base and
winning young voters by large margins during the primary.
The Sanders campaign won primaries and caucuses in 22 states.
But Bernie spat in the face of his "revolution" by not energetically fighting efforts at black
voter suppression, and not effectively contesting the votes in states like California and Arizona, as
was his campaign's right by law.
Long after Hillary clinched the nomination with California, sheepdog Bernie continued to hold
rallies and advocate for his "revolution", which not only served the interests of the Trump campaign,
but very effectively delayed incensed Sanders supporters from migrating to third party tickets.
Green Party leader Jill Stein correctly remarked: "A revolution that goes back under Hillary
Clinton's wing is not a revolution."
Black Agenda Report editor Glen Ford described the debacle:
"Bernie Sanders did not lie to his followers; they deceived themselves, just as most of them – the
ones that were old enough – had fooled themselves into believing that Barack Obama was a peace
candidate and a political progressive back in 2008, although Obama's actual record and policy
pronouncements showed him clearly to be a corporate imperialist warmonger – a political twin of his
principal primary election opponent, Hillary Clinton and her philandering, huckster husband.
"Back then, phony leftists like Bill Fletcher and Tom Hayden swore on their mothers' honor that
Obama's campaign was really a people's movement, a prelude to revolution – as if the Democrats, a
militarist corporate political party, could give birth to an anti-corporate, anti-militarist people's
revolution.
"Real Fascist vs. Trump Cartoon Version
"Bernie Sanders threw around the word 'revolution' quite a bit. He was still using it in his
surrender speech on Tuesday [July 12, 2016], assuring his flock that the revolution would continue as
he marched arm in arm with the most dangerous person in the world, today – far more dangerous than
Donald Trump [ ] Sanders' job is to shepherd his flock into a little leftwing corner of Hillary's Big
Tent, right next to the latrine and alongside her loyal Black Democrats, who are so meek in the
presence of power that they won't even complain about the smell."
Bernie's own behavior during and after the "revolution" belies this prattle about CIA "derailment"
of a "Sanders insurgency".
A guy who once urged once urged abolishing CIA, Bernie now can't get enough of fact-free claims by
"intelligence agencies".
Bloviating with Wolf Blitzer in CNN's Situation Room on 10 May 2017, Bernie declared: "Our
intelligence agencies all agree that [Russia] interfered significantly in the American election."
"This is an investigation that has to go forward," he said.
Bernie wasn't so keen on investigation when American votes were at stake during the "revolution" in
2016.
To summarize:
What better way for the CIA to thwart a "revolution" against "intelligence agencies" than to have
the Dems front an "insurgent" sheepdog candidate who would not only throw the "fight" at critical
moments, but turn around and praise the BS produced by the very "intelligence agencies" he previously
sought to abolish.
Put that in your vape and smoke it, kids.
And why is it that all these "intelligence agencies" have nothing whatsoever to say about Israeli
intelligence operatives and Israeli interference in the US electoral process?
Again, Abe -- Keep bringing it while we still can.
Thanks for your courage and honesty.
Abby
,
June 18, 2019 at 02:14
Outstanding comment, Abe! This is exactly who and what Bernie is and here he is doing it again.
People who were upset with him doing that last time are once again getting ready to back his
candidacy and when he betrays them again they will wonder why.
Bernie has signed on to the Russian interference nonsense and tells people that Vlad is
controlling Trump and he also says that Madura must step down. He was asked after the election if
Hillary had won it fair and square and he said yes knowing damn well that she rigged it against
him.
As for the big elephant in the room no one ever talks about how Israel has congress in its
pocket.
Maxwell Quest
,
June 18, 2019 at 23:03
Abe, thanks so much for ripping off Bernie's little revolutionary fig leaf and stomping it into the
dirt. It really made my day.
EchoDelta
,
June 17, 2019 at 14:55
Garbage, embarrassing garbage and magical thinking from an Ahab with a fan club.
Otherwise admit you're a red hat brownshirt or profiteering like Alex Jones from gullible
chuckleheads.
well oh boy
,
June 17, 2019 at 15:22
Emptywheel? Isn't this the same person who still thinks Russia elected Trump..? The one who
revealed her source to the FBI? Doesn't seem like a journalist at all. What are her credentials?
certainquirk
,
June 17, 2019 at 15:28
Troll. Starve.
nwwoods
,
June 17, 2019 at 17:32
Indisputable fact:
Comey has committed purgery under oath
Clapper has commited purgery under oath
Brennan has commited purgery under oath
This is a matter of public record that is beyond dispute.
Your faith-based belief in the Russiagate conspiracy theory is entirely grounded in the baseless
assertions of three confirmed liars who have provided precisely zero evidence in support of their
claims.
Andrew Thomas
,
June 17, 2019 at 18:34
That is a completely inappropriate comment. Stone's lawyers filed a discovery request for the
documents. That is not the same thing as expecting to believe their contents.
Anne Jaclard
,
June 17, 2019 at 18:58
This is a garbage comment. @EmptyWheel is just another blue-check pseudo-left journalist who
outright promoted the idea that Trump is Putin's puppet before the Mueller Report revealed that to
be untrue
https://mobile.twitter.com/emptywheel/status/821348649108205569
. I don't know how much CN pays
but I'm sure Ray isn't making the big bucks of conspiracy theorist Jones, let alone conspiracy
theorists David Corn and Rachel Maddow.
Even the Democratic Party is focusing on propping up
their neoliberal leader, Biden, and is not wishing to defend a failed theory exploited by the DNC
as an excuse for why they failed to defeat Donald Trump. Their rigging of the primaries, detailed
in the WikiLeaks documents, ensured a Trump victory which has seen massive ecological devistation,
right-wing ghouls appointed to the Supreme Court, and multiple wars or war scares. I get that they
want to hide their and Hillary's personal responsibility, and that the elite as a whole wants to
cover up the failed system they have established, but we should be focused on the Sanders campaign
and beating Trump in 2020, or grassroots work on saving the environment and helping organize
working people.
I thought RussiaGate was false from the moment Hillary blamed Putin for the leaks this time
three years ago. It's good to be vindicated, but I'm not really interested in the Trump-Barr
counterinvestigation, either, I, like probably most other people, just want the whole thing to be
over with.
But the fact that this fake narrative continues to be perpetuated makes me have second thoughts,
sometimes.
Robbin Milne
,
June 17, 2019 at 19:37
Empty wheel Marcy wheeler isn't a credible source.
Michael Keenan
,
June 17, 2019 at 19:46
She forgot to keep her chastity belt on when she went to Mueller. Still not sure why.
Michael Keenan
,
June 17, 2019 at 19:39
No such claim dimwit.
Abby
,
June 18, 2019 at 02:17
lol! You're quoting emptywheel? Oh boy she is so far out there on this Russian propaganda nonsense
I don't recognize her from when she was sane back on daily kos. But then they have bought into too.
I think that you are the one who needs to wake up. Tell us what evidence Mueller or anyone has
shown us that proves Russia did the deed? I'll wait
DW Bartoo
,
June 18, 2019 at 18:14
Actually, Echo Delta, according to a link Realist has provided on the thread of a later article,
here at CN, Stone and his attorneys are insisting that the government must provide actual proof
that Russia hacked the DNC, and the government is claiming, apparently, that it is not subject to
any such burden as providing actual proof.
This will be very interesting to observe.
Either the rule of law demands actual proof, or the "rule" has become so very bent that it has
broken and disappeared entirely, leaving behind merely an empty nothing that may be shaped,
twisted, or sculpted into whatever "authority" may wish, to whatever ends power desires or insists
upon.
Vera Gottlieb
,
June 17, 2019 at 14:28
Oh, enough of this already. Keep distracting people so as not to pay attention to more important
matters. Enough!
jmg
,
June 17, 2019 at 17:07
Vera, "this" is what started the "Russia has attacked us!" hysteria, the new McCarthyist
xenophobia, the new Cold War, the new arms race, the Doomsday Clock's current "two minutes to
midnight" (first time since 1953), etc. So, if in fact Russia didn't attack, it has some
importance.
David G
,
June 17, 2019 at 20:21
Ikr? And this when people have already stopped arguing about the Game of Thrones finale. Get your
priorities straight, everybody talking about things corporate media isn't instructing you to!
bjd
,
June 18, 2019 at 06:33
Go away and be an obedient believer then.
jb
,
June 17, 2019 at 13:33
Has VIPS said anything about the possibility of a hack first, followed by a leak? (The Nation?)
In fact, VIPS had some evidence (since discredited as falsified) of a possible leak. They hyped it
as "disproving" any hack. If you want nuanced analysis, don't go to VIPS.
David Otness
,
June 18, 2019 at 00:06
"YOU" say–without any backup to your assertion.
Nice.
New around here, aincha?
I wonder why
Some parties did make broad and sweeping assertions on evidence that really only related to
Guccifer 2.0's releases and they probably should have been more cautious.
However, the
underlying research (showing that Guccifer 2.0 moved files around via thumbdrive and then
archived them almost 2 months later with Eastern timezone settings in effect) has not been
discredited as falsified.
Someone did cook up a highly speculative conspiracy theory and a flawed technical theory to
try to support the premise that there was a conspiracy and that files were tampered with but it
didn't work out too well for them. (Forensicator debunked their primary conspiratorial claims
within a month and just recently dismantled their timestamp tampering theory too.) :)
John
,
June 19, 2019 at 01:04
Tim Leonard (real name for Adam Carter): The "research" was gobbledygook.
– Even if someone believed every word of your "analysis", it still disregards many variables
about how data is handle, and presumes that people used tools, methods and communication
techniques no one actually uses in real life, making it stink to high heaven.
– And,of course, nothing can be realistically "proven" from a data file whose source cannot
be verified.
And stop referring to yourself as "forensicator" in the third person. It's
embarrassing.
As my other response to your defamation here made clear. Forensicator and I are separate
people and even a basic corpus analysis of our work outputs would make that clear.
Also, where have I (or Forensicator) "presumed that people used tools, methods and
communication techniques no one actually uses in real life" specifically?
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/60bc797ed7bf0b955e33c4c30a8cd58d?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/60bc797ed7bf0b955e33c4c30a8cd58d?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
Eric32
,
June 18, 2019 at 13:53
You're not very good at this.
The NSA probably has the greatest computer forensics capability
in the world – Comey's FBI investigation never asked them to analyze these leaks?/hacks? by
internet tracking and hard drive analysis.
No real investigation would depend on consultants paid by interested parties when it could do
it itself or through the NSA.
As for hard drive forensic analysis, people who actually know about computer forensics say
that the way to make hard disk data irretrievable is to PHYSICALLY destroy the HD plates.
Drilling multiple holes through the HD including all the plates is what most of them do.
"Cleaning"? No.
John
,
June 19, 2019 at 01:22
Actually A LOT of investigations rely heavily on computer security consultants and non-FBI
security staff. It happen every day. Banks hand off forensic data collected by consultants
all the time to the FBI. The word for it in court is "expert witness".
And while the only
surefire way to destroy data is to destroy the HD, simply deleting and overwriting it would
mangle the **** out of it, making it hard to determine what file the scraps of data are from,
when they were written, and if they were ever executed. Basically making it useless to anyone
wanting to build a case with it.
Eric32
,
June 19, 2019 at 12:51
No, what you're saying does not hold up to analysis or common sense.
There's no big mystery about this – Binney and his retired intelligence associates figured
it out early on.
No valid FBI investigation dealing with matters of national security,
election hacking, validity of election of a President, would hand off the computer
forensics analysis to a company paid by and subject to retaliation by the entity (the
Democrat party) with a huge political stake in the results of the investigation.
The Clinton / Democrat party story line was Russian hacking, Russian influenced
President Trump, poor victim Hillary.
Private businesses often do leak/hack investigations through private consultants
because they fear the (business) consequences of the investigative information becoming
public or into criminal prosecution, just like the people controlling the Democrat party
feared having the actual method of the email data showing Clinton corruption and Democrat
party corruption becoming public was due to an internal leak, not an over the internet
hack.
The FBI wants leverage over the people they interview for info – they had enormous
leverage over Assange, but they never interviewed Assange, who knew how the emails came
into Wikileak's hands. They never interviewed Craig Murray, who says he knows lot of what
went on in the matter.
There's no big mystery about this – Binney and his retired intelligence associates
figured it out early on.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc8854fd58bb283290bad6a933dca5bd?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fc8854fd58bb283290bad6a933dca5bd?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
Curious
,
June 19, 2019 at 00:48
If it was a hack, or even a partial hack the NSA would have the forensics and the copies. Please
explain why they have not released this information to anyone in authority.
If I hide someone who is being sought for murder, I will still be charged with harboring a fugitive,
even if they later decide that the person Ic was hiding, didn't do it.
And instruction is Justice, is obstruction of Justice, no matter how the lawyers and politicians try
to spin it.
LJ
,
June 17, 2019 at 19:22
Bill Walton, NBA Hall of Fame, sports announcer, dad and all that was once heard to utter on
National Television, shortly after winning an NBA Title with the Portland Trailblazers, regarding
possible guests of an A-Frame he owned out in the sticks somewhere (As I recall regarding SLA alums
Jake and Emily Harris >), " I would never Co-operate with a Fascistic Organization like the CIA".
Oh the Times they are a Changin' and have been for what 45 years now.
Pablo Diablo
,
June 17, 2019 at 11:45
All of this has been an effective distraction to WHAT was in those emails. Far worse than WHO
hacked/leaked them.
AnneR
,
June 17, 2019 at 12:34
So very true, Pablo. And distraction from the content – so well managed by the MSM – was the intent
behind this whole lying farrago.
Can't be said too often. And the media misdirection began immediately after the DNC docs were
published, largely crowding out coverage of the substance from then until today. Among other
things, this is why it's so wrong to even credit/blame Wikileaks for Trump's victory.
Debbie
Wasserman Schultz and Donna Brazile took one for the team, but the big story of DNC dishonesty was
relegated to the vast sea of true things that, as Harold Pinter put it, "never happened".
John
,
June 18, 2019 at 09:56
WHAT was in those emails was basically nothing. No coordination with Clinton, no orders or actions
to deliberately sabotage Sanders. Just a handful of snarky comments by a few staffers.
Linda Wood
,
June 18, 2019 at 13:52
No. DNC emails evidence crimes of money laundering and entering into agreements with state
officials to close polling places in order to disadvantage Sanders voters.
The DNC emails include evidence of crimes of money laundering and of entering into agreements
with state officials to close polling places in order to disadvantage Sanders voters.
This comment, more than any other, exposes your goal to obfuscate the truth and further
a propaganda narrative. They were not "basically nothing". They showed that Clinton holds
"private" positions separate from her "public" positions, and is therefore a self-confessed
liar. They showed that she used her position as SoS to get large donations from foreigners for
the Clinton Foundation. They showed she was involved in cheating and given debate questions
ahead of the actual debates. They showed coordination with the DNC to sabotage the Sanders
campaign. They showed she had inside connections to quash the investigation into the use of her
private server and mishandling of classified information as SoS. They showed her own staff was
worried about her health and found her "often confused". I could go on. Here is a link with some
of the more serious findings thanks to Wikileaks.
Did anyone here actually read Crowdstrike's publicly issued report? The traffic patterns, malware
examples and code samples were MORE than enough to conclude Russia did the hacking.
I doubt
Crowdstrike even MADE a "unredacted" report everyone here is asking for.
Some data may have been excluded, like sniffed usernames and passwords, but a good security company
never publishes use4rnames and passwords of their clients.
Ruth the Truth
,
June 17, 2019 at 12:58
RE: your question, "Did anyone read Crowdstrike's report?" Ray McGovern read it and so did the rest
of VIPS, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. I read parts of it, but don't know anything
about computer hacking, so I have to depend on what experts say about it. You say you've seen
enough evidence, can you help me understand how you know that Crowdstrike did not plant that
evidence? I'm skeptical. Doesn't it bother you that the FBI did not do their own investigation? Why
not? It seems to me that it's like me telling the police, "My house was robbed, and I know the
Russian guys who live next door did it" "My evidence? Well, I destroyed the actual evidence, but I
do have this report from my own private security company and they are really reliable. The best
people." I'm sure in that instance, you would not accept my word for it- how is this situation
different? I don't understand how a private security firms report is evidence. Why weren't the
servers examined by law enforcement, which the FBI admits would have been best? Why wasn't Assange
interviewed? There was not a thorough investigation-why not? I still need more evidence to draw a
conclusion-Can you answer my questions?
michael
,
June 17, 2019 at 13:43
Essentially the DNC destroyed any evidence of a crime. As Hillary herself has said "No evidence,
no crime". As federal judge Zloch noted, the DNC is not a government agency, it is not a public
company, it is essentially like a yacht club or country club (that can do whatever it wants as
far as backstabbing members and determining candidates). It follows that any crime against such
a club is inconsequential, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation would have been all over it.
Since it was trivial, why bother?
And Crowdstrike may not have had the skills to mimic Russian hacking, they sound like total
incompetents (perfect for muddying the water).
But New Knowledge, which was reported by the New York Times to have interfered in the Alabama
Senate Election by pretending to be Russian hackers, DID have the skills, as well as having
former NSA employees familiar with Vault 7 tools. They're likely Guccifer 2.o and possibly the
"only Russians" involved.
Ruth the Truth
,
June 17, 2019 at 14:08
Thank you. I'll google more about "New Knowledge" and Alabama Senate Election.
Skip Scott
,
June 17, 2019 at 14:37
Notice how John ignores questions he has no answer for. Typical acute TDS. Also examine who
Crowdstrike is and ask yourself how they could ever be trusted.
John
,
June 17, 2019 at 14:12
I am exactly ZERO surprised the servers were not sent to the FBI.
– In 25 years of IT security and many virus/hack cleanups, I have NEVER NEVER NEVER seen servers
shipped to the FBI for investigation.
– IN ALL CASES the hacked equipment was cleaned and reused. Even at Microsoft. THIS IS THE NORM.
I can't imaging the DNC shutting down all their systems, spending piles of money on new
duplicate hardware, and terminating all campaign operations for a week while they recover on new
hardware, weeks before a Presidential election.
– Especially since the systems were ALREADY CLEANED, and there was essentially nothing new for
the FBI to learn from them.
Eric32
,
June 17, 2019 at 17:11
LOL. From the FBI's site:
Computer Forensic Science
Computer forensic science was created to address the specific and articulated needs of law
enforcement to make the most of this new form of electronic evidence. Computer forensic
science is the science of acquiring, preserving, retrieving, and presenting data that has
been processed electronically and stored on computer media. As a forensic discipline, nothing
since DNA technology has had such a large potential effect on specific types of
investigations and prosecutions as computer forensic science.
Computer forensic science is, at its core, different from most traditional forensic
disciplines. The computer material that is examined and the techniques available to the
examiner are products of a market-driven private sector. Furthermore, in contrast to
traditional forensic analyses, there commonly is a requirement to perform computer
examinations at virtually any physical location, not only in a controlled laboratory setting.
Rather than producing interpretative conclusions, as in many forensic disciplines, computer
forensic science produces direct information and data that may have significance in a case.
This type of direct data collection has wide-ranging implications for both the relationship
between the investigator and the forensic scientist and the work product of the forensic
computer examination
If the virus/hack cleanups you have witnessed lead to indictments. then I imagine it would be
imperative to establish a custody chain for evidence. As a semi-layman, I imagine that it
would suffice if FBI made copies of the content of the storage, confirmed that it has "hack
signature" described by the private experts and made their own determination if this
signature does constitute a proof. However, tracing a hacker is usually pointless and
fruitless, so the systems are cleaned and that is that. NEVERTHELESS, Mueller made
indictments based on the evidence that had no chain of custody but rather was "hearsay".
At least some elements of the "signature" were very suspicious to me. For example, using
name Felix which is not a Russian name, but which belongs to Feliks Dzier?y?ski, a Pole who
was the first head of a Soviet internal security and who died in 1926. Far a young Russian
hacker it would be somewhat improbable, but to a foreigner who knows very few facts about
Russia, Felix is easy to remember. Same with Bear. It was totally a trademark how a Western
foreigner images Russians to behave. Same with switching from Latin to Cyrillic keyboard mode
in the middle of coding to type a single Russian word.
Anne Jaclard
,
June 17, 2019 at 19:00
Hell, Felix's name is probably known among many hardcore Sanders supporters as a key
Soviet socialist figure.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a9461a080acb5ce5be55f471100a9e?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/41a9461a080acb5ce5be55f471100a9e?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
John
,
June 17, 2019 at 23:01
Crowdstrike's technology for tracking hackers is impressive.
– They can follow every single command and data flow between hackers' command systems and
the hacking victim's systems and security log it with timestamps in audited and
access-controlled systems.
– Those logs follow chain-of-custody rules, and constitute some of the most powerful
evidence a hacking victim can bring to court.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/11a4450c3a58a847d47fe0242886a044?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/11a4450c3a58a847d47fe0242886a044?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
David G
,
June 17, 2019 at 19:57
Those may be reasons the DNC wouldn't have wanted to give their hardware to the FBI, but they
aren't reasons for the FBI not to have sought a court order and seized it.
John
,
June 18, 2019 at 09:21
So, if the FBI had crippled the DNC a few weeks before the election by seizing all the
computers running their email systems, calendars, contacts, planning and legal documents,
group schedules and coordination plans with state and local party workers, you would have
happier?
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/76bb487d22067fb08deace74db4f7c27?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/76bb487d22067fb08deace74db4f7c27?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
Will
,
June 17, 2019 at 20:47
stop making sense John.
Andy W
,
June 17, 2019 at 21:10
You're missing the point, John. This has been portrayed as "an act of war against the United
States of America" on par with the 9/11 terrorist attacks or the Japanese bombing of Pearl
Harbor. The normal procedures for virus/hack cleanups don't apply because this isn't a normal
event.
This isn't about some clown planting malware to mine bitcoins. This is supposed to
be a dire threat to our national security, and it calls for a different response.
This isn't about normal IT work like removing malware and patching vulnerabilities so
everybody can get back to work. This is about attribution and accurately identifying the
hackers -- and since a nuclear superpower is the suspected culprit it's especially important
that we get this right.
The investigation should have been led by the FBI, not by CrowdStrike. The FBI should have
been the one sharing images of the DNC's servers with CrowdStrike, not the other way around.
The FBI should have been the one sharing it's redacted findings with CrowdStrike, not the
other way around.
John
,
June 17, 2019 at 22:40
Wrong – the behaviour of the DNC, Crowdstrike, and the FBI was completely about "normal IT
work" for several quite a while.
It was not until WEEKS later, when Wikileaks began
publishing internal DNC documents the day before the Convention that this became an issue.
On April 11, 2019, NPR,
Nation Public Radio, carried story about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange by David Welna.
"12 Years of Disruption:
A WikiLeaks Timeline".
I am curious about your perspective about Jillian Assange, primarily because you said
this.
"It was not until WEEKS later, when WikiLeaks began publishing internal DNC documents
the day before the convention that this became an issue."
Would "this" be what you consider to be "normal IT work", John?
Essentially that any rigorous examination of the claim of "Russian hacking", BY the
FBI, would have hindered what might be termed, based on your assertion, "business as
usual"?
Especially, if the computers were to be considered evidence, as that, if I understand
your grave concern, would have cost Crowdstrike too much time and money and would have
harmed Hillary and the DNC, is that the gist of it?
Frankly, that seems quite akin to notion of "too big", too important, to be treated to
an actual rule of law, reminiscent of "too big to fail, too big to jail".
Of course, as soon as the claim was made, not by WikiLeaks, but by politicians, that
Russia had "hacked" those computers, some later even called the alleged "hack" an "act of
war", then, at the moment of the assertion, the comfortable (and convenient) "normal IT
work" perspective has, and had, no validity.
Under a functioning rule of law, a chain of evidence, not hearsay, is required.
Unless we accept either an empty form of law or a multi-tiered legal system, both of
which make mock of rule of law, then evidence, genuine and actual, must take precedence
over comfort, convenience, or convention.
The lack of substantive evidence regarding the "hack" is quite as destructive to the
whole Russia did it BS as is the use of the Steele Dossier to establish "collusion".
For both taint the two cases, long held to be so related as to be conjoined.
The lack of evidence of hacking, cannot be made something by mere assertion, and the
Dossier is evidence of what is known as a "poison tree" and all things growing from are
known as "fruits of the poison tree.
So, John, my question for you is this.
Should Jullian Assange be locked up, not merely for offending official authority, but
also for causing so much embarrassment for "normal IT work"?
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/73f13f648f68941a417b4ff445d911ec?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
DW Bartoo
,
June 18, 2019 at 14:51
The comment above is addressed to, John.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b9764e24a3ebbd21a94e2ab7bdb4ff3b?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b9764e24a3ebbd21a94e2ab7bdb4ff3b?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
Andy W
,
June 18, 2019 at 17:32
@John – No hindsight was needed. The DNC should have brought in the FBI the second they
realized their internal files and communications had been compromised regardless of who
did it or why. The theft of this data is the digital equivalent of Watergate, and the
Democrats should have turned the matter over to the FBI to figure out who was responsible,
not to some private IT company that they paid for themselves.
What if the shoe was on
the other foot? What if internal documents from the Trump Organization had shown-up on
Wikileaks. Suppose Donald Trump said the Democrats stole the documents and used that
accusation to justify punitive measures against them. Then suppose Trump wiped his servers
so the only evidence anyone had to go on was what a private cyber security company that he
was paying provided. And suppose the co-founder of Trump's private cyber security company
also happened to be a senior member of the Heritage Foundation. Would any of that arouse
your suspicion, because that's basically what we're looking at here.
CrowdStrike's co-founder is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which has a long
standing animus towards Russia. CrowdStrike's findings are being used to justify sanctions
and other punitive measures against Russia and nobody can independently corroborate
CrowdStrike's findings because the servers have been wiped.
The Democratic party is a political organization with a political agenda, and so is the
Atlantic Council. You can't just take them or their surrogates at their word.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9950659fea3b1c6f3208f41c8cf53d42?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/9950659fea3b1c6f3208f41c8cf53d42?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
bjd
,
June 18, 2019 at 06:41
If you clean and reuse, you lose the license to make statements and allegations based on what
you just bleachbitted.
Nice try to shift focus.
You're a believer and are out of line here on VIPS.
You're not even a competent IT professional, with your 'clean' and 'reuse'-mantra.
John
,
June 18, 2019 at 10:59
Actually, just telling you what I see. Nobody spends the money to buy new hardware after a
hack attack.
– To my knowledge, only a handful of multi-billion dollar banks and defense contractors
have ever preserved hardware after an attack, and only in exceptionally rare cases.
– Even when I have recommended full rebuild on new hardware, I was overridden by the
customer or management.
Seeing something nefarious in the DNC having acted just like any
other organization of its size in a similar situation is a sign you don't understand the
subject.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/91a95ef8eb08348e0e20b1824a4f4a42?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/91a95ef8eb08348e0e20b1824a4f4a42?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
LJ
,
June 18, 2019 at 15:53
Oh brother? Are you a clown? Don't be silly. That is a leap of faith when Bill and Hillary
were meeting publicly on a plane on a tarmac with Attorney General Lynch after an
investigation was in progress. The reason there was an immediate investigation going on and
Comey was compelled to intervene and whitewash the situation was to try and save the validity
of the electoral process , the credibity of the Department of Justice and the credibility and
objectivity of investigations by the FBI. And just what of the precedence of using an absurd
and obviously phony and unverifiable dossier attributed to a BRIT Clown from MI6, hired by
the Clinton Campaign, to secure a FISA warrant to investigate and hopefully discredit the
campaign of the presumptive, no the actual nominee of the opposition party? Let's just forget
all that. Your point is ridiculous and your experience is of no value in the real world that
we all witnessed in real time. No doubt, the people and corporations that paid for your
services and expertise knew what they were getting when they hired you and I have no doubt
you did a bang up job. Keep it in your own lane. It's safe there. We don't want none of that
Seth Rich business unless it is absolutely unavoidable.
Deniz
,
June 18, 2019 at 19:19
My guess is that John is here to protect the value of his stock options.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/00d3a299e0c6a14584450a161456a6e8?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/00d3a299e0c6a14584450a161456a6e8?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
David Otness
,
June 17, 2019 at 18:43
Bravo, Ruth. (I got a good chuckle from your straight-ahead, quite civil rebuke of what *John*
posits.)
Now will he respond at all, let alone without deflection and/or obfuscation?
Yer move, Johnny
John
,
June 19, 2019 at 14:51
I am fairly confident Crowdstrike did NOT falsify claims or evidence based on a combination of
the following reasons:
– Their reports, analysis and conclusions were made public, and were reviewed by several
competing security firms. No firm with experience in IT forensics disagreed.
– Their report on tools and files found, infection and control methods and pwershell coding were
technically viable and reasonable for a hacking attack. No "Where did they get this" moments you
find in flimsier analyses.
– The reports were fat with background and supporting info to read as a "evidence leads to
conclusions" report instead "conclusions lead to evidence" reports which tend to be fat with
conclusions and skimpy on background info.
– There have been no murmurs or leaks of "they faked this" from inside Crowdstrike. All the
"faking" claims are coming from people far outside the company with no security expertise.
– IT Security people tend to be pretty libertarian, so I doubt Crowdstrike could have actually
"faked" anything without generating a mini-revolt by the people involved.
– Crowdstrike has MASSIVE incentives to deal honestly in the IT Security field. They do criminal
and fraud investigation work for banks, and anything that risks that would be very stupid.
(Note: motive evidence tends to be weak, but I included it anyway.)
Now if someone can present
evidence that DID fake it, beyond association or speculation about motive, I'm willing to
listen.
John A
,
June 17, 2019 at 14:08
Traffic patterns as in how Wikileaks has already shown the CIA can create false trails?
Norumbega
,
June 17, 2019 at 16:48
The CIA's ability to "create false trails" maybe somewhat interesting in itself, but I would
urge caution in drawing a connection, even just a speculative one, between this capability and
the "Russian fingerprints" in the metadata of some of the files released by Guccifer 2.0. As far
as I can see, the two situations are completely different. This is a point on which I disagree
with Ray McGovern, insofar as his repeated emphasis on the point has the effect of misleading
many into looking in a direction which is very unlikely to be related to the actual solution of
the Guccifer 2.0 "Russian fingerprints" issue. Most of the rest of his excellent article I agree
with.
The CIA clearly has computer hacking capabilities. And one of the tools in its Marble
Framework toolbox is software specifically engineered to _disguise its own hacking activities_
by leaving accompanying "clues" in several foreign languages (namely, ones spoken in
so-considered adversary states).
With the G-2 materials, are we then possibly presented with something that was actually
hacked by the CIA, the said hack having been disguised as the work of Russia by means of
"Russian fingerprints" added by means of the automated software program revealed in Vault 7?
I cannot see how this could be so, given that I don't believe that the G-2 materials were
obtained by means of a remote hack (even though Guccifer 2.0 did _claim_ to be a "lone hacker"
and to have obtained his materials by that means). And if the G-2 materials were not obtained by
a hack at all, then ipso facto they were not obtained by a CIA hack. Furthermore, although I am
not an expert, it seems to me that researchers like Adam Carter have analyzed the series of
steps that were actually taken to produce the "Russian fingerprints" in the metadata of the
documents that G-2 released, and produced a plausible account of how this was done. This account
does not include anything that relates to Vault 7 software. In my opinion, Ray McGovern would do
well to direct people toward Adam Carter's work instead of misdirecting them toward Vault 7.
Norumbega
,
June 17, 2019 at 16:12
Are you aware that Bruce Leidl has claimed in the last few days to have discovered clear evidence
that the malware samples CrowdStrike produced were fraudulently recycled from an earlier hack of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
He wrote on Twitter, June 12: "There was no APT29 hack of the DNC at all. I know this because
crowdstrike produced fraudulent malware samples, you know, like they always do."
"The seaduke samples are recycled from the joint chiefs incident. I (and others) know bc they
dun goofed stripping the relevant metadata."
And (June 12): "I'll be deleting this tweet and the prior one soon due to suspected lurks on my
TL. It's too late in the game for me to sock up."
"The samples were compiled (by cozybear) on 7/30/15 and 8/4/15"
"JCS email hack was 7/25/15 – 8/6/15"
"Not much room for plausible deniability there."
There followed some exchanges with Stephen McIntyre and Larry Beech, which may be of interest to
people with technical backgrounds.
There are many other public reasons to suspect that something is amiss in the official version
of the timeline, notably the highly implausible claim that WikiLeaks only received the supposedly
hacked emails from Guccifer 2.0 during July 14 -18, 2016, leaving far too little time for WikiLeaks
to review them for authenticity and publication value before they actually did release them on July
22, and after Julian Assange had already announced more than a month earlier that WikiLeaks already
at that time possessed "leaks" related to Hillary Clinton, in the form of "emails" which it planned
to publish.
For those who are technically proficient, this essay by Adam Carter provides evidence that 2/3
of the "Fancy Bear (APT28)" malware which Crowdstrike claimed had been implanted in the DNC in
spring of 2016 had in fact been compiled AFTER the date on which Crowdstrike was brought into
the DNC servers in early May 2016. In other words, this suggests that Crowdstrike may have
created this supposed hack.
Crowdstrike's claims also appear absurd in light of the fact that the latest DNC email
published by Wikileaks was written on April 25 – three weeks AFTER Crowdstrike installed its
Falcon anti-hacking program on the DNC computers.
I reason as follows: Adam Carter, Forensicator, and VIPS have provided a range of compelling
evidence that, far from being a GRU hacker, Guccifer 2.0 was a construct, operating within US
time zones and most likely controlled by Crowdstrike, intended to falsely incriminate Russian
hackers as the source of the DNC emails subsequently released by Wikileaks.
But there is a conundrum – Assange stated on June 12 that Wikileaks would soon be releasing
"material related to Hillary" . But he did not indicate that this material was DNC emails
(indeed, many may have thought he was referring to Hillary's erased SOS private server emails).
It is clear that, when Crowdstrike and G2.0 made claims in the next 2-3 days that the DNC server
had been hacked and that G2.0 had provided the hacked emails to Wikileaks (note the
inconsistency with Mueller's claims!), that they had GUESSED that Assange had been referring to
DNC emails. I propose that this was a very educated guess, and that our intelligence agencies
had tipped the DNC off to the fact that someone at the DNC was proposing to send leaked emails
to Wikileaks. This indeed seems likely if Sy Hersh's informant inside the FBI is correct, and
Seth Rich had offered sample emails to Wikileaks, asking for payment for a subsequent large
trove. It's reasonable to suspect that the NSA had been attempting to capture all communications
to and from Wikileaks, and thus could have intercepted this communication. They could then have
informed the DNC that someone on their staff was planning to leak to Wikileaks. That's when
Crowdstrike was brought in, and the strategem hatched to fake a GRU hack and attribute the
subsequent Wikileaks release to the Russian state.
This scenario makes sense only if the DNC was not initially informed that Seth Rich was the
source of the impending leak, presumably because he had not been legally unmasked at the time.
Otherwise, Seth would have been summarily fired.
The creators of the G2.0 farce were betting Hillary's campaign on it. Which means that the
real source of the leak would have to be silenced to prevent unmasking of their hoax. If the
perpetrators of the hoax subsequently learned that Seth was the source, eliminating him would
have been a high priority.
If someone has an alternative explanation of these facts, of equal or greater plausibility, I
would be pleased to read it.
Skip Scott
,
June 18, 2019 at 08:06
Norumbega and Mark-
Thank you for your comments. I have seen this "John" around here
before, and he always tries to make the case for Crowdstrike. I also notice that whenever
there is something he can't account for he goes silent, or just goes back to regurgitating
the same garbage.
One of the underlying themes of RussiaGate is that those evil Ruskies made Trump
president, and that he is somehow beholden to them. This is an obvious psy-op with the
purpose of distracting from the CONTENTS of the emails, which are mind blowing for their
exposure of the shameless duplicity of the Hillary campaign and the DNC. And of course the
secondary purpose is to prevent Trump from seeking detente with Russia. In my opinion, even
if the Russians were the source, we'd owe them a big THANK YOU.
I believe in freedom of speech, and I think I should be free to speak my mind to anyone on
any subject. I also believe that even the Russians have the same right. There is no way that
freedom of speech can subvert democracy. In fact, it is essential.
The MSM's job is to control the narrative, and the internet is giving them fits. Sites
like CN are a big thorn in their side. Thanks for being part of it. Your comments are
invaluable.
Mark F. McCarty
,
June 18, 2019 at 11:21
Many thanks Skip. You make a point that I've also raised.
As you can imagine, I've quite
a number of times been labeled a "Putin puppet" or "Russian troll" while trying to shed
some light on the Russiagate hoax on social media. My response is that, if in fact I were
in thrall to "the Russians", then I would be eager to give them CREDIT for doing the job
that our MSM failed to do, revealing the crass bias of the DNC against Bernie. But I only
give credit where credit is due! I suspect our thanks are due to poor Seth Rich.
As to all the "progressives" who are so enraged about the DNC/Podesta Wikileaks
releases, may they rot in Hell. The REAL reason that Trump was elected was not the
journalism of Wikileaks – revealing TRUTH that the public was entitled to – but to the
DNC's efforts to ram Hillary – the most blood-drenched woman in history, a mega-grifter
lacking in any intellectual integrity whatever, reviled by a high proportion of the
American public – down the throats of the Democratic Party and the American people
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8f568de5ac740a16f5812668b8c4be09?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8f568de5ac740a16f5812668b8c4be09?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
Norumbega
,
June 18, 2019 at 21:46
These are interesting speculations, worth thinking about.
Two quick thoughts:
Bruce Leidl and Larry Beech are working on the hypothesis that the people behind G-2
didn't actually know (or have) what was in WikiLeaks' possession, until just prior to July
14, when the FBI reported results of its examination of SR's computer.
About possible NSA involvement and possible use of "masked" records. I would consider what
we are now hearing regarding NSA database abuses by private FBI contractors, and their use in
"unmaskings" of US citizens. I have even read one claim that CrowdStrike was among those
private FBI contractors. The names are redacted in Judge Rosemary Collyer's April 26, 2017
FISA court opinion.
Skip Scott
,
June 20, 2019 at 05:47
I think this is a very important point, and explains motive for SR's murder, and for the
timing of the creation of the G-2 propaganda ploy. If Barr really does pursue all possible
leads, I think it will end up tying into SR's murder. However, I've seen this type of play
before, and I expect more theater and very little truth from Barr. I pray I'm wrong.
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
The first shift to using attachments that were later found in WikiLeaks' DNC emails
observed in Guccifer 2.0's releases came at the very end of June 2016.
A few days later
(July 6, 2016) he published a batch that was entirely DNC email attachments (including a
document that revealed it had been edited using LibreOffice 6 by someone with Eastern
timezone settings in effect). ;)
Source attribution and leak attachment correlation information is available at:
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2s-russian-breadcrumbs/
<img alt='' src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg' srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a0f545087d25ad6fe70115f62665de86?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg 2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
There were a bunch of out-of-context IOCs produced by CrowdStrike and when researching the malware
samples, we learned most of the APT28 malware was compiled while CrowdStrike were installing Falcon
at the DNC.
Putting questions that raises aside, the existence of the Marble framework shows us
that relying on code and malware samples for attribution alone isn't entirely reliable.
More significant than all the above, though, is that we saw no incident specific evidence
(evidence relating to email exfiltration events) or even had confirmation of the dates on which
exfiltration of the DNC's emails occurred and these are things that CS, with Falcon installed
across the network, should have recorded and been able to accurately report on.
The report lacked critical information regarding events and any observed/recorded malware
activity (not much beyond identifying presence/discovery and what the malware was theoretically
capable of).
Brian James
,
June 17, 2019 at 10:49
May 26, 2019 Trump Scares Swamp with Declassification Move
Ohr-Fusion GPS caught deleting emails;
and yet ANOTHER Clinton email cover-up .Latest Judicial Watch Update
So much for the so-called "rule of law". The government has been playing Calvinball for some time now.
Making up the rules as they went to make sure that they win and you lose.
Regardless what people might think about Russia, Vladimir Putin, WikiLeaks, Donald Trump, Roger Stone
or anyone else, it should be a major cause of concern that the FBI's "investigation" relied completely
on the incomplete findings of a private tech company contracted by the DNC.
Had anyone even heard of
CrowdStrike before Election 2016? It's absurd that some unknown IT company would be trusted to do
forensic analysis of an alleged crime of any sort, much less one that has been described as an "act of
war" by a "foreign adversary" and has sent the US political system into a perpetual state of crisis.
James Comey testified that "best practices" would have dictated that the FBI actually physically
access the computers. That's the understatement of the century. In fact I would call it gross
misconduct and malpractice for the FBI to outsource this responsibility to a private contractor paid
for by the DNC. It calls the entire premise of Russiagate into question and anyone who can't see that
is being willfully obtuse.
Thanks Ray McGovern for this report and keeping this fundamental issue in the spotlight.
worldblee
,
June 17, 2019 at 13:22
Like Bellingcat, the genius of CrowdStrike is that they can instantly confirm the results their
paymasters have requested. It's so much more efficient than, you know, actually investigating
evidence and following the information to an unbiased conclusion.
Noncomunist American Patriot
,
June 17, 2019 at 13:28
That doesn't change the fact that the Internet Research Agency (kept closely inline with Putin's
wishes) interfered with the election, to help Trump and hurt Clinton, as well as the fact that
Trumps campaign welcomed the help and had more secretive encounters with Russian agents than all
other campaigns combined.
I remember when the Republicans DIDN'T like Russian meddling, and deeply distrusted Russian
intentions. Yet less than a year after Russia HELPED Trump get elected – president Trump announces
his great new epiphany to put Russia incharge of American cyber security?
Come on, let's elect a president who promises to brown nose our greatest enemy and hand them all of
our greatest Intel!
Vote Trump/Putin for 2020!!
John A
,
June 17, 2019 at 14:11
You call yourself a noncomunist. What is a comunist?
AnneR
,
June 17, 2019 at 15:52
I think he/she cannot spell. But he/she clearly is Russophobic as well as being ahistorical,
not seeming to be aware that Russia is no longer communist, no longer the USSR. But in that
he/she hardly differs from the rest of the neo-liberal, Demrat/Republirat crowd.
Ruth the Truth
,
June 17, 2019 at 15:01
I don't see Russia as "our greatest enemy" and this Russia hysteria is a kind of resurgence of
neo-McCarthyism. I think "Russian meddling" was a very minor issue compared to problems that
exist within our own system. I'm more worried about voter suppression via "Cross Check",
gerrymandering, etc. I'm more worried about campaign financing, and the fact that our elections
are controlled by two political parties that apparently are under no obligation to hold fair and
open primary elections. I think the Russian threat has been exaggerated and it distracts us from
other issues with our election process. I couldn't find anything when I googled "Trump puts
Russia in charge of American cyber security" Can you tell me more about this?
AnneR
,
June 17, 2019 at 16:14
Absolutely, Ruth the Truth. And that's even assuming that Russia did meddle (Russia, of
course, seeming to "mean" the Kremlin always).
Yes, voter suppression, especially in the usual southern states is appallingly
undemocratic (even assuming that what exists in the western world is, in fact democracy,
which is questionable); gerrymandering, too.
And the corporate-capitalists together with two other nations, well, three, in fact: SA,
IS and the UK, have far too much sway, one way or another the former two via money the latter
via the cozy relationship between the secret services in our politics (and those of other
nations).
The money should be stripped away – no lobbying, no donations, none of that. Simply a
certain and small sum of money per candidate from the taxes and an electioneering period that
is short. And candidates picked by the people, *not* by the party insiders.
Your proof that the "IRA" interfered with the election in the Strumpet's favor?
Clearly you would seem to think that dearest Killary would have won but for the Russians –
never mind that she ignored the three crucial swing states that determined the Electoral College
outcome which in its turn decided which candidate won. The problem lies in both Killary's court
and in the existence of the Electoral College – a deliberate stumbling block, erected by those
much fawned over FFs to ensure that the great bewildered herd would *not* be the ones to decide,
ultimately, who won the presidency.
Your proof that Russia is "our greatest enemy"?
Oh – they're Russian and they won't allow us, god's gift to humanity, to plunder and pillage
their natural resources for our benefit not theirs. They want a multi-polar world in which every
nation state is sovereign and not at under the hegemonic boot of the Anglo-Americans. Of course,
they're our enemy, silly me for thinking that they have sensible people in their government and
we have bloodthirsty, hypocritical psychopaths who are all linked arm in arm with the
corporate-capitalist elites in ours.
And – talking about interfering in our election??? The sheer hypocrisy of menacing Russia
over something that this country has done on a regular basis to other nations is, well, bloody
mind-blowing.
@ "That doesn't change the fact that the Internet Research Agency (kept closely inline with
Putin's wishes) interfered with the election, to help Trump and hurt Clinton "
It was downhill from there. Mueller apparently assumed he would never have to prove his case
since the U.S. has no extradition treaty with Russia and the indictment charged only 13 Russians
and 3 Russian corporations. But surprise for him! One of the Russian corporations (Concord
Management and Consulting ("Concord") showed up in court and asked to plead not guilty. Mueller
immediately began backspinning, arguing that the court could not accept the plea because Concord
had not been served with the indictment. The Court had no difficulty shutting down that spurious
argument, properly ruling that it could attain jurisdiction over the defendant by accepting its
not guilty plea.
Then Mueller began trying to avoid providing mandatory discovery allegedly because of an
alleged threat to national security and because counsel for Concord might show the documents to
other defendants who had not been served (more likely because he could not prove his case). That
effort to deny discovery is still continuing. See e.g., government's June 12 motion.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580.24.0.pdf
Then it turned out that another of the charged corporations did not even exist. Mueller had
indicted the proverbial ham sandwich.
No one yet knows how that case will turn out, but I would certainly not bet that Mueller got
it right, particularly in a case he never thought he would have to prosecute.
@ "Come on, let's elect a president who promises to brown nose our greatest enemy and hand
them all of our greatest Intel!"
Has it ever occurred to you that Russia is only our "greatest enemy" because our government
has made it so? The fact that the Democratic Party has teamed with the Deep State and
military/industrial complex in a glaringly obvious propaganda campaign against Russia counsels
restraint and suspicion in regarding Russia as an enemy, unless, of course, you're an unwitting
target of the propaganda.
Or didn't you get the memo from Mueller about no collusion with the Russians?
Michael Keenan
,
June 17, 2019 at 19:30
Not to mention that those charged Russians showed up in court to the surprise of Mueller.
Matt
,
June 17, 2019 at 23:40
Yes, the IRA agency ran the Face Book Ads that did encourage Democrats to "stay home." But
this is not an election "hack," it is a very successful influence campaign. I find it
incredulous that Mueller failed to follow the money to the most obvious entity that purchased
the services of IRA in the first place- maybe the guy that bought the firm that created the
FB targeting algorithm . used to select very specifically the right voters in the right
states?
Cambridge Analytica Bannon Mercer
It might be uncomfortable to admit that American Oligarchs and their henchmen exerted the
lions share of election "influence."
David G
,
June 17, 2019 at 19:46
Indeed! When will the free peoples be rid of Putin and the plague of cute puppy pictures he
loosed on the poor, helpless U.S.?
In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't exactly the place for dimwits.
David Otness
,
June 17, 2019 at 19:50
So much of Comey's schtick is predicated on his Boy Scout image that he has cultivated in his many
years as an insider Beltway creature and the same goes for Mueller. At least insofar as Mueller can
pull off the choirboy effect with his own physical countenance.
As both are former Fibbie Directors (and significantly, buddies,) just think of what kind of dirt
they likely hold over so many D.C. pols in their toolkits. J. Edgar Hoover showed the way for his
successors and in incestuous D.C. its top sharks always win. Between them they likely have a
threatening wherewithal that many careerists in Foggy Bottom fear. And in that incestuous temple we
have Comey's brother employed as an attorney with the firm that's keeping financial score for
Clinton Inc -- a "charitable" swamp of its own that has broken virtually every rule on what
constitutes a legal U.S. non-profit.
It is patently absurd that an FBI Director would allow an
outside entity to substitute for the Bureau's criminal investigation authority and its unparalleled
means to attain "honest" and complete answers. If it were indeed 'justice' being sought.
Comey's time at the ultra-crooked HSBC bank must have yielded an interesting harvest of favors owed
as well, let alone his $ six million dollar salary for his one year working for Lockheed-Martin.
Both of these guys are cover-up artists, 'fixers' frequently in demand, and for good reason, so
the powerful can continue their systematic, multi-generational pillage of not only the U.S., but
the world as well.
I think this is one of the largest scandals ever in the history of the United States, along with
the Kennedy brothers' assassinations, and that of Martin Luther King. The knaves of both parties
with their asses hanging out are going all-out to keep the lid on it. Because what's at stake here
is the sanctity of the Empire's Matrix of Woo. Our perception of "exceptionalism" and all that
rah-rah jazz. For if the believers that glue this country together get wind of the magnitude of its
interior rot and far-advanced decline
A lot of people are doing anything and everything (inventing and exacerbating, inviting and
callously so) even potential nuclear destruction in a craven attempt to salvage their
dubious-already reputations and their place in their lifespan's pecking order. It's screw us and
screw the country; and while they're at it: screw the world too.
"And as the Conservative Treehouse notes: 'This means the FBI and DOJ, and all of the downstream
claims by the intelligence apparatus; including the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January
2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, all the way to the Weissmann/Mueller report and the continued
claims therein; were based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S. government and the U.S.
Department of Justice taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party .. despite their
inability to examine the server and/or actually see an unredacted technical forensic report from the
investigating contractor'."
And:
"Meanwhile, the Crowdstrike analyst who led forensics on the DNC servers is a former FBI employee
who Robert Mueller promoted while head of the agency. It should also be noted that the government of
Ukraine admonished Crowdstrike for a report they later retracted and amended, claiming that Russia
hacked Ukrainian military."
I am trying to figure out how Julian Assange could prove that it was not Russia without revealing
Wikileaks' source for the DNC emails. It is simple enough to prove that it was a leak instead of a
hack, but how do you prove the person wasn't a Russian agent without disclosing their identity?
If
they could prove that Guccifer 2's stuff was an intelligence agency "vault 7" ploy, it would lend a
lot of credibility to the real leak being a disgruntled DNC employee, probably Seth Rich.
Ron
,
June 17, 2019 at 10:33
Silly. It was Seth Rich who leaked -- the LATE Seth Rich, killed as he recovered from
Clinton/Podesta's assassin in an ICU unit that was invaded by a suspicious SWAT team. Craig Murray
has broadly hinted so; so has Kim Dotcom.
Skip Scott
,
June 17, 2019 at 11:44
I am not saying that I believe it was a Russian spy, I am asking how anyone would prove it
without divulging the actual leaker, which Wikileaks has claimed they will never do. How do you
prove a negative?
Norumbega
,
June 18, 2019 at 06:39
Skip: Julian Assange could provide evidence that WikiLeaks possessed the DNC emails it published
already early June 2016, i.e. by the time he announced that WikiLeaks would soon be publishing
leaked emails related to Hillary Clinton.
He could provide internal WikiLeaks communications documenting that work was being done to
review these materials for publication between early June and the July 22 release (and specifically
prior to their alleged transfer by G-2 on July 14).
These could be done even if the lawyers for Seth's brother Aaron Rich refuse to release Assange
from confidentiality obligations, as requested by Ed Butowski's attorney Ty Clevenger.
And, yes, exposure of the persons behind G-2 would certainly help, though I doubt WL will be the
one to do that. But people need to stop thinking of "Vault 7 ploys" in this connection, and look
instead at the actual work on G-2. My reasons are elaborated in a previous response to John A,
above.
Skip Scott
,
June 18, 2019 at 12:52
I understand that revealing the timing would undercut the G2 story, but without identifying the
source how could they prove that the leaker wasn't a Russian spy who infiltrated the DNC staff?
I haven't heard them try to sell that one yet, but they might try it when the G2 story and the
hacking story falls apart.
Norumbega
,
June 19, 2019 at 07:22
Comey has already testified that they "think" the "Russians" used a "cut-out". The Mueller
report admits in passing that emails (in that context the Podesta emails or the second batch
of DNC emails) may have been passed to WikiLeaks by an intermediary in the late summer of
2016. So some, at least may be contemplating such an allegation as a way out. Nevertheless,
further information that underlined the falsity of the official timeline would be
significant, I think.
Sally Snyder
,
June 17, 2019 at 07:44
As shown in this article, the entire anti-Russia narrative was built on a lie:
Here are, however, serious repercussions that are a result of this lie; the unintended consequence
of poorly executed foreign policy could be the potential end of the U.S. dollar as the world's
currency of choice in international trade as nations around the world attempt to minimize the impact
of Washington's sanctions.
"... In other words CrowdStrike, upon which the FBI relied to conclude that Russia hacked the DNC, never completed a final report and only turned over three redacted drafts to the government. ..."
"... In Stone's motion his lawyers argued: "If the Russian state did not hack the DNC, DCCC, or [Clinton campaign chairman John] Podesta's servers, then Roger Stone was prosecuted for obstructing a congressional investigation into an unproven Russian state hacking conspiracy The issue of whether or not the DNC was hacked is central to the Defendant's defense." ..."
"... Suspicions grew as Comey started referring to CrowdStrike as the "pros that they hired." Doubts became more intense when he referred to CrowdStrike as "a high-class entity." In fact the company had a tarnished reputation for reliability and objectivity well before it was hired by the DNC. ..."
"... Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder, is an opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank in Washington. CrowdStrike said it determined that Russia had hacked the DNC server because it found Cyrillic letters in the metadata, as well as the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief – clues an amateur might leave. ..."
"... But the software CrowdStrike used to blame Russia for hacking the DNC server was later revealed to be so faulty it had to be rewritten . ..."
"... VIPS does not believe the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a preemptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... Why did FBI Director James Comey not simply insist on access to the DNC computers? Surely he could have gotten the appropriate authorization. In early January 2017, reacting to media reports that the FBI never asked for access, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the DNC servers. "Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw," he said. Comey described CrowdStrike as a "highly respected" cybersecurity company. ..."
"... More telling was earlier questioning by House Intelligence Committee member, Rep. Will Hurd (R-TX), who had been a CIA officer for a decade. On March 20, 2017 while he was still FBI director, Comey evidenced some considerable discomfort as he tried to explain to the committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the DNC computers and do its own forensics: ..."
"... On March 31, 2017 WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point from what it called "Vault 7" – a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files. This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving so-called telltale signs – like Cyrillic, for example. ..."
"... The CIA documents also showed that the "Marble" tool had been employed in 2016. ..."
"... As Russia-gate transmogrifies into Deep State-gate, the DOJ is launching a probe into the origins of Russia-gate and the intelligence agencies alleged role in it. It remains to be seen whether US Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham, who is leading the probe, will interview Assange, unlike Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who did not. ..."
The
revelation came in a
court filing by the government in the pretrial phase of Roger Stone, a longtime Republican
operative who had an unofficial role in the campaign of candidate Donald Trump. Stone has been
charged with misleading Congress, obstructing justice and intimidating a witness.
The filing was in response to a motion by Stone's lawyers asking for "unredacted reports"
from CrowdStrike in an effort to get the government to prove that Russia hacked the DNC server.
"The government does not possess the information the defendant seeks," the filing says.
In his motion, Stone's lawyers said he had only been given three redacted drafts. In a
startling footnote in the government's response, the DOJ admits the drafts are all that exist.
"Although the reports produced to the defendant are marked 'draft,' counsel for the DNC and
DCCC informed the government that they are the last version of the report produced," the
footnote says.
In other words CrowdStrike, upon which the FBI relied to conclude that Russia hacked the
DNC, never completed a final report and only turned over three redacted drafts to the
government.
These drafts were "voluntarily" given to the FBI by DNC lawyers, the filing says. "No
redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors," the filing
quotes DNC lawyers as saying.
In Stone's motion his lawyers argued: "If the Russian state did not hack the DNC, DCCC,
or [Clinton campaign chairman John] Podesta's servers, then Roger Stone was prosecuted for
obstructing a congressional investigation into an unproven Russian state hacking conspiracy The
issue of whether or not the DNC was hacked is central to the Defendant's defense."
The DOJ responded: "The government does not need to prove at the defendant's trial that the
Russians hacked the DNC in order to prove the defendant made false statements, tampered with a
witness, and obstructed justice into a congressional investigation regarding election
interference."
Thousands of emails from the DNC server were published by WikiLeaks in July 2016
revealing that the DNC interfered in the Democratic primary process to favor former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton over Senator Bernie Sanders for the party's presidential nomination.
The U.S. indicted 12 Russian military intelligence agents in 2018 for allegedly hacking the DNC
server and giving the emails to WikiLeaks.
Comey Can't Say Why
At a time of high tension in the 2016 presidential campaign, when the late Sen. John McCain
and others were calling Russian "hacking" an "act of war," the FBI settled for three redacted
"draft reports" from CrowdStrike rather than investigate the alleged hacking itself, the court
document shows.
Then FBI Director James Comey admitted in congressional testimony that he chose not to take
control of the DNC's "hacked" computers, and did not dispatch FBI computer experts to inspect
them, but has had trouble explaining why.
In his testimony, he conceded that "best practices" would have dictated that forensic
experts gain physical access to the computers. Nevertheless, the FBI decided to rely on
forensics performed by a firm being paid for by the DNC.
Suspicions grew as Comey started referring to CrowdStrike as the "pros that they hired."
Doubts became more intense when he referred to CrowdStrike as "a high-class entity." In fact
the company had a tarnished reputation for reliability and objectivity well before it was hired
by the DNC.
Dimitri Alperovitch, a CrowdStrike co-founder, is an opponent of Russian President
Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the anti-Russian Atlantic Council think tank in
Washington. CrowdStrike said it determined that Russia had hacked the DNC server because it
found Cyrillic letters in the metadata, as well as the name of the first Soviet intelligence
chief – clues an amateur might leave.
But the software CrowdStrike used to blame Russia for hacking the DNC server was later
revealed to be so faulty it had to be rewritten
.
CrowdStrike's Early Role
In a Memorandum for the President on July 24, 2017, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity referred
prominently to this instructive time sequence:
June 12, 2016: Julian Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish 'emails related
to Hillary Clinton.'
June 14, 2016: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, (with a dubious professional record and
multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and
claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
June 15, 2016: 'Guccifer 2.0' affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the
'hack;' claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was
synthetically tainted with 'Russian fingerprints.'
VIPS does not believe the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it
suggests the start of a preemptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks
might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.
Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed an affidavit in
Stone's case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from the Russian government.
Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks demonstrates that the files
acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb drive."
Preferring CrowdStrike; ' Splaining to Congress
Why did FBI Director James Comey not simply insist on access to the DNC computers?
Surely he could have gotten the appropriate authorization. In early January 2017, reacting to
media reports that the FBI never asked for access, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee
there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the DNC servers. "Ultimately
what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw," he said. Comey
described
CrowdStrike as a "highly respected" cybersecurity company.
Asked by committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) whether direct access to the servers and
devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation, Comey said it would have. "Our
forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that's
involved, so it's the best evidence," he said.
Five months later, after Comey had been fired, Burr gave him a Mulligan in the form of a few
kid-gloves, clearly well-rehearsed, questions:
BURR: And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate
– did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to
rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?
COMEY: In the case of the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We
got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done
the work. But we didn't get direct access.
BURR: But no content?
COMEY: Correct.
BURR: Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence
standpoint?
COMEY: It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who
were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that
they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.
More telling was earlier questioning by House Intelligence Committee member, Rep. Will Hurd
(R-TX), who had been a CIA officer for a decade. On March 20, 2017 while he was still FBI
director, Comey evidenced some considerable discomfort as he tried to explain to the committee
why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the DNC computers and do its own
forensics:
HURD: So there was about a year between the FBI's first notification of some
potential problems with the DNC network and then that information getting on – getting on
WikiLeaks.
COMEY: Yes, sir.
HURD: when did the DNC provide access for – to the FBI for your technical folks
to review what happened?
COMEY: Well we never got direct access to the machines themselves. The DNC in the
spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of
the system.
HURD: So, Director FBI notified the DNC early, before any information was put on
WikiLeaks and when – you have still been – never been given access to any of
the technical or the physical machines that were – that were hacked by the Russians.
COMEY: That's correct although we got the forensics from the pros that they hired
which – again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this
– my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute.
Comey Spikes Deal With Assange
Director Comey's March 20, 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee came at the
same time he was scuttling
months-long negotiations between Assange and lawyers representing the DOJ and CIA to grant some
limited immunity for the WikiLeaks founder. In return, Assange offered to: (1) redact
"some classified CIA information he might release in the future," and (2) "provide technical
evidence and discussion regarding who did not engage in the DNC releases."
Investigative journalist John Solomon, quoting WikiLeaks ' intermediary with the
government, broke this story, based on "interviews and a trove of internal DOJ documents turned
over to Senate investigators. It would be a safe assumption that Assange was offering to prove
that Russia was not WikiLeaks ' source of the DNC emails, something Assange has
repeatedly said.
That, of course, would have been the last thing Comey would have wanted.
On March 31, 2017 WikiLeaks released the most damaging disclosure up to that point
from what it called "Vault 7" – a treasure trove of CIA cybertools leaked from CIA files.
This disclosure featured the tool "Marble Framework," which enabled the CIA to hack into
computers, disguise who hacked in, and falsely attribute the hack to someone else by leaving
so-called telltale signs – like Cyrillic, for example.
The CIA documents also showed that the "Marble" tool had been employed in 2016.
Two weeks later, then CIA Director Mike Pompeo branded WikiLeaks a "non-state hostile
intelligence service," and the U.S. put pressure on Ecuador, which had given Assange asylum, to
expel him from its London embassy. He was on April 11 when British police arrested him. On the
same day he was convicted of skipping bail on a Swedish investigation that had since been
dropped. Assange was sentenced to 50 weeks in London's max-security Belmarsh prison.
Comey, it seems a safe bet, still worries that Assange or one of his associates, will
provide "technical evidence" enough to prove "who did not engage in the DNC releases."
What Were They Thinking?
At the March 20, 2017 House Intelligence Committee hearing, Congressman Trey Gowdy heaped
effusive praise on then-FBI Director Comey, calling him "incredibly respected." At that early
stage, no doubt Gowdy meant no double entendre . He might now.
As Russia-gate transmogrifies into Deep State-gate, the DOJ is launching a
probe into the origins of Russia-gate and the intelligence agencies alleged role in it. It
remains to be seen whether US Attorney for the District of Connecticut John Durham, who is
leading the probe, will interview Assange, unlike Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who did
not.
It is proving very difficult for some of my old FBI friends and others to believe that Comey
and other justice, intelligence, and security officials at the very top could have played fast
and loose with the Constitution and the law and lived a lie over the past few years.
"How did they ever think they could get away with it?" they ask. The answer is deceivingly
simple. Comey himself has explained it in a moment of seemingly unintentional candor in his
pretentious book, "A Higher Loyalty." He wrote, "I was making decisions in an environment where
Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president."
There would be no problem, of course, if Mrs. Clinton had won the election. That's what they
all thought; and that probably explains their lack of care in keeping their activities off the
written record and out of computers. Elementary tradecraft goes out the window with these
upper-echelon, "high-class-entity" officials, when they are sure that she, and they, are going
to be the inevitable winners – with promotions, not indictments in store for them.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as Chief
of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily Brief. He is
co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This originally appeared at
Consortium News .
Author: Ray McGovern
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. In the Sixties he served as an infantry/intelligence officer
and then became a CIA analyst for the next 27 years. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). View all posts by Ray McGovern
It's been known for some time that the US Government based its conclusion that Russia hacked the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) on a report by cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, which the DNC
paid
over a
million dollars
to conduct forensic analysis and other work on servers they
refused to hand over
to
the FBI.
CrowdStrike's report made its way into a joint FBI/DHS report on an Russia's "
Grizzly
Steppe
", which concluded Russia hacked the DNC's servers. At the time, Crowdstrike's claim drew
much scrutiny from
cybersecurity experts
according to former
Breitbart
reporter Lee Stranahan.
Now, thanks to a new court filing by longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone requesting the full
Crowdstrike analysis,
we find out that
the US government was given a redacted version of the
report marked "Draft,
"
as reported by the
Conservative
Treehouse
.
What makes the whole thing even more hokey is a footnote admitting that "counsel for the DNC and
DCCC informed the government that
they are the last version of the report produced.
"
So to be clear -
the entire narrative that Russia hacked the DNC is based on a redacted
draft of a report which Crowdstrike appears not to have even finalized.
And as the
Conservative
Treehouse
notes: "This means the
FBI and DOJ, and all of the downstream claims
by the intelligence apparatus; including the December 2016 Joint Analysis Report and January 2017
Intelligence Community Assessment, all the way to the Weissmann/Mueller report and the continued
claims therein;
were based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S. government and
the U.S. Department of Justice taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party
..
despite their inability to examine the server and/or actually see an unredacted technical forensic
report from the investigating contractor."
The entire apparatus of the U.S. government just took their word for it
and used the claim therein as an official position .
which led to a subsequent government claim, in court, of absolute certainty that Russia
hacked the DNC.
Meanwhile,
the Crowdstrike analyst who led forensics on the DNC servers
is a
former FBI employee
who Robert Mueller promoted
while head of the agency. It should also be noted that
the
government of Ukraine admonished Crowdstrike for a report they later
retracted
and amended
, claiming that Russia hacked Ukrainian military.
Comments
Sign in to comment
filter_list
Viewing
Options
arrow_drop_down
Remember that one time Hillary Clinton said on national television
during a presidential debate that Russia needed to be held
accountable for this? That 17 intelligence agreed they did it. And
that we should take action to provoke a nuclear power. On TV.
All because we got to see how corrupt the DNC nomination process
is.
its a very simple scheme. its what any child would do hide that
they cheated and get out of trouble:
1) stop trumpo
2) fabricate the foreign meddling narrative to implicate trump
as LONG as possible, so long it makes people sick to hear
foreign meddling, even though it was the DNC that actually paid
british people to fabricate compromat.
3) blame russia for everything
Anyone remember that very brief news story about a California
Senator returning from London with "bombshell" information that he
had to get to the POTUS immediately? I waited to see if anything
would ever come of that. Instead . . .
If it says Factual Background, it must be true. We are dealing
with super trustworthy folks here, remember. How many more
"factual reports" will we see that don't mention Seth Rich? The
murderers are still running free.
The bureaucracy owns the media, courts, and academia so naturally
they can shape the law to meet their personal needs. The average
taxpayer is just a tool to allow the bureaucrats to consolidate
and maintain their ownership of everyone and everything.
Trump enjoys drama and treats this entire treasonous coup as a
television drama.
The issue is that ordinary American citizens
are sick and tired of the powerful and wealthy having two sets of
rules, theirs and those for everyone else.
I stopped watching television except for local sports and NHL.
I rarely look at ZH anymore.
Never watch Fox anymore
Would not consider any paper
My point is that the people who once were concerned, are losing
interest.
Those who treat politics as religion will continue to treat
those who disagree as criminals and cast offs.
What used to be a great country that a availed opportunity to
all who tried, is now a kleptocracy and a club for leftist
religious fanatics.
I don't think states can arbitrarily decide to ignore the
electoral college if they want to. Something tells me federal
law governs national elections and they can whine and cry and
act like triggered embiciles all they want but it doesn't
change the law.
It would end up going to SCOTUS. Lets hope that Trump gets
the honor of replacing that treasonous bitch with a real
constitutional judge. Lets keep hope alive!
Whatever we blame Russia for doing, we are in fact doing.
For
example, we blame them for hacking our electrical grid. No proof
was given, yet this morning we have evidence we have been messing
and hacking Russia's electrical grid.
We blame them for interfering in our elections, when in fact we
have been interfering in the world's elections and sovereign
governments.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Agent Smith, you testified that the Russians
hacked the DNC computers, is that correct?
FBI AGENT JOHN SMITH:
That is correct.
DEF ATT: Upon what information did you base your testimony?
AGENT: Information found in reports analyzing the breach of the
computers.
DEF ATT: So, the FBI prepared these reports?
AGENT: (cough) . (shift in seat) No, a cyber security
contractor with the FBI.
DEF ATT: Pardon me, why would a contractor be preparing these
reports? Do these contractors run the FBI laboratories where the
server was examined?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: No? No what? These contractors don't run the FBI
Laboratries?
AGENT: No. The laboratories are staffed by FBI personnel.
DEF ATT: Well I don't understand. Why would contractors be
writing reports about computers that are forensically examined in
FBI laboratories?
AGENT: Well, the servers were not examined in the FBI
laboratory.
(silence)
DEF ATT: Oh, so the FBI examined the servers on site to
determine who had hacked them and what was taken?
AGENT: Uh .. no.
DEF ATT: They didn't examine them on site?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Well, where did they examine them?
AGENT: Well, uh .. the FBI did not examine them.
DEF ATT: What?
AGENT: The FBI did not directly examine the servers.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, the FBI has presented to the Grand Jury
and to this court and SWORN AS FACT that the Russians hacked the
DNC computers. You are basing your SWORN testimony on a report
given to you by a contractor, while the FBI has NEVER actually
examined the computer hardware?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, who prepared the analysis reports that
the FBI relied on to give this sworn testimony?
AGENT: Crowdstrike, Inc.
DEF ATT: So, which Crowdstrike employee gave you the report?
AGENT: We didn't receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: What?
AGENT: We did not receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: Well, where did you find this report?
AGENT: It was given to us by the people who hired Crowdstrike
to examine and secure their computer network and hardware.
DEF ATT: Oh, so the report was given to you by the technical
employees for the company that hired Crowdstrike to examine their
servers?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Well, who gave you the report?
AGENT: Legal counsel for the company that hired Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: Why would legal counsel be the ones giving you the
report?
AGENT: I don't know.
DEF ATT: Well, what company hired Crowdstrike?
AGENT: The Democratic National Committee.
DEF ATT: Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You are
giving SWORN testimony to this court that Russia hacked the
servers of the Democratic National Committee. And you are basing
that testimony on a report given to you by the LAWYERS for the
Democratic National Committee. And you, the FBI, never actually
saw or examined the computer servers?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Well, can you provide a copy of the technical report
produced by Crowdstrike for the Democratic National Committee?
AGENT: No, I cannot.
DEF ATT: Well, can you go back to your office and get a copy of
the report?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why? Are you locked out of your office?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: I don't understand. Why can you not provide a copy of
this report?
AGENT: Because I do not have a copy of the report.
DEF ATT: Did you lose it?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why do you not have a copy of the report?
AGENT: Because we were never given a final copy of the report.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, if you didn't get a copy of the report,
upon what information are you basing your testimony?
AGENT: On a draft copy of the report.
DEF ATT: A draft copy?
AGENT: Yes.
DEF ATT: Was a final report ever delivered to the FBI?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, did you get to read the entire report?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why not?
AGENT: Because large portions were redacted.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, let me get this straight. The FBI is
claiming that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. But the FBI
never actually saw the computer hardware, nor examined it? Is that
correct?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: And the FBI never actually examined the log files or
computer email or any aspect of the data from the servers? Is that
correct?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: And you are basing your testimony on the word of
Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, the people who
provided you with a REDACTED copy of a DRAFT report, not on the
actual technical personnel who supposedly examined the servers?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Your honor, I have a few motions I would like to make
at this time.
PRESIDING JUDGE: I'm sure you do, Counselor. (as he turns
toward the prosecutors) And I feel like I am in a mood to grant
them.
Brilliant! that sums it up nicely. of course, if the servers
were not hacked and were instead "thumbnailed" that leads to a
whole pile of other questions (including asking wiileaks for
their source and about the murder of seth rich).
Lying demon-rats........liars liars liars.........just like cnn,
and their affiliates...nbc, cbs abc msnbc...........all weaponized
propaganda outlets........should lose fcc licenses and HANG THEIR
LYING COLLUDING ANCHORS....hang 'em high........liars
As the ring of known Russiagate conspirators gets narrower and
narrower, this anti-russian (which also happens to be
anti-american and anti-world) clique's collective characteristics
and traits are getting easier and easier to discern and quantify
because their contours - previously carefully concealed by
multiple layers of opaque veils and drapes - are now fully
visible.
These people are all (A) privileged elites and dynastic social
castes (B) share, more or less, the same social and divine
cosmology (no, not Buddhist) (C) do not recognize ethics and
morals as having any meaning or significance except on a purely
nominal and declarative level, which - of course - applies to
others,
but not to themselves
(D) firmly believe in
survival of the fittest, law of the jungle and might-makes-right
(E) are all members of the secret frats (F) performed important
state functions and aspire to perform some more because, after
all, greed is good and so is unlimited ambition (they also seem to
enjoy very much their hard-earned social status and
prominence) (G) belong to the same "liberal interventionist" war
club (H) believe in Keynesian economics, but - absurdly, and in
the same breath - in Ayn Rand's right-wing ideological nonsense,
depending on what suits them the best at any given moment, (I)
typically have background in banking or finance, corporate
management or government lobbying (J) prefer to remain anonymous
at any cost (K) have a very fluid and elastic perception of human
sexuality and libidinal urges (L) Own Panama-or Cayman Islands-
chartered tax havens (M) do not mingle with the non-elites or
unwashed masses (N) firmly believe in their divine chosenness and
messianic role (O) show pronounced, sustained propensity to
Groupthink and consistent absence of any creative and constructive
thought; (P) are always "centrists", "middle of the road" and
"bipartisan" and never tend to stick out in any social milieu,
preferring instead to dictate from the opaque deep end, (Q)
maintain extremely high fake media visibility (R) do not believe
in forgiveness, penitence or remorse - only in never-ending,
bloody revenge.
This profile of humans
cannot
be properly
socialized or resocialized, because the social ethos that created
them made amply sure that they cannot be adjusted, bettered,
improved or otherwise socially tweaked at any point in their
lives: in essence, their characters and personalities are cast in
stone, cemented unto all eternity and permanently immutable.. The
best that we, the normal people, can do is kindly and gently
quarantine them to a place where they can't inflict any
significant damage and prevent them from rising to the top, which
may turn out to be very different because they control (and have
every intention of controlling in the future) every road that
leads to the top.
The entirety of the USA government, including the intel agencies,
the judiciary, state dept, justice dept, congress, and the growing
bureaucracy has been hijacked by a treacherous tribe of people,
intent on destroying the nation from within.
Punish the tyrants and look at that well organized
community...........if you don't think leggo-obummer didn't
have a huge hand in this, you are very mis-informed.
just remember that, aside from the weaponization of federal
agencies for political purposes by obama, biden and clinton (which
merits waterboarding in guantanamo) - there are hundreds if not
thousands of INNOCENTS who have been prosecuted and GUILTY still
walking the streets.
the prosecution of the innocent and the
releaseof the guilty may have been going on for decades, but, but
now, it should be apparet, that in true KGB style, it ballooned to
extreme proportions under Obama/Biden and Clinton.
and this is what the howler moneys in the clown car want to
inflict on the US in 2020. after all, it's their turn right?
"....based on the official intelligence agencies of the U.S.
government and the U.S. Department of Justice taking the word of a
hired contractor for the Democrat party"
Hey, when you (the
FBI, the entire executive branch) are partisan Never Trumpers and
it's your party what else should we expect? After all, gotta
concoct all the propaganda possible under the guise of an
"objective" investigation for that "insurance policy."
Easy. Apply responsibilities that are commensurate with their
constitutional right to publish. It's been three years of
******** and unsourced stories.
At a minimum, when a
confidential source provides information that is demonstrated
to be false, then that reporter is legally bound to identify
them. Fuckers should be in jail.
Look at Assange. He publishes truth, and he's in jail.
Tapper/Seltzer/et. al. are millionaire celebrities.
"... Surprisingly, Crowdstrike's CEO – George Kurtz – does not have a background in the national intelligence services, or none that is immediately apparent. He seems to have worked mostly in private security, having gotten into it fairly early on, and is an accountant by trade; he seems to be the public face of the firm, and to be mostly involved in marketing. ..."
"... However, their president of services, Shawn Henry, is a former executive assistant director of the FBI, and I imagine its employees include quite a few former government spooks and ideologues. ..."
"... The other co-founder, though, is Dmitry Alperovitch. ..."
"... He's a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank, a direct adviser to the US Department of Defense, connected to Hillary Clinton and runs a new corporation whose startup cash came from Google. There's something even bigger than Google – corporations now seem more and more to be merging into what are essentially mini-states within the state itself – and it is called Alphabet Capital, Google's parent company. The Chairman of Alphabet Capital is Eric Schmidt, and he was actively working for Hillary Clinton during the last election when she spectacularly failed to make the cut. ..."
"... Google, allegedly, is becoming more and more an arm of the Democratic Party in the USA. ..."
"... Wheels within wheels, and connections seen and unseen. Several security professionals and software developers have alluded to Crowdstrike's reports on international hacking as being full of shit – but the American enforcement and intelligence services seem content to outsource their cyber work more or less exclusively to Crowdstrike. And the results of its IPO suggest high confidence on the part of investors that it is going to become ever-more-closely allied to the US government, font of government grants and funding which can be hard to trace. ..."
"... For what it's worth, the Crowdstrike story that Russian cyber-meddling had knocked out 80% of Ukrainian artillery systems was deemed bogus by several other sources, including the Ukrainian Army. At its most basic, artillery systems are large ballistic rifles that drop artillery shells on a predetermined position by looking the reference up on a gridded map and inputting corrections for elevation and azimuth; there is nothing computer-connected about them. Somewhere near the nearest elevated position in relation to the target there is a spotter, who notes the fall of shot and calls the corrections; "left two, up fifty", or "in line, on for range; fire for effect". The latter would be followed by a barrage on what the spotter had identified as a direct hit by the spotting rounds. ..."
Well, well; look at that. Our old acquaintance Crowdstrike has gone public, and in its IPO
debut, the stock surged to a market cap of over $12 Billion – worth nearly as much as
Symantec, which has been around for nearly 40 years. Up 83% in a single day. Gee; I wonder
who's buying in? I guess we can look forward to more whispering about Russian cybercrime and
internet invasion in the days to come. Stealing elections, even, maybe, hmmm?
Surprisingly, Crowdstrike's CEO – George Kurtz – does not have a background in
the national intelligence services, or none that is immediately apparent. He seems to have
worked mostly in private security, having gotten into it fairly early on, and is an
accountant by trade; he seems to be the public face of the firm, and to be mostly involved in
marketing.
However, their president of services, Shawn Henry, is a former executive assistant
director of the FBI, and I imagine its employees include quite a few former government spooks
and ideologues.
He's a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank, a direct adviser to the US
Department of Defense, connected to Hillary Clinton and runs a new corporation whose startup
cash came from Google. There's something even bigger than Google – corporations now
seem more and more to be merging into what are essentially mini-states within the state
itself – and it is called Alphabet Capital, Google's parent company. The Chairman of
Alphabet Capital is Eric Schmidt, and he was actively working for Hillary Clinton during the
last election when she spectacularly failed to make the cut.
Google, allegedly, is becoming more and more an arm of the Democratic Party in the
USA.
There is also another gap in play: The shrinking distance between Google and the
Democratic Party. Former Google executive Stephanie Hannon is the Clinton campaign's chief
technology officer, and a host of ex-Googlers are currently employed as high-ranking
technical staff at the Obama White House. Schmidt, for his part, is one of the most powerful
donors in the Democratic Party -- and his influence does not stem only from his wealth,
estimated by Forbes at more than $10 billion.
Wheels within wheels, and connections seen and unseen. Several security professionals and
software developers have alluded to Crowdstrike's reports on international hacking as being
full of shit – but the American enforcement and intelligence services seem content to
outsource their cyber work more or less exclusively to Crowdstrike. And the results of its
IPO suggest high confidence on the part of investors that it is going to become
ever-more-closely allied to the US government, font of government grants and funding which
can be hard to trace.
For what it's worth, the Crowdstrike story that Russian cyber-meddling had knocked out 80%
of Ukrainian artillery systems was deemed bogus by several other sources, including the
Ukrainian Army. At its most basic, artillery systems are large ballistic rifles that drop
artillery shells on a predetermined position by looking the reference up on a gridded map and
inputting corrections for elevation and azimuth; there is nothing computer-connected about
them. Somewhere near the nearest elevated position in relation to the target there is a
spotter, who notes the fall of shot and calls the corrections; "left two, up fifty", or "in
line, on for range; fire for effect". The latter would be followed by a barrage on what the
spotter had identified as a direct hit by the spotting rounds.
and mention of Kaspersky reminded me the US government had used 'advice' from its security
experts to determine Kaspersky products constituted a threat to US national security just
like Huawei, a connection I have not seen made yet elsewhere.
Mmmm .I wonder if Crowdstrike
is not being set up specifically to provide the US government with substantiation for banning
technical products which have the potential to achieve dominant market share, but cannot be
manipulated by Washington because they are owned by non-aligned countries?
"... Let's start with this very reasonable supposition: Guccifer 2.0 is an entity operating within US time zones who has gone out of his way to pose as a Russian hacker who was the source for the Wikileaks DNC/Podesta releases. ..."
"... villain du jour ..."
"... The subsequent mysterious death of Shawn Lucas by a weird drug cocktail might also be related. Shawn had been the process server for the class-action lawsuit against the DNC. According to Sy Hersh's FBI source, Seth indicated that he had allies who were aware of the drop box he was providing Wikileaks. It would have been necessary to eliminate these allies. Was Shawn one of these allies, and did the creator of G2.0 know this? Shawn, who was not known to be a drug user, died suddenly about a month after Seth. ..."
"... So who created G2.0? G2.0 appears to have worked in coordination with Crowdstrike. One day after Crowdstrike announced that the DNC had been hacked (with Russia the chief suspect) and that the hackers had grabbed a file of Trump Opposition Research, G2.0 makes his first public appearance, claiming to be the hacker, posting Trump Opposition Research -- and purposely leaving "Russian fingerprints" on the meta-data of his release. ..."
"... Crowdstrike was also in a position to concoct the "Russian hack" that they claimed to be investigating. Cyberanalysts have determined that two-thirds of the allegedly "Russian malware" which Crowdstrike "found" on the DNC servers had in fact been compiled subsequent to the date that Crowdstrike was brought in to investigate the "hack". In other words, there is reason to believe that Crowdstrike itself concocted this "hack" -- likely because they had been warned that Wikileaks was going to release leaked DNC emails. ..."
"... Also notable is the fact that Shawn Henry, co-founder of Crowdstrike, is a master of cyberfuckery. Prior to founding Crowdstrike, Henry served under Robert Mueller as head of FBI counterintelligence -- in which capacity he engaged in efforts to entrap and discredit Julian Assange. Indeed, others have suspected that Henry was behind G2.0, in light of the fact that G2.0's behavior was reminiscent of that of "Sabu" (Hector Monsignor), a hacker who, after secretly being arrested by the FBI during Henry's tenure there, worked under FBI direction to entrap other hackers. And the G2.0 hoax is clearly another - so far, highly successful - attempt to smear Assange. ..."
"... @The Voice In the Wilderness ..."
"... After the Popodouplous interview by Mark Steyn, there was clarity after following Russiagate since it really started before the election of 2016. The deep state actors were trying to setup some significant figure in the Trump as having ties with the Russian government. ..."
"... The irony is that we have McCarthyism once again and not one Russian is guilty of what they are being accused of. They were set up as the fall guys, and of course in the future nuclear war. ..."
Let's start with this very reasonable supposition: Guccifer 2.0 is an entity operating
within US time zones who has gone out of his way to pose as a Russian hacker who was the source
for the Wikileaks DNC/Podesta releases. The notion that this absurdly preening entity is a
GRU hacker is idiotic.
The Mueller report's tale of how G2.0 allegedly transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks is
absurd on its face -- which is to say, Mueller is acting as an accomplice to G2.0 in his
fraud.
The evident purpose of the G2.0 fraud was to detract attention from the incriminating
content of the DNC/Podesta releases, by blaming those releases on Russian government hackers
operating in cahoots with Julian Assange. This accomplishes 3 goals dear to the hearts of the
Deep State actors behind G2.0: minimizing the damage to Hillary's campaign inflicted by the
released emails; smearing the reputation of Assange, who has made an unparalleled contribution
to unmasking the egregious crimes of the Western Deep State; and further defaming "the
Russians", the villain du jour which our
Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think Tank* complex needs to
justify the continuing rape of American taxpayers on behalf of our grotesque overspending on
military hardware and our bloated global military empire.
But what was the evident fly-in-the-ointment for this brilliantly diabolic plan? The ACTUAL
source of the Wikileaks releases could have blown it sky high. And if G2.0 and the Russian
hacking tale had been unmasked prior to the election, the blowback on Hillary's campaign would
have been enormous. Which is why the creators of G2.0 needed to eliminate the source.
There are a number of reasons to suspect that Seth Rich was the source, or a confederate of
the source:
Hints dropped by Assange;
Award for info on Seth's killer offered by Wikileaks;
Wikileaks re-tweeting essays speculating that Seth was the leaker;
Craig Murray's repeated assurances that DNC/Podesta releases resulted from leaks, not
hacks;
Kim Dotcom's claim that he helped Seth with the leak;
Sy Hersh's secretly recorded phone call in which he stated that a trusted source within the
FBI claims to have seen an FBI memo describing an FBI analysis of Seth's laptop -- this
revealed that Seth had offered to sell DNC emails to Wikileaks, and subsequently conveyed the
docs to Wikileaks via drop box;
Claims by Ed Butowsky, Larry Johnson, and Bill Binney indicating that they have sources
inside the intel community verifying that Seth was the leaker -- in conjunction with brother
Aaron;
Jared Beck's claim that both Seth and Shawn Lucas were planning to testify in the
class-action lawsuit against the DNC -- speaks to Seth's possible motive for leaking;
Claim by Rod Wheeler that, according to a source inside the DC police, the police have been
ordered to "stand down" on the Seth Rich investigation;
Frenzied reaction of Donna Brazile on learning that Wheeler was investigating the Seth Rich
murder - and her overt lie regarding her whereabouts on the morning of the murder.
Some have speculated that, in line with an email by John Podesta, Seth was murdered "to make
an example of him". I reject this explanation. They could have made an example by firing him
and suing him. As it stands, no example was made, as the DNC claims that Russians, not Seth,
were responsible for the Wikileaks DNC releases.
If the puppetmaster of G2.0 knew or believed that Seth was the leaker, Seth had to be
murdered to insure success of the G2.0 hoax.
(The alternative is that G2.0 did not know that, and that Seth was beaten up and murdered in
a robbery so "botched" that no valuables were taken. Yeah, right!)
The subsequent mysterious death of Shawn Lucas by a weird drug cocktail might also be
related. Shawn had been the process server for the class-action lawsuit against the DNC.
According to Sy Hersh's FBI source, Seth indicated that he had allies who were aware of the
drop box he was providing Wikileaks. It would have been necessary to eliminate these allies.
Was Shawn one of these allies, and did the creator of G2.0 know this? Shawn, who was not known
to be a drug user, died suddenly about a month after Seth.
Curiously, the day after Seth died, and again the day after Shawn died, the DNC made
payments of about $100K to Crowdstrike. Sheer coincidence? Maybe.
So who created G2.0? G2.0 appears to have worked in coordination with Crowdstrike. One
day after Crowdstrike announced that the DNC had been hacked (with Russia the chief suspect)
and that the hackers had grabbed a file of Trump Opposition Research, G2.0 makes his first
public appearance, claiming to be the hacker, posting Trump Opposition Research -- and
purposely leaving "Russian fingerprints" on the meta-data of his release. Unfortunately,
this little dog-and-pony show turned out to be a screw-up, as it was subsequently revealed that
(by the DNC itself!) that the Opposition Research document had been an attachment in Podesta's
emails, and hadn't been hacked from the DNC. It is also notable that releasing Trump Opposition
Research would do nothing to damage the chances of Hillary -- the alleged intent of the
mythical Russian hackers. Indeed, nothing that G2.0 subsequently released was notably harmful
to Hillary.
Crowdstrike was also in a position to concoct the "Russian hack" that they claimed to be
investigating. Cyberanalysts have determined that two-thirds of the allegedly "Russian malware"
which Crowdstrike "found" on the DNC servers had in fact been compiled subsequent to the date
that Crowdstrike was brought in to investigate the "hack". In other words, there is reason to
believe that Crowdstrike itself concocted this "hack" -- likely because they had been warned
that Wikileaks was going to release leaked DNC emails.
It bears repeating that the latest dated DNC email which Wikileaks published was written on
April 25th -- several weeks after Crowdstrike had been brought in to investigate the
alleged hack. Anti-hacking programs do not stop leaks .
Also notable is the fact that Shawn Henry, co-founder of Crowdstrike, is a master of
cyberfuckery. Prior to founding Crowdstrike, Henry served under Robert Mueller as head of FBI
counterintelligence -- in which capacity he engaged in efforts to entrap and discredit Julian
Assange. Indeed, others have suspected that Henry was behind G2.0, in light of the fact that
G2.0's behavior was reminiscent of that of "Sabu" (Hector Monsignor), a hacker who, after
secretly being arrested by the FBI during Henry's tenure there, worked under FBI direction to
entrap other hackers. And the G2.0 hoax is clearly another - so far, highly successful -
attempt to smear Assange.
Whether or not Crowdstrike concocted G2.0, we need to find out who did -- the answer should
be highly pertinent to unraveling Seth's murder.
And let's bear in mind that the creator of G2.0 has also played an integral role in
concocting a Second Cold War with Russia - luring an entire generation of "leftists" into
hating both Russia and Wikileaks, on completely spurious grounds. The evil of that is HUGE.
about hammering on these points is productive of narrowing in on the truth, whatever it
may be. That's my awkward way of saying that you're not just on to something but that your
precision, where you're hammering, is getting to the truth. I say that as a person who isn't
convinced that Seth Rich was the DNC leaker, but who thinks he may have been murdered because
he was a potential witness in a
DNC voter suppression lawsuit , which amounts to the same thing really.
The strength of your outlook for me is that you emphasize the stupidity of the G2.0
revelations, the stupidity of Russian cyber-fingerprints, the vapidity of the released
Opposition Research, and the timeliness of this junk evidence. It matches in tone and
stupidity the evidence used to convince the American people that Saddam gave the anthrax to
Mohamed Atta in Prague. Turns out Atta was not in Prague, turns out the anthrax was not
Saddam's, but ours, turns out the Vice President of the United States lied about it on
camera. Doesn't matter. Once the scene of the transfer to Atta was fixed in the minds of some
American people, even if just a few Americans half believed it, the narrative was
written.
The other strength of your essay for me is your hammering on Seth Rich's murder as
eliminating a possible contradiction of the Russia narrative. The death of his associate
Lucas only adds to that possibility. Clearly Seth Rich's murder was timely and important. It
could very well have been a random street crime, but why he was out on the street in the
middle of the night just before the filing of a lawsuit that could have involved him and the
DNC is worth asking. The problem is that the media, and as far as we can tell, our
government, are not asking.
I just want to thank you again for focusing on the weak points of the narrative. Each time
you do, I think you bring us closer to the truth.
Here is a good report on the false evidence generated on the anthrax attack.
Yes, but I'd suggest it's because she's lived a career
in the Deep State. Hilz never really was a Dem. She was an undercover Republican/CIA when she
started out. In 1968 she started the year as a volunteer for Clean Gene McCarthy, the
"anti-Vietnam" Dem candidate who went on to endorse Ronald Reagan.
She then went to the the
Republican convention in Miami, then spent that summer as an intern for House Republicans,
where she wrote a speech about Vietnam for Representative Melvin Laird. Melvin Laird was
Nixon's Secretary of Defense, who oversaw a lot of the bludgeoning of Southeast Asia.
So when
she was anti-war with McCarthy was she really anti-war (subsequently there have been stories
about how infiltrated McCarthy's '68 campaign was riddled with CIA infiltrators), or was she
pro-war, writing speeches for Mel Laird? I suggest she never gave a shit about all those
napalmed deplorables in Southeast Asia. It was a pose. I'd don't think that Bill was anti-war
either. Like a lot of future politicians he didn't want his ass shot there.
She and Bill
worked their way up the ladder among CIA-owned politicians. Ultimately, they were in place to
deliver the Democratic Party to the Agency.
After the Popodouplous interview by Mark Steyn, there was clarity after following
Russiagate since it really started before the election of 2016. The deep state actors were
trying to setup some significant figure in the Trump as having ties with the Russian
government.
This include Flynn, the meeting at Trump Towers, and Popodouplos. So many details
now fall in place like the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya meeting with Fusion after the
Trump Tower meeting. Say what?
Or just bullshit like US intelligence found out GRU agents
were doing the hacking because some GRU master computer jock forgot to login into his VPN. G2
does seem to be an invention.
The irony is that we have McCarthyism once again and not one Russian is guilty of what
they are being accused of. They were set up as the fall guys, and of course in the future
nuclear war.
As for Seth Rich all I can speculate is that he was involved somehow. And if his murder
was not random, he was about to blow apart the entire conspiracy to such a level, action had
to be taken against him.
"... Never mind that to this day the DNC servers have not been examined by the FBI, nor indeed were they examined by the Special Counsel of Robert " Iraq has WMD " Mueller, preferring instead to go with the analyses of this extremely shady outfit with extensive and well-documented ties with the oligarchic leaders of the US-centralized empire. ..."
"... When the Romanian REAL Guccifer got Podesta password (password) by phishing, exposing his pizza and walnut sauce perversions, the US had him jailed. When WikiLeaks made a DNC dump, CrowdStrike concocted Guccifer 2.0, then more leaks Fancy Bear, and more leaks Cozy Bear. All these CrowdStrike fabrications used CIA Vault 7 fingerprints to frame Russia. It is time to execute our ruling demonic warlords. ..."
A
new article by Forbes reports that the CEO of Crowdstrike, the extremely shady
cybersecurity corporation which was foundational in the construction of the official CIA/CNN
Russian hacking narrative, is now a billionaire. George Kurtz ascended to the billionaire
rankings on the back of
soaring stocks immediately after the company went public, carried no doubt on the winds of
the international fame it gained from its central protagonistic role in the most well-known
hacking news story of all time.
Never mind that to this day the DNC servers have not been examined
by the FBI,
nor indeed were they examined by the Special Counsel of Robert "
Iraq has WMD " Mueller, preferring instead to
go with the analyses of this extremely shady outfit with extensive and well-documented ties with
the oligarchic leaders of the US-centralized empire.
The CEO of the Atlantic Council-tied Crowdstrike, which formed the foundation of the official
CIA/CNN Russian hacking narrative, is now a billionaire. I'm telling you, the real underlying
currency of this world is narrative and the ability to control it. https://t.co/XsBCvkIDzJ -- Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz)
June 12, 2019
As I never tire of saying, the real underlying currency in our world is not gold,
nor bureaucratic fiat, nor even raw military might.
The real underlying currency of our world is
narrative, and the ability to control it.
As soon as you really grok this dynamic, you start
noticing it everywhere.
George Kurtz is one clear example today of narrative control's central role in the maintenance and expansion of existing
power structures, as well as an illustration of how the empire is wired to reward those who advance pro-empire narratives and
punish those who damage them...
When the Romanian REAL Guccifer got Podesta password (password) by phishing, exposing his
pizza and walnut sauce perversions, the US had him jailed. When WikiLeaks made a DNC dump,
CrowdStrike concocted Guccifer 2.0, then more leaks Fancy Bear, and more leaks Cozy Bear. All
these CrowdStrike fabrications used CIA Vault 7 fingerprints to frame Russia. It is time to
execute our ruling demonic warlords.
"... All of these interactions reek of entrapment . Mr. Papadopoulos now says, "I believe Australian and UK intelligence were involved in an active operation to target Trump and his associates." Like Mr. Halper and Mr. Mifsud, Mr. Downer had ties to the CIA , MI6 and (surprise!) the Clintons . ..."
"... Given the deep intelligence backgrounds of these folks, it's difficult to believe that former DOJ/ FBI officials such as Peter Strzok or even James Comey and Andrew McCabe on their own devised the plan to deploy them . ..."
"... Interestingly, Haspel was the CIA's station chief in London during the Russiagate investigation - where the majority of the espionage against the Trump campaign aides took place ..."
"... One of the CIA officers Durham wants to question works at the agency's counterintelligence mission center - one potential conduit between the CIA and the FBI through which the agencies might have passed information during the Trump-Russia investigation. Another senior analyst Durham wants to talk to was involved in the CIA's assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election. ..."
The Department of Justice will interview senior CIA personnel as part of a sweeping investigation into
the origins of 'Russiagate,' according to the
New
York Times
,
citing anonymous sources briefed on the matter.
The interview plans are the latest sign
the Justice Department will take
a
critical look
at the C.I.A.'s work on Russia's election interference
. Investigators
want to talk with
at least one senior counterintelligence official and a senior C.I.A.
analyst
, the people said. Both officials were involved in the agency's work on
understanding the Russian campaign to sabotage the election in 2016. -
New
York Times
The
Times
notes that while the DOJ probe is not a criminal inquiry,
CIA employees are
nervous,
according to former officials, while senior agency officials have questioned why the
CIA's analytical work should be within the purview of John H. Durham - the US Attorney for Connecticut
appointed by Attorney General William Barr to oversee the review.
Justice Department officials have given only broad clues about the review but did note that
it is focused on the period leading up to the 2016 vote
. Mr. Barr has been
interested in
how the C.I.A. drew its conclusions about Russia's election sabotage
,
particularly the judgment that Mr. Putin ordered that operatives help Mr. Trump by discrediting his
opponent, Hillary Clinton, according to current and former American officials.
Mr. Barr wants to know more about
the C.I.A. sources who helped inform its understanding
of the details of the Russian interference campaign
, an official has said. He also wants
to better understand
the intelligence that flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the
summer of 2016
. -
New
York Times
The Obama Department of Justice and
FBI
targeting
of two low-level Trump aides, George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, was carried out in the spring of
2016 because they wanted to spy on the Trump campaign but needed a way in. They enlisted an American
academic and shadowy
FBI
informant
named Stefan Halper to repeatedly sidle up to both Mr. Papadopoulos and Mr. Page.
But
complementing his work for the
FBI
,
Mr. Halper had a side gig as an intelligence operative with longstanding ties to the
CIA
and
British intelligence MI6
.
Another foreign professor,
Joseph Mifsud
, who played an important early part in
targeting Papadopoulos,
also had abiding ties to the
CIA
,
MI6 and the British foreign secretary.
A third operative, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, targeted Mr. Papadopoulos in a London bar.
It was Mr. Downer's "tip" to the
FBI
that
provided the justification for the start of Russia counterintelligence investigation, complete with
fraudulently-obtained FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
All of these interactions reek of entrapment
. Mr. Papadopoulos now says, "I
believe Australian and UK intelligence were involved in an active operation to target Trump and his
associates."
Like Mr. Halper and Mr. Mifsud,
Mr. Downer had ties to the
CIA
,
MI6 and (surprise!) the Clintons
.
Given the deep intelligence backgrounds of these folks,
it's difficult to believe that
former DOJ/
FBI
officials
such as Peter Strzok or even
James
Comey
and Andrew McCabe on their own devised the plan to deploy them
.
***
It should also be noted that Papadopoulos has suggested
Stefan Halper's fake
assistant 'Azra Turk' is CIA, not FBI as widely reported,
and that what happened to him "
was
clearly a CIA operation.
"
According to the
Times
, CIA director Gina Haspel has told senior officials that the agency
will cooperate
- up to a point,
as "critical pieces of intelligence whose
disclosure could jeopardize sources, reveal collection methods or disclose information provided by
allies"
will not be shared.
Interestingly, Haspel was the CIA's station chief in London during the Russiagate investigation -
where
the majority of the espionage against the Trump campaign aides took place
.
The Justice Department has not submitted formal written requests to talk to the C.I.A. officers,
but
law enforcement officials have told intelligence officials that Mr. Durham will seek
the interviews, two of the people said. Communications officers for both the C.I.A. and
the Justice Department declined to comment.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has previously interviewed several of the C.I.A.
officers the Justice Department is seeking to talk to, according to a person familiar with
the matter. The committee found no problems with their work or the origins of the Russia inquiry. -
New
York Times
One of the CIA officers Durham wants to question works at the agency's counterintelligence mission
center -
one potential conduit between the CIA and the FBI
through which the agencies
might have passed information during the Trump-Russia investigation. Another senior analyst Durham
wants to talk to was involved in the CIA's assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The ties between the efforts by the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. to examine Russia's election
interference are broader. In the summer of 2016, the intelligence community formed a task force
housed at the C.I.A. to investigate Russian interference. The group shared intelligence with F.B.I.
investigators who opened the bureau's Russia inquiry in an effort to determine whether any
Americans were working with the Russians on their interference during the election. -
New
York Times
Of note - the CIA focuses on
foreign
intelligence
and is
not
supposed to investigate Americans
. Instead, the agency is required to pass domestic issues
which arise during investigations to the FBI.
Yes, we know the CIA is not supposed to investigate US citizens, but
we also know that they do a lot of things they're not supposed to,
and a lot of that stuff is never found out.
We also know that Obama
did a lot of things he wasn't supposed to, but that never seems to
alarm any of the Demonrats. Funny think how now that he's gone ACA is
all of a sudden unconstitutional.
When I think of the whole Russia thing and where it started and
who perpetrated it etc I just feel like how can things get so out of
control?
One good thing is that we know no lie lives forever, so at some
point in time it will all come out.
This insubordinate bitch is disobeying a direct order from The
President to fully cooperate with AG Barr & Durham including handing
over sources & methods. I don't think she gets who the boss is
here. Her fingerprints are all over this **** as Brennan's dirty
deeds doer in London. Fire her sorry azz yesterday then investigate
her.
It wasn't just the Democrats. The plot was undoubtedly created and
run by the CIA (likely Brennan) and FBI, with some degree of
involved by the NSA, who were communicating with the DNC and
Hillary. Most senior leaders of the Democratic must have known at
the outset that Russia Gate was a fraud, or more accurately, false
flag. Yet almost all the Dem leadership supported Russia Gate at
least by giving lip service to "Russian interference in our
elections."
Why? Why would the Dems be so stupid? Because they
thought the intel establishment was invincible. The CIA and FBI
always get what they want, and if you cross them, to quote Chuck
Schumer, "they can get you back a hundred ways from Tuesday". And
because the DNC, Hillary and Democratic Party leadership stand not
for reform but rather the status quo, the Democrats had nothing to
officer except idiotic "identity politics", which is really the
only thing Hillary ever stood for. The Dems just couldn't admit to
themselves or their base that voters could possible prefer a crazy
corrupt bullshitter over the politically correct Hillary. The Dems
had to look for exculpation-- Russia Gate served that purpose.
I say if the Brits where involved in this illegal spying then maybe
their methods and sources should be exposed...sounds like dirty
laundry anyway. This whole mess is beyond belief and it sure looks
like espionage against Trump from the highest parts of our
government....Treason anybody!
He is a Green and thinks Donald Trump is the worst President we've
ever had due to his environmental polices. They said the whole Russia
Gate narrative was ******** from the start. They urged Trump not to
pull out of the Iran deal.
I don't know, but when I see a group of people as large as this
who know the way the game is played since they ran it themselves
overseas for decades, they strike me as a lot more credible then John
Brennan working for CNN or James Clapper appearing on "The View" with
those skanky NY women on ABC and talking about spying.
For skeptics, past VIPS Memos to Presidents and the UN dating back
to 2003. Staunch anti war there is something for everyone here.
VIPS also did the analysis (Binney) that showed the metadata
proved that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked, because of the
transfer speeds. VIPS is a real treasure of an organization.
Thanks for that link, I had not heard of Ray's comment.
Yes I remember seeing that. They've torn the entire Mueller
narrative to shreds with lots of other specifics. I think it's
also interesting how they were having vigils for Julian Assange
regularly posting them and speaking constantly about the
screwing he's getting.
I see Consortium News posted this
story about Seth Rich yesterday. I find the site unbiased and
not everything I want to hear which is good. In my limited
travels I find it good Journalism. I'm sure there is more out
there.
So Pompeo was CIA head and then Haspel got appointed. Hopefully
Pompeo has all of the details because Haspel is buddies with Brennan
and was station chief in London where this originated!
The Democrat establishment are bereft of any new policy ideas or the ability to advance any policy framework through the
House let alone bring along the Senate. Egged on by the TDS afflicted "fake news" media all they've got is politicization. Their
Mueller silver bullet failed. So they'll go with an impeachment with all the media hysteria accompanying it fully realizing
that they don't have the votes in the Senate convict.
I'm not certain how this will play out in the mid-west where the next election will be decided. OTOH, an impeachment would
possibly force Trump to get aggressive about releasing all the incriminating documents and communications about the attempted
coup by the Obama administration law enforcement and intelligence leadership. Of course they would claim that what Trump is
doing is purely political and that they were only doing their patriotic duty. We're going to be in for more TDS media frenzy.
The last time they lost an election with sure thing Hillary. Do they expect to win with the same tactics with Sleepy Joe and
his long track record of being in the pocket of the financial industry?
It looks like Barr may mean business. He seems to be pushing ahead trying to get to the bottom of how the Russia collusion
investigation began in the first place.
Listen to this interview of Barr. Very interesting. As someone who has always opposed the growth in the unfettered powers
of the national security surveillance state, the fact that a sitting attorney general is using words like "praetorian guard"
in an interview is of great interest. Let's see how this is going to shake out. There is a possibility that the tide is
turning and the investigators may actually be investigated.
"The American Dream" as well as the American "Middle Class" have always bee a puzzle to me. The Dream seems to mean owning
a house to a lot of people. The Middle Class is what, a European style bourgeoisie?
As an outsider, it has always seemed to be that a succinct definition of the "American Dream" is that your kids will be better
off (you define "better") than you were.
Not unique to the USA, of course, but the inspiration for many many immigrants.
I think Trump is a buffoon who should not be President but that is not an impeachable offense. I think the Democrats would
be stupid to try to impeach, it would fail miserably in the Senate and probably lead to a trump victory in 2020. Compared with
Bush and Cheney, Trump is a minor sinner. Bush and Cheney should have been impeached for putting together a false case for going
to war in Iraq. That is the kind of mistake that cost thousands of lives a couple trillion dollars. If ever there was a case
for impeachment - that was the big one we missed.
Dick Morris agrees that impeachment will destroy the Dems "what will destroy them is that they apparently have nothing else
to say" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnI64DKD6o0
Main reassons to impeach Trump are related to its behavior on foreign policy,... if in that he would not be fully supported
by the Democrat apparatus...
The harm he has done to the US word and image throughout the world is of epic proportions, one wonders if it would be recoverable
any time....
-Storming of foreign embassies, starting with the Russian ones amd following with Venezuela´s
-Appropiating of foreign assests on basis of not liking the sign of the countryés governments.
-Naming presidents in charge of foreign countries whose government he does not like.
-Giving away foreign cities which do not belong to him to alleged allies tied to his close family.
-Illegal presence of US troops in foreign countries even after calls by legitimate authorities of those counries to go.
-Threatening every country whose government he does not like through his Twitter account and officials, even with war.
-Going against every principle of free market, which the US economy is supposedly based on, by ordering fully protectionist
measures on Us products and to private companies to comply with his overextended sanctions on everybody who could compete in
anything with the US or do not submit to US designs...
Then it is his continuous refusal to show his tax return.....There is something there, for sure...
Congratulations!
This year your birthday coincided with Al Quds Day...May be a sign...
"... They all have dirt to hide and at the moment, none are game to start a war of attrition. Trump makes a threat by declassifying some documents from the Mueller investigation and Mueller comes back with his move, but so far no heads have rolled and perhaps never will. ..."
"... There is a high probability that we could see two hulks (Dems and Repugs) bashing it out in the ring. The spectacle could totally trash the leadership of both and leave the field open for a leader ..."
"... but how are the corporate hacks that run the democratic party going to do it? the core economic and social issues are waiting to be taken up (again) by a progressive candidate - it infuriates me what the DNC and clinton did to Sanders, because he would be sitting in the white house right now if they hadn't pulled their dirty tricks. ..."
"... and no, identity politics is not going to defeat this fucker. nor is screaming russia russia russia ..."
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
May 23
"Today, at the request and recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, President Donald J. Trump directed the
intelligence community to quickly and fully cooperate with the Attorney General's investigation into surveillance
activities....
....during the 2016 Presidential election. The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to
declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling
classified information....
....Today's action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that
were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions."
They all have dirt to hide and at the moment, none are game to start a war of attrition. Trump makes a threat by
declassifying some documents from the Mueller investigation and Mueller comes back with his move, but so far no heads have
rolled and perhaps never will.
Absolutely brothers, you nailed it. There is a high probability that we could see two
hulks (Dems and Repugs) bashing it out in the ring. The spectacle could totally trash the
leadership of both and leave the field open for a leader. If only it were easier to have a
new third party for the Presidential race. AFAIK establishing a third party to run takes
years and can only be registered after immense hurdles are crossed.
And no, I am not advocating the Greens for Bernie or Tulsi. That way is suicide.
I am sure there are many reasons why democrats want to impeach trump but to me it comes down
to this, they are hot about impeachment because they are so afraid they won't be able to
defeat him in the next election. get it. this is really simple.
there are two ways to get him out of power, so they think - either successful impeachment
(highly doubtful both on the actual charges, and convincing 67 senators to go along with the
house), or actually defeating him in 2020..... how they gonna do that? what are the great
issues that the democrats are going to taken on, again, to defeat this wanker - bad trump bad
bad bad! you know, that worked really well the last time didn't it?
the man is a menace both to the country and to the world, and should be defeated. who's
gonna take hi s place, another neo-liberal and war monger, like biden. don't make me
laugh.
but how are the corporate hacks that run the democratic party going to do it? the core
economic and social issues are waiting to be taken up (again) by a progressive candidate - it
infuriates me what the DNC and clinton did to Sanders, because he would be sitting in the
white house right now if they hadn't pulled their dirty tricks.
and no, identity politics is not going to defeat this fucker. nor is screaming russia
russia russia
Trump is just a bloody clown and maybe the American people deserve hold.
The American people are 'exceptional' in there delusional degenerate greed.
Here is a clip from the speaker of the U.K. House of Commons (a Tory)
If Trump is impeached then this will just confirm the false-fact of Russian interference in
the US elections. While the fuss about Venezuela was going on, US mercenaries appear to have
been involved in massacres and putting down an insurrection/revolution in Haiti.
The US have (this week) encouraged Kosovo special forces to conduct operations in Serbian
held areas in violation of UN agreements and have assaulted and arrested UN officers (who are
Russian) - The US is seeking to provoke the nightmare of Balkan conflict and drag Russia into
open conflict by provoking a war between Kosovo and Serbia.
The US have (today) accused Russia of conducting Nuclear Tests when there is absolutely no
evidence of this (Nuclear explosions would have been detected).
The US is maneuvering towards war. Only the American people can stop this. The Trump
psycho-drama is a major distraction which is obscuring US actions from its own people.
This next US election looks like it's going to be a major joke. American's are going to
get a lot more comments like that of Lowdown @92 unless you start getting control of what
your Nation (on your behalf) is doing to the world.
Circe wrote: "The reason Pelosi is against impeachment is because her Zionist financiers want
Trump or Biden to win, and if Trump is impeached this will favor Sanders. Sanders would be
higher in the polls if Dems weren't so scared of Trump labelling him a radical socialist."
I can think of two reasons for Pelosi to be against impeachment - Trump will continue cry
"witch hunt!" and the media will help him with plenty of coverage, and he and the GOP will
point out that the House is wasting time with investigations instead of helping "hard working
Americans". They may even revive the old "Do nothing Congress" tag.
Trump's crimes such as they are have yet to be revealed. The federal courts in New York state
will be the venue and it is inconceivable based on any objective reading of the US Criminal
Justice System that an investigation into Trump's businesses for the prior 10-20 years will
not result crimes being uncovered.
The other objective reading that will apply is whether Trump by virtue of his now extreme
elitism will be let off the hook. I'm thinking the answer is yes he will be let off the
hook.
Anyone stuck on "Russiagate" is simply evading Trump's true legal exposure.
Trump is tooting Boris and Nigel's horn. Notice how this Zio ass kisser doesn't even give
Corbyn the time of day, but instead is slobbering all over Netanyahoo calling his win
resounding and now what is happening to BibiYahoo so unfair. Then you expect me to show
restraint where Trump is concerned?
The best thing that can happen is Sanders getting Pence as a campaign opponent! Trump
would be way more dirty with Sanders. Anyone against impeachment is in the Zionist camp!
PERIOD, end of sentence.
It utterly amazes me how you neo liberals still don't get why people voted for Trump. It will
be the same reasons why he isn't going to win again.
He won by just barely flipping three rust belt states. Has he stopped any income
depressing immigration? Nope, its accelerating. How about ending those pesky international
entanglements, and getting along? Unless your an Israel firster, the answer is a big zero.
PA, Wisconsin, Michigan all have Democrat governors now. Woohoo...more dead and illegals
voting Democrat. Make matters worse you have the impending agriculture and financial
collapse. My guess is the Donald will pull out of the election at the most inopportune time,
and not even bother with it.
By the way Trump ain't the problem. The bankers and their central bank are the problem.
The deep state was created to serve them. Guess for some as long as (D) is in back of our
politicians name, all will be good. Sad.
Re "An impeachment will be anyway be unsuccessful because the Republicans own the Senate and
will vote down any impeachment indictment that might pass the House."
Respectfully, MofA, please stick to your excellent, insightful, and informative analyses
in the international arena and stay away from US domestic politics.
The Dems are not at all sure about winning in 2020, not least because of the pathetic
gaggle of so-called candidates they've go to offer. Their main goal in pursuing impeachment
will not be to weaken Trump for 2020, it's – still – to get him out of the White
House.
As was the case in 2016, Trump's the only GOP candidate who has a shot at winning, though
it's not a sure thing. The Dems want a sure thing.
Do they have the goods to get rid of him yet? No. That's while they'll keep digging.
Taxes. Business skullduggery in NY. Babes. They hope that sooner or later they'll uncover
something that will give enough Republicans in the Senate an excuse to give Trump the
heave-ho.
A Republican Senate will "vote down any impeachment"? Ha. Compare Clinton and Nixon.
Clinton literally could have raped Juanita Broaddrick in the middle of Fifth Avenue and the
Dems still would have circled the wagons to defend him, as they in fact did, without a single
Dem vote to convict.
Nixon, however, was done in by his own party when Senate GOP leaders told Tricky Dick
(loathed by most of his party, as Trump is) that he had to resign or they would vote to
remove him. Depending on what the Dems dig up, Republicans can be counted on to see scary
editorials in the Washington Post and New York Times and run in panic. "I've always been
supportive of the president, but I can't defend that. So I have no choice but to ") Add the
fact that between a quarter and a third of GOP Senators would jump at the chance to put a
knife in Trump's back if they got the opportunity, with sanctimonious warmonger Mitt Romney
at the front of the line.
I am not predicting that Trump will be removed: the Dems might come up empty on the needed
dirt; they may fall short of the number of Republicans they need to give him the "Nixon
talk"; even if he is given an ultimatum, he may decide to fight and actually win. But don't
take it as a given that impeachment is a futile exercise undertaken only to weaken Trump for
reelection and likely to backfire. It might succeed.
If it doesn't, Trump's chances of winning reelection are better than even, though the
landscape has become less favorable. His base remains strong (most of his Deplorables think
he's actually delivering on his promises, because he says so in tweets and at his rallies.
Look at that big, beautiful invisible nonexistent Wall! Winning!). On the other hand, failure
to control our border means the demographic shift against Republicans continues, coupled with
zero efforts to police voting by non-citizens and (notably in Florida) letting felons vote.
If Trump loses either Florida or Pennsylvania, it's probably all over even with a lousy
Democratic opponent. That's aside from whatever economic hiccup occurs between now and next
fall. Or if Trump gets in a war somewhere.
Finally, I dispute the suggestion it's desirable to elect more Dems to Congress. Let's
agree Republicans are horrible. But even if you like the Dems on domestic grounds (I don't)
let's not ignore the fact that on the warmongering front the Dems are at least as bad as the
GOP and in most cases worse, especially when it comes to Russia. Note how Mueller began and
ended his swan song by emphasizing the Russian "attack" on the US in 2016. That's will
continue to be the core dogma of the Democratic Party, with most of the GOP joining them in
making sure Trump shows no sign of heresy. More Democrats means even more of a straitjacket
on whatever off-script impulses Trump occasionally displays with regard to Korea, Syria, and
Russia. Even Iran, where he has disavowed regime change (somebody tell President
Bolton!).
"... Muller has been and is a partisan hack. His job is to clearly state if President colluded or obstructed justice. If he did show collusion or obstruction, and then declined to indict due to Justice Department restrictions then it will be up to the Congress to impeach. He did no such thing but wrote a clumsy report & held a clumsy press conference. Time to drop this charade. ..."
"... There is no evidence that the state of Russia officially did anything. Only a couple of private people and Ukraine (Fancy Bear is Ukrainian). The worst thing the deep state does is continue to promote that the Russians did anything. Hillary's gang did do something is the only story. ..."
"... It is very depressing to see the Dems abandoning government and the future direction of the country, to go full time witch-hunt. ..."
Muller has been and is a partisan hack. His job is to clearly state if President colluded or obstructed justice. If he did
show collusion or obstruction, and then declined to indict due to Justice Department restrictions then it will be up to the Congress
to impeach. He did no such thing but wrote a clumsy report & held a clumsy press conference. Time to drop this charade.
There is no evidence that the state of Russia officially did anything. Only a couple of private people and Ukraine (Fancy Bear
is Ukrainian). The worst thing the deep state does is continue to promote that the Russians did anything. Hillary's gang did do
something is the only story.
Wikileaks got their information from a thumb drive given to them by a disgusted Democratic Party worker. Trumps best friends
are those that are being smeared: Russia, China, Assange. When Trump believes trash talk against the innocent by the guilty, he
works against himself.
OMG. Don't you "get it?" At the very top levels, those above Trump and government officials, Trump was given exoneration
with major players, who control the leadership of their party, opposing any further action on the exoneration, and they got Assange.
Happened at the same exact time. When all of a sudden, Trump "didn't know WikiLeaks."
Fine..... time to release all documents related to Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, the FISA courts, the political
spying by the Obola Administration....
The Dems want nuklear political warfare? Give them nuklear criminal and judicial warfare?
But they better be aware there won't be any Democrats around to run for 2020 'cause they will all be dealing with their own
criminal proceedings.
"... As for Ukraine, a Ukrainian court ruled in December that the country meddled in the US election when they revealed details of suspected illegal payments to former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. ..."
"... Chaly confirmed that DNC insider of Ukrainian heritage, Alexandra Chalupa , approached Ukraine seeking information on Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's dealings inside the country, in the hopes of exposing them to Congress. ..."
"... Chalupa, who told Politico in 2017 that she had "developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives ," said she "occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton's campaign. ..."
"... In short, a DNC operative of Ukrainian heritage, who shared information with the Clinton campaign and worked with a convicted terrorist to spread misinformation to undermine the legitimacy of the 2016 election, approached the government of Ukraine in the hopes of obtaining "dirt" that would hurt the Trump campaign. ..."
Speaking with reporters at the White House on Friday before his trip to Japan, Trump
discussed his decision this week to issue a
sweeping declassification order
-
leaving it in the hands of Barr to determine exactly what happened to Trump and his campaign
before and after the 2016 US election.
"For over a year, people have asked me to
declassify. What I've done is declassified everything," said Trump, adding "He can look and
I hope he looks at the UK and I hope he looks at Australia and I hope he looks at
Ukraine
."
"It's the greatest hoax probably in the history of our country and
somebody has
to get to the bottom of it.
We'll see. For a long period of time, they wanted me to
declassify and I did."
(UK, Australia, Ukraine comment at 2:30)
"This is about finding out what happened," said Trump. "What happened and when did it
happen, because this was an attempted takedown of the president of the United States, and we
have to find out why."
"We're exposing everything. We're being a word that you like,
transparent. We're being, ultimately we're being transparent. That's what it's about. Again,
this should never ever happen in our country again."
After the Mueller report made clear that Trump and his campaign had in no way conspired
with Russia during the 2016 election, Democrats immediately pivoted to whether Trump
obstructed the investigation. Trump and his supporters, however,
immediately pivoted
to the conduct of the US intelligence community
, including the involvement of
foreign actors and possibly their governments.
According to a
report last week
, the discredited "Steele Dossier" - assembled by
former
MI6
spy Christopher Steele - was referred to as
"crown material"
in an
email exchange suggesting that former FBI Director James Comey insisted that CIA Director
John Brennan pushed for the inclusion of the dossier in the intelligence community
assessment (ICA) on Russian interference.
Moreover, much of "Operation Crossfire
Hurricane" - the FBI's official investigation into the Trump campaign -
occurred on
UK soil
, which is perhaps why the
New York Times
reported last September that
the UK begged Trump not to
declassify
'Russiagate' documents 'without redaction.'
Shortly after he announced his involvement with the Trump campaign, aide George
Papadopoulos was
lured to London
in March, 2016, where Maltese professor
and self-described
Clinton foundation member
Joseph Mifsud
fed him the rumor that Russia
had damaging information on Hillary Clinton. It was later
at a London bar
that
Papadopoulos would drunkenly pass the rumor to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer (who FBI
agent Peter Strzok flew to London
to meet with
the day after
Crossfire Hurricane
was launched).
Two weeks
later
,
Papadopoulos would be bilked for information by Australian diplomat
(another
Clinton
ally
) Alexander Downer at a London bar, who relayed the Russia rumor to Australian
authorities, which alerted the FBI (as the story goes), which 'officially' kicked off the US
intelligence investigation.
We have now pinned Peter Strzok's boss, Bill Priestap, in London the week of May 6th, 2016
and on the 9th. The day before Alexander Downer was sent to spy on me and record our
meeting. Congress must release the transcripts and embarrass the deep state.
Yes, it is Treason. America wants hardcore a go-for-it
investigation. AG Barr please unleash the hounds on these
vermin. Our very democracy is on the line. Let the chips
fall!
As for Ukraine,
a Ukrainian court ruled in December that the country
meddled
in the US election
when they revealed details of suspected illegal payments to
former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.
In 2016, while Mr. Manafort was chairman of the Trump campaign, anti-corruption
prosecutors in Ukraine disclosed that a pro-Russian political party had earmarked
payments for Mr. Manafort from an illegal slush fund. Mr. Manafort resigned from the
campaign a week later. -
New
York Times
Last week, President Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani met with a former Ukrainian
diplomat, Andril Telizhenko, who has previously suggested that the DNC worked with the
Kiev government in 2016 to dig up 'dirt' on then-candidate Donald Trump. Giuliani told
the
Washington Post
in a Friday interview that Telizhenko "was in Washington and
he came up to New York, and we spent most of the afternoon together," adding "When I
have something to say, I'll say it."
This comes on the heels of Giuliani canceling a trip to Ukraine to meet with
President-elect Volodymyr Zelensky to discuss the Manafort situation.
According to
The Hill
's John Solomon,
A former DNC operative steeped in Trump-Russia research
approached the
Ukrainian government looking for 'dirt' on then-candidate Donald Trump
during
the 2016 US election, citing written answers to questions submitted to Ambassador Valeriy
Chaly's office.
Chaly confirmed that
DNC insider of Ukrainian heritage, Alexandra Chalupa
,
approached Ukraine seeking information on Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's
dealings inside the country, in the hopes of exposing them to Congress.
Chalupa, who told
Politico
in
2017 that she had "developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including
investigative
journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives
," said
she "occasionally shared her findings with officials from
the DNC and Clinton's
campaign.
In short, a DNC operative of Ukrainian heritage, who shared information with the
Clinton campaign and worked with a convicted terrorist to spread misinformation to
undermine the legitimacy of the 2016 election, approached the government of Ukraine in
the hopes of obtaining "dirt" that would hurt the Trump campaign.
And Trump wants AG Barr to look at it
all
. He'll be
visiting the UK
next month,
meanwhile, where he can ask outgoing PM Theresa May, or the Queen, all about it.
I think the question everyone should be
asking themselves is... How many "deep
state" people has Trump's administration
prosecuted in the 2 years he's been in
office. The answer to that question is ZERO!
The charade is over dude!
the arab spring, begun in 2010 one year
after obama was elected destroyed libya,
syria, egypt and a bunch of other countries.
consider that the same tactics used in those
countries by a democrat president using the
same indoctrinated howler monkey people in
the same weaponized alphabet soup intel
agencies - were used against trump
the US got off lightly, this was an
attempted coup by libtard howler monkeys.
think of the upside if they are locked
up.
the world will truly be a safer place and
people will be happier and more secure.
The deep state under Obama spied on any
adversary they deemed a threat to the DNC.
Obama weaponized the DNC with the
CIA/FBI/and NSA. They spied on every GOP candidate. THATS
A FACT
They gave Hillary the debate questions
and now that crook Donna Brazile is a paid
contributor on FOX.
The media in this country is full of ****
and shysters
"... The Word documents published in June 2016 by Guccifer 2 also show a "last saved as" user id written in Cyrillic. The Anglicized name is " Felix Edmundovich ", aka "Iron Felix" (the infamous director of an early Soviet spy agency). If you are a Russian cyber spy trying to conduct a covert operation, why do you sign your document with the name of one of the most infamous leaders of Russian intelligence? Robert Mueller wants you to believe that this was just Russian audacity. ..."
"... The phrase "personal beliefs about the competence or incompetence of the Russians" catches something important. Whether it was the Russians or somebody else that did this, whoever did it was pretty sloppy. What this report describes is almost as pathetic when considered a false flag operation as it is as a sabotage operation. So any theory of who stole and published the documents has to explain a capability to access the data combined with blissful obliviousness about handling them. I know of no reason to think the Russian, US, Israeli, or other intelligence communities incapable of such a combination. All of them have brilliant dedicated people but also seemingly endless supplies of mediocre time-servers. ..."
"... Scenario? Shutdown, closing of words with documents being automatically saved? Ok, otherwise there is apparently no precise saving time stamp on Winwords latest version. How much changed since 2016? ..."
"... The Vault7 leak of CIA tools also contained information on how to select any language environment. It's really a standard practice, even for normal criminals. ..."
Russia did not hack the DNC. This is not an opinion. It is a conclusion that flows from one
very specific claim made by the Special Counsel -- i.e., Guccifer 2.0 was a fictional identity
created by Russian Military Intelligence, the GRU. If Guccifer was in fact a creation or
creature of the GRU, then the forensic evidence should show that this entity was operating from
Russia or under the direct control of the GRU. The forensic evidence shows something quite
different -- the meta data in the Guccifer 2.0 documents were manipulated deliberately to plant
Russian fignerprints. This was not an accident nor an oversight due to carelessness.
What is meta data? This is the information recorded when a document is created. This data
includes things such as the date and time the document was created or modified. It tells you
who created the document. It is like the Wizard of Oz, it is the information behind the
curtain.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's is correct in stating that Guccifer 2.0 was a "fictious
online persona. " He is wrong in attributing that action to Russian Military Intelligence.
While Guccifer 2.0 was a "fictious" entity, the information recorded about when, how and who
created the document show that deliberate choices were made to present the info as if it was
created by someone Russian.
Let us first stipulate and agree that Russia and the United States engage in cyber espionage
and covert action against each other. This has been the case since computers and the internet
came into existence. Within the U.S. Intelligence Community these activities generally are
labeled with the acronym, CNO -- Computer Network Operations. The Russians and the United
States have cadres of cyber "warriors" who sit at computer terminals and engage in operations
commonly known as hacking. Other countries, such as China, Iran and Ukraine do this as
well.
CNOs are classified at the highest level in the United States and normally are handled
within special restricted categories commonly known as SAPs (i.e, Special Access Programs). A
critical element of these kinds of operations is to avoid leaving any fingerprints or clues
that would enable the activity to be traced back to the United States. But this is not unique
to the United States. All professional intelligence services around the world understand and
practice this principle -- leave no evidence behind that proves you were there.
The case implicating Russia in the hack of the DNC and Clinton emails, including those of
her campaign Manager, John Podesta, rests on suspect forensic computer evidence -- is present
in the meta data in the documents posted on line by Guccifer 2.0. According to Disobedient
Media , "the files that Guccifer 2.0 initially pushed to reporters contain Russian
metadata, a Russian stylesheet entry and in some cases embedded Russian error messages."
Why would the Russians make such a mistake, especially in such a high stake operation
(targeting a national election with covert action most certainly is a high stake operation).
Mueller and the U.S. intelligence community want you to believe that the Russians are just
sloppy and careless buffoons. Those ideologically opposed to the Russians readily embrace this
nonsenses. But for those who actually have dealt with Russian civilian and military
intelligence operatives and operations, the Russians are sophisticated and cautious.
But we do not have to rely on our personal beliefs about the competence or incompetence of
the Russians. We simply need to look at the forensic evidence contained in the documents posted
by Guccifer 2.0. We will take Robert Mueller and his investigators at their word:
Beginning in or around June 2016, the Conspirators staged and released tens of thousands
of the stolen emails and documents. They did so using fictitious online personas, including
"DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0." (p. 2-3)
The Conspirators also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release additional stolen
documents through a website maintained by an organization ("Organization 1") [aka WIKILEAKS],
that had previously posted documents stolen from U.S. persons, entities, and the U.S.
government. (p. 3)
Between in or around June 2016 and October 2016, the Conspirators used Guccifer 2.0 to
release documents through WordPress that they had stolen from the DCCC and DNC. The
Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2.0, also shared stolen documents with certain individuals.
(p. 15)
An examination of those documents tells a very different story. While it does not reveal who
or what was Guccifer 2.0, it does undermine Mueller's claim that it was the Russians who did
these dastardly deeds.
One independent forensic computer investigator, who uses the name, "The Forensicator,"
examined the meta data in some of the documents posted by Guccifer 2.0 and
discovered the following :
Guccifer 2.0 published a file on 13 September 2016 that was originally copied on 5 July 2016
at approximately 6:45 PM Eastern time. It was copied and appeared as the "NGP VAN" 7zip
file.
The estimated speed of transfer was 23 MB/s. This means that this initial data transfer
could have been done remotely over the Internet. Instead, it was likely done from a computer
system that had direct access to the data. "By "direct access" we mean that the individual who
was collecting the data either had physical access to the computer where the data was stored,
or the data was copied over a local high-speed network (LAN)."
This initial copying activity was done on a system that used Eastern Daylight Time (EDT)
settings and was likely initially copied to a computer running Linux, because the file last
modified times all reflect the apparent time of the copy, which is a characteristic of the
Linux 'cp' command (using default options).
On September 1, 2016, a subset of the initial large collection of DNC related content (the
so-called NGP/VAN data), was transferred to working directories on a system running Windows.
The .rar files included in the final 7zip file were built from those working directories.
The alleged Russian fingerprints appeared in the first document "leaked" by Guccifer 2.0--
1.doc -- which was a report on Donald Trump . A forensic examination of
the documents shows thatgiven the word processor program used to create the Donald Trump
Document released by Guccifer 2.0, the author consciously and purposefully used formats that
deliberately inserted "Russian fingerprints" into the document. In other words, the meta-data
was purposely altered, and documents were pasted into a 'Russianified' word document with
Russian language settings and style headings.
Here are the key facts:
The meta data shows that Slate_-_Domestic_-_USDA_-_2008-12-20.doc was the template
for creating 1.doc , 2.doc and 3.doc . This template injected "Warren
Flood" as the author value and "GSA" as the company value in those first three Word documents.
This
template also injected the title , the watermark and header/footer fields found in the
final documents (with slight modifications).
The Word documents published in June 2016 by Guccifer 2 also show a "last saved as" user id
written in Cyrillic. The Anglicized name is " Felix Edmundovich ", aka
"Iron Felix" (the infamous director of an early Soviet spy agency). If you are a Russian cyber
spy trying to conduct a covert operation, why do you sign your document with the name of one of
the most infamous leaders of Russian intelligence? Robert Mueller wants you to believe that
this was just Russian audacity.
But the meta data tells a different story. When we examine The Revision Session Identifiers
aka 'RSID's, in the Guccifer document, we see the same Russian style-headings in 1.doc, 2.doc
and 3.doc. The document creation timestamps on docs 1, 2 and 3 also are all identical.
Given that MS word assigns a new random 'RSID' with each save when an element is added or
edited (this function allows one to track changes made to a Word document), the only way to
obtain identical creation timestamps means that someone either directly edited the source
document or that there was one empty document open and that individual documents were
copy-pasted and saved-as (1.doc), then contents deleted and new doc pasted and saved-as
(2.doc), etc. This
process also explains identical style-sheet RSIDs .
The document creation timestamps on docs 1, 2 and 3 also are all identical.
Curious, no doubt. But who of us did not consider Guccifer 2 curious. Put another way,
what experts considered him solid proof for Russian involvement?
Are you suggesting Winword templates were used for the metadata?
As IT nitwit, how can I save three *doc files or their 2016 word equivalent at the same
time? Any way to do that? Windows doesn't seem to have a solution to that.
Again: This is a nitwit user asking a question.
*******
I admittedly am not overly motivated to read the Mueller report. I'll read your contribution
again to figure out what you may suggest in or between the lines.
The phrase "personal beliefs about the competence or incompetence of the Russians" catches
something important. Whether it was the Russians or somebody else that did this, whoever did
it was pretty sloppy. What this report describes is almost as pathetic when considered a
false flag operation as it is as a sabotage operation. So any theory of who stole and
published the documents has to explain a capability to access the data combined with blissful
obliviousness about handling them. I know of no reason to think the Russian, US, Israeli, or
other intelligence communities incapable of such a combination. All of them have brilliant
dedicated people but also seemingly endless supplies of mediocre time-servers.
Equally interesting is the fact that this analysis has come from such a private source.
Surely all the major intelligence agencies have the skill to find the same indicators. And
all have comparatively endless resources to apply to the analysis. But they all seem to not
want to talk about it. For me the most suspicious thing about the handling of the theft was
the FBI's near complete lack of interest in examining the server. I have always assumed that
such indifference reflected that they already had all they needed in order to understand what
happened. Maybe even watched the theft in real time. But this report demonstrates that you
didn't need any special access to blow up the official story. (Note that the official story
may be "true". It is just not proven by the cited evidence.)
Yet, whatever actually happened, nobody seems interested in challenging the narrative that
Russians stole data and routed it through useful idiots to influence the 2016 elections. This
report indicates that a persuasive challenge would not have been hard to produce.
Perhaps the false flag was intentionally clumsy, intended to be detected. Bait for a trap
that no one wants to fall into. But I don't see where that thought leads.
This can be discovered by looking at things called 'rsid's or Revision Session
Identifiers in Guccifer's document. In order to track changes, MS word assigns a new random
'rsid' with each save upon each element added or edited. The rsids for the Russian
style-headings in 1.doc, 2.doc and 3.doc are all the same (styrsid11758497 in the raw
source).
Moreover, the document creation timestamps on 1,2, and 3.docs are all identical too.
This might imply there was one empty document open, with individual documents being
copy-pasted and saved-as (1.doc), then contents deleted and new doc pasted and saved-as
(2.doc), etc. This is the only way to go about obtaining identical creation timestamps short
of direct editing of the source, and would also explain identical style-sheet RSIDs.
Scenario? Shutdown, closing of words with documents being automatically saved? Ok,
otherwise there is apparently no precise saving time stamp on Winwords latest version. How
much changed since 2016?
Empty doc open? What would that change?
But good to see that Winword now integrated some type of automatic saving option, didn't
have it when I gave it up and shifted to Open Office. On the other hand, can I trust it to not confront me with an earlier revision version? I
admittedly asked myself lately. In a 200 page file, mind you.
As someone with a little bit of experience in that area I can assure you that language
metadata artifacts are practically worthless for attribution. You would mention it in a
report, but from it you can only conclude that
either the creator was an amateur and used his own language environment
or actually selected this particular language environment, either by running a - in this
case - Russian copy of Office, or by changing the metadata manually.
or he used his own language environment because he doesn't care, and because he knows that
this information is worthless for any forensics expert.
The Vault7 leak of CIA tools also contained information on how to select any language
environment. It's really a standard practice, even for normal criminals.
Attribution is really hard and usually amounts to a lot of guessing who might be interested
in the target of an attack, correlating information from other campaigns, and is only rarely
based on hard evidence. Big state actors probably can do a little bit better when they have
access to enough network taps. But in the end one bit looks like any other, and properties of
static documents can always be forged and made to look real. Or simply buy a copy of MS
Office in .
The document creation timestamps on docs 1, 2 and 3 also are all identical.
Ok doc creation times. Could one create a WinWord Macro? That does exactly that. ok, why
would one do this? True. Minor detail, I know. But I see we have experts around now.
*******
More generally. Guccifer 2.0 was a bit of an odd occurrence, not least due to US intelligence
considering Guccifer one or zero, if you like.
"... What he said is, 'I Donald Trump am going to be a champion of the working class I know you are working longer hours for lower wages, seeing your jobs going to China, can't afford childcare, can't afford to send your kids to college. I Donald Trump alone can solve these problems.' What you have is a guy who utilized the media, manipulated the media very well. He is an entertainer, he is a professional at that. But I will tell you that I think there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from." ..."
"... when the Clinton team first learned that Wikileaks was going to release damaging Democratic National Party emails in June 2016, they "brought in outside consultants to plot a PR strategy for handling the news of the hack the story would advance a narrative that benefited the Clinton campaign and the Democrats: The Russians were interfering in the US election, presumably to assist Trump." ..."
"... After losing the election, Team Clinton doubled down on this PR strategy. As described in the book Shattered (p. 395) the day after the election campaign managers assembled the communication team "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up and up . they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument." ..."
"... A progressive team produced a very different analysis titled Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis . They did this because "the (Democratic) party's national leadership has shown scant interest in addressing many of the key factors that led to electoral disaster." The report analyzes why the party turnout was less than expected and why traditional Democratic Party supporters are declining. ..."
"... Since the 2016 election there has been little public discussion of the process whereby Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee. It's apparent she was pre-ordained by the Democratic Party elite. As exposed in the DNC emails, there was bias and violations of the party obligations at the highest levels. On top of that, it should now be clear that the pundits, pollsters and election experts were out of touch, made poor predictions and decisions. ..."
"... The 2016 election is highly relevant today. Already we see the same pattern of establishment bias and "horse race" journalism which focuses on fund-raising, polls and elite-biased "electability" instead of dealing with real issues, who has solutions, who has appeal to which groups. ..."
"... The establishment bias for Biden is matched by the bias against Democratic Party candidates who directly challenge Wall Street and US foreign policy. On Wall Street, that would be Bernie Sanders. On foreign policy, that is Tulsi Gabbard. With a military background Tulsi Gabbard has broad appeal, an inclusive message and a uniquely sharp critique of US "regime change" foreign policy. ..."
"... Blaming an outside power is a good way to prevent self analysis and positive change. It's gone on far too long. ..."
An
honest and accurate analysis of the 2016 election is not just an academic exercise. It is very
relevant to the current election campaign. Yet over the past two years, Russiagate has
dominated media and political debate and largely replaced a serious analysis of the factors
leading to Trump's victory. The public has been flooded with the various elements of the story
that Russia intervened and Trump colluded with them. The latter accusation was negated by the
Mueller Report but elements of the Democratic Party and media refuse to move on. Now it's the
lofty but vague accusations of "obstruction of justice" along with renewed dirt digging. To
some it is a "constitutional crisis", but to many it looks like more partisan fighting.
Russiagate has distracted from pressing issues
Russiagate has distracted attention and energy away from crucial and pressing issues such as
income inequality, the housing and homeless crisis, inadequate healthcare, militarized police,
over-priced college education, impossible student loans and deteriorating infrastructure. The
tax structure was changed to benefit wealthy individuals and corporations with little
opposition. The Trump administration has undermined environmental laws, civil rights, national
parks and women's equality while directing ever
more money to military contractors. Working class Americans are struggling with rising
living costs, low wages, student debt, and racism. They constitute the bulk of the military
which is spread all over the world, sustaining continuing occupations in war zones including
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and parts of Africa. While all this has been going on, the Democratic
establishment and much of the media have been focused on Russiagate, the Mueller Report, and
related issues.
Immediately after the 2016 Election
In the immediate wake of the 2016 election there was some forthright analysis. Bernie
Sanders
said , "What Trump did very effectively is tap the angst and the anger and the hurt and
pain that millions of working class people are feeling. What he said is, 'I Donald Trump am
going to be a champion of the working class I know you are working longer hours for lower
wages, seeing your jobs going to China, can't afford childcare, can't afford to send your kids
to college. I Donald Trump alone can solve these problems.' What you have is a guy who utilized
the media, manipulated the media very well. He is an entertainer, he is a professional at that.
But I will tell you that I think there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic
Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white
working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people
where I came from."
Days after the election, the Washington Post published an op-ed titled "
Hillary Clinton Lost. Bernie Sanders could have won. We chose the wrong candidate ." The
author analyzed the results saying , "Donald Trump's stunning victory is less surprising
when we remember a simple fact: Hillary Clinton is a deeply unpopular politician." The
writer analyzed why Sanders would have prevailed against Trump and predicted "there will be
years of recriminations."
Russiagate replaced Recrimination
But instead of analysis, the media and Democrats have emphasized foreign interference. There
is an element of self-interest in this narrative. As reported in "Russian Roulette" (p127),
when the Clinton team first learned that Wikileaks was going to release damaging Democratic
National Party emails in June 2016, they "brought in outside consultants to plot a PR
strategy for handling the news of the hack the story would advance a narrative that benefited
the Clinton campaign and the Democrats: The Russians were interfering in the US election,
presumably to assist Trump."
After losing the election, Team Clinton doubled down on this PR strategy. As described in
the book Shattered (p. 395) the day after the election campaign managers assembled the
communication team "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up and up
. they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian
hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
This narrative has been remarkably effective in supplanting critical review of the
election.
One Year After the Election
The Center for American Progress (CAP) was founded by John Podesta and is closely aligned
with the Democratic Party. In November 2017 they produced an analysis titled "
Voter Trends in 2016: A Final Examination ". Interestingly, there is not a single reference
to Russia. Key conclusions are that "it is critical for Democrats to attract more support from
the white non-college-educated voting bloc" and "Democrats must go beyond the 'identity
politics' versus 'economic populism' debate to create a genuine cross-racial, cross-class
coalition " It suggests that Wall Street has the same interests as Main Street and the working
class.
A progressive team produced a very different analysis titled Autopsy: The Democratic Party in
Crisis . They did this because "the (Democratic) party's national leadership has shown scant interest in addressing many of
the key factors that led to electoral disaster." The report analyzes why the party turnout was less than expected and why
traditional Democratic Party supporters are declining. It includes recommendations to end the party's undemocratic
practices, expand voting rights and counter voter suppression. The report contains details and specific recommendations lacking
in the CAP report. It includes an overall analysis which says "The Democratic Party should disentangle itself – ideologically
and financially – from Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and other corporate interests that put profits ahead of
public needs."
Two Years After the Election
In October 2018, the progressive team produced a follow-up report titled "
Autopsy: One Year Later ". It says, "The Democratic Party has implemented modest reforms,
but corporate power continues to dominate the party."
In a recent phone interview, the editor of that report, Norman Solomon, said it appears some
in the Democratic Party establishment would rather lose the next election to Republicans than
give up control of the party.
What really happened in 2016?
Beyond the initial critiques and "Autopsy" research, there has been little discussion,
debate or lessons learned about the 2016 election. Politics has been dominated by
Russiagate.
Why did so many working class voters switch from Obama to Trump? A major reason is because
Hillary Clinton is associated with Wall Street and the economic policies of her husband
President Bill Clinton. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), promoted by Bill
Clinton, resulted in huge decline in manufacturing jobs in
swing states such as Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Of course, this would influence their
thinking and votes. Hillary Clinton's support for the Trans Pacific Partnership was another
indication of her policies.
What about the low turnout from the African American community? Again, the lack of
enthusiasm is rooted in objective reality. Hillary Clinton is associated with "welfare reform"
promoted by her husband. According to this study from
the University of Michigan, "As of the beginning of 2011, about 1.46 million U.S. households
with about 2.8 million children were surviving on $2 or less in income per person per day in a
given month The prevalence of extreme poverty rose sharply between 1996 and 2011. This growth
has been concentrated among those groups that were most affected by the 1996 welfare
reform. "
Over the past several decades there has been a huge increase in prison
incarceration due to increasingly strict punishments and mandatory prison sentences. Since
the poor and working class have been the primary victims of welfare and criminal justice
"reforms" initiated or sustained through the Clinton presidency, it's understandable why they
were not keen on Hillary Clinton. The notion that low turnout was due to African Americans
being unduly influenced by Russian Facebook posts is seen as "bigoted paternalism" by blogger Teodrose
Fikremanian who says, "The corporate recorders at the NY Times would have us believe that
the reason African-Americans did not uniformly vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats is
because they were too dimwitted to think for themselves and were subsequently manipulated by
foreign agents. This yellow press drivel is nothing more than propaganda that could have been
written by George Wallace."
How Clinton became the Nominee
Since the 2016 election there has been little public discussion of the process whereby
Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee. It's apparent she was pre-ordained by the
Democratic Party elite. As exposed in the DNC emails, there was bias and violations of the
party obligations at the highest levels. On top of that, it should now be clear that the
pundits, pollsters and election experts were out of touch, made poor predictions and
decisions.
Bernie Sanders would have been a much stronger candidate. He would have won the same party
loyalists who voted for Clinton. His message attacking Wall Street would have resonated with
significant sections of the working class and poor who were unenthusiastic (to say the least)
about Clinton. An indication is that in critical swing states such as Wisconsin and
Michigan Bernie
Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary race.
Clinton had no response for Trump's attacks on multinational trade agreements and his false
promises of serving the working class. Sanders would have had vastly more appeal to working
class and minorities. His primary campaign showed his huge appeal to youth and third party
voters. In short, it's likely that Sanders would have trounced Trump. Where is the
accountability for how Clinton ended up as the Democratic Party candidate?
The Relevance of 2016 to 2020
The 2016 election is highly relevant today. Already we see the same pattern of establishment
bias and "horse race" journalism which focuses on fund-raising, polls and elite-biased
"electability" instead of dealing with real issues, who has solutions, who has appeal to which
groups.
Mainstream media and pundits are already promoting Joe Biden. Syndicated columnist EJ
Dionne, a Democratic establishment favorite, is indicative. In his article "
Can Biden be the helmsman who gets us past the storm? " Dionne speaks of the "strength he
(Biden) brings" and the "comfort he creates". In the same vein, Andrew Sullivan pushes Biden in
his article "
Why Joe Biden Might be the Best to Beat Trump ". Sullivan thinks that Biden has appeal in
the working class because he joked about claims he is too 'hands on'. But while Biden may be
tight with AFL-CIO leadership, he is closely associated with highly unpopular neoliberal trade
deals which have resulted in manufacturing decline.
The establishment bias for Biden is matched by the bias against Democratic Party candidates
who directly challenge Wall Street and US foreign policy. On Wall Street, that would be Bernie
Sanders. On foreign policy, that is Tulsi Gabbard. With a military background Tulsi Gabbard has
broad appeal, an inclusive message and a uniquely sharp critique of US "regime change" foreign
policy. She calls
out media pundits like Fareed Zakaria for goading Trump to invade Venezuela. In contrast
with Rachel Maddow taunting
John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to be MORE aggressive, Tulsi Gabbard has been
denouncing Trump's collusion with Saudi Arabia and Israel's Netanyahu, saying it's not in
US interests. Gabbard's anti-interventionist anti-occupation perspective has significant
support from US troops. A
recent poll indicates that military families want complete withdrawal from Afghanistan and
Syria. It seems conservatives have become more anti-war than liberals.
This points to another important yet under-discussed lesson from 2016: a factor in Trump's
victory was that he campaigned as an anti-war candidate against the hawkish Hillary Clinton. As
pointed out
here, "Donald Trump won more votes from communities with high military casualties than
from similar communities which suffered fewer casualties."
Russiagate has distracted most Democrats from analyzing how they lost in 2016. It has given
them the dubious belief that it was because of foreign interference. They have failed to
analyze or take stock of the consequences of DNC bias, the preference for Wall Street over
working class concerns, and the failure to challenge the military industrial complex and
foreign policy based on 'regime change' interventions.
There needs to be more analysis and lessons learned from the 2016 election to avoid a repeat
of that disaster. As indicated in the
Autopsy , there needs to be a transparent and fair campaign for nominee based on more than
establishment and Wall Street favoritism. There also needs to be consideration of which
candidates reach beyond the partisan divide and can energize and advance the interests of the
majority of Americans rather than the elite. The most crucial issues and especially US military
and foreign policy need to be seriously debated.
Blaming an outside power is a good way to prevent self analysis and positive change. It's
gone on far too long.
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist who grew up in Canada but currently lives in
the San Francisco Bay Area of California. He can be reached at [email protected] . Read other articles by Rick .
I found the first of these statements as "chilling" as the second:
"Schumer thus greeted Assange's April 11 arrest by tweeting his "hope [that] he will soon
be held to account for his meddling in our elections on behalf of Putin and the Russian
government," while, in a truly chilling statement, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West
Virginia declared that "[i]t will be really good to get him back on United States soil [so]
we can get the facts and the truth from him."
Daniel Lazare's recent work on Assange indicated via chronological sequencing it's much
more likely Guccifer 2.0 was the phony he was suspected to be at the time, let alone
Assange's denial it was not the Russians, nor any State operation, plus as we have discussed
pointing toward Seth Rich (an insider-as-leak interpretation subsequently buttressed by
William Binney et al.)
In short, there is and has been ample information to suspend leaping to the hysterical tar
and feather him approach mouthed by Schumer, spittle presumably flying out of his mouth at
the time.
It is disgusting to see supposed leaders in the government advocating guilty until proved
innocent in this lynch-mob manner in a country with supposedly an advanced system of justice.
It reminds me of the Rosenberg case and the McCarthy era and the Salem witch trials before
that.
"... I discovered just today that Adam Schiffs sister, Melissa Schiff SOROS, is married to George Soros' son! Hes a globalist pig! pic.twitter.com/icjzMYCnXM ..."
"... Last month, Schiff delivered the opening statements at a Congressional hearing where he laid out the case for alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. This reporter previously documented serious problems with Schiff's charges, which include wild conspiracy theories and heavy reliance on a questionable source. ..."
"... In largely forgotten history, Schiff's 2000 Congressional campaign against Republican incumbent Jim Rogan was openly aided by MoveOn.org. ..."
I discovered just today that Adam Schiffs sister, Melissa Schiff SOROS, is married to George Soros' son! Hes a globalist
pig! pic.twitter.com/icjzMYCnXM
Per
Breitbart, those family ties helped Adam Schiff score big bucks from Soros org MoveOn, to boost his political career.
Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was previously financially aided by the George
Soros-financed MoveOn.org to win his Congressional seat.
Schiff was also awarded the Toll Fellowship, which is sponsored by the Council of State Governments, a nonprofit that monitors
federal government activities and is heavily financed by Soros's Open Society Foundations.
The Open Society and Soros-funded groups have additionally supported a number of Schiff's legislative efforts.
Schiff has been helping to lead the Democrats' unsubstantiated charges of alleged collusion between President Donald Trump
and Moscow.
Last month, Schiff delivered the opening statements at a Congressional hearing where he laid out the case for alleged Russian
meddling in the 2016 presidential election. This reporter previously
documented serious problems with Schiff's charges, which include wild conspiracy theories and heavy reliance on a questionable
source.
In largely forgotten history, Schiff's 2000 Congressional campaign against Republican incumbent Jim Rogan was openly aided
by MoveOn.org.
On January 1, 2000, the Wall Street Journal reported on the radical group's fundraising efforts for Schiff. The Congressional
seat was particularly important since Rogan had gained fame after he was selected to be one of thirteen House Managers in the
1998 impeachment case of Bill Clinton. Rogan was
supportive of Clinton's impeachment
and became a hero in the Republican Party.
The divorce between Adam Schiff's sister and George Soros' brother was a messy one.
With this property transfer, I thee divorce. Melissa Schiff Soros , the soon-to-be ex-wife of scion Robert Soros , has paid her
estranged husband $10 million for the privilege of taking possession of the townhouse they once shared at 263 West 11th Street ,
city records show.
The couple, who are in the midst of a messy divorce, have provided the tabloids with
some delightful fodder of late, including
reports that Mr. Soros, the eldest son of George and president of his father's $28 billion firm, canoodled with his 29-year-old girlfriend
in front of his wife on a eight-hour-plus flight from Italy.
The marriage foundered after Mr. Soros allegedly
had an affair
with model/"naked artist" Meredith Ostrom (who paints by rolling around a canvas naked in covered in paint), which sparked a lengthy
court battle over how to divide up the very serious marital assets the Soroses had built up over the course of the their 22-year
marriage. Ms. Schiff Soros' lawyer has argued that the prenup is ambiguous. And we're guessing the transfer of funds from Schiff
to Soros is merely a perfunctory lob in what is likely to be an avalanche of assets flowing Ms. Schiff's way. (When your husband
of more than two decades cheats on you with a "naked artist" ).
The couple also owns a country house in Rhinebeck, N.Y., and a $9 million waterfront "cottage" in Martha's Vineyard.
Ms. Schiff Soros, a filmmaker and photographer, apparently had a strong desire to hang onto their charming West Village townhome,
broken or not. The house is notable for being where Thomas Wolfe wrote the first draft of his novel Look, Homeward Angel.
The couple bought the house in 1993, a year after their marriage, according to city records, though the price they paid was not recorded;
the Soroses have two college-aged children who might presumably wish to return to their old bedrooms.
Herb Greene Just a note: A certain "lady" from CA (I think) also was/is "good friends" with George Sr. Remember the person
who was raped by the latest Supreme Court nominee? Yeah, thats THE ONE!
Reply
March 1, 2019
Camille Gilliam All I know is what i have figured out about anyone who
takes money from Soros sells his soul to the Devil..The man is Evil. What he did to his own people during WW11, is unthinkable,
and now he is trying to take down the world.
Reply
February 18, 2018
Robin Last month, Schiff delivered the opening statements at a Congressional hearing where he laid out the case for alleged
Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. This reporter previously documented serious problems with Schiff's charges,
which include wild conspiracy theories and heavy reliance on a questionable source. In largely forgotten history, Schiff's 2000
Congressional campaign against Republican incumbent Jim Rogan was openly aided by MoveOn.
Reply
February 14, 2018
Jim Phillips Whether or not the reported Soros/Schiff relationship is factual, George Soros has used his money to undermine
the United States Government by buying, thus controlling, the Clinton's, Obama, and other political whores. He and those who enriched
themselves from his largess should be shot with shit and hung for stinking – after spending a decade in jail.
Reply
February 12, 2018
whoopie Political inbreeding. Give Soros a call and let him know what you think: 212-262-6300
Reply
February 7, 2018
BruceClapiet Time to turn Soros over to Isreal
Reply
February 6, 2018
SOCAL LADY TURN THE POS SOROS TO RUSSIA. HE IS WANTED THERE TOO. I THINK ISREAL SHOULD HAVE FIRST DIBS THOUGH.
Reply
August 30, 2018
RL You know this isn't true right? They aren't even related.
interesting that a website call "truthfeed" posts something so easily proven fake.
Reply
February 6, 2018
Bruce Clapiet Ok prove it last week Obama was responsible for dow a couple of short days
ok pretty short and its Trump. Your leaders are a bunch of Lying Hypocrites. You folks dont know whats up or down lots in lies
and filth lucre. Not to mention the greed and outright stealing from whomever they can
Reply
February 7, 2018
Jorge Why don't you Russkies mind you own damned business?
Reply February 12, 2018
Mark Why does the MSM fail at every turn to provide accurate information on
the Democrats and their financial despotic pals around the world? For somewhat who always worked for the government how dose this
guy have assets in the millions?
Reply
February 6, 2018
Sandra Kathryn Now, you want to talk about your 1 in a million coincidences! This "different" woman has the same identical
name as Schiff's sister, isn't his sister but is coincidentally married to Soros' son. WOW! Also, the 1st link to Wiki gives
the hometown of the Congressman Schiff, not his sister. And the 2nd link, a wedding announcement, doesn't mention anything
about her hometown. Neither one disputes the claim of this article nor substantiates your claim that they are different women.
Reply
February 9, 2018
Anne Braun Well, They may all be tied together, and I don't doubt that, but for what
it's worth, there's a lot more big money involved with all these filthy blood-sucking rich corrupt democrats and a few rhino republicans
than just Soros money. Old Soros would run broke pretty quick if that were the case. There wouldn't be enough money for any one
person involved with these big payola schemes to keep them all up in their non-ending lavish lifestyles and bulging net worth.
Common sense will tell you be warned, there's more than just Soros dishing out the big bucks to these bottom dweller scum suckers!
Reply
February 6, 2018
Jorge Oh, like the Koch bros have America's best interest in their hearts?
Reply
February 12, 2018
Trilby And yet Wikipedia lists Adam Schiff's parents as Edward and Sherrill Ann (Glovsky) Schiff and the 1992 NYT wedding
announcement for Melissa Schiff lists her parents as Marlene S. Schiff of New York and the late Dr. Haskel Schiff.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/24/style/weddings-melissa-schiff-robert-d-soros.html
Something is strange here with the schiff family. Or am I missing something? I don't doubt this article, I would doubt Wikipedia
first as trying to hide something.
Reply
February 6, 2018
"... Adam Schiff, chair of the House intelligence committee, told ABC's This Week impeachment by the Democratic-run House would be divisive and unlikely to succeed in the Republican-run Senate. ..."
"... Trump's stonewalling of congressional oversight does add weight to calls for impeachment, Schiff said, adding: "But you know, part of our reluctance is we are already a bitterly divided country and an impeachment process will divide us further." ..."
Democrats are reluctant to impeach Donald Trump but he may provoke such a
move by continuing to obstruct congressional efforts to oversee his administration, a senior
lawmaker said on Sunday.
Adam Schiff, chair of the House intelligence committee, told ABC's This Week impeachment by
the Democratic-run House would be divisive and unlikely to succeed in the Republican-run
Senate.
"But [Trump] may get us there," Schiff said. "He certainly seems to be trying and maybe this
is his perverse way of dividing us more he thinks that's to his political advantage, but it's
certainly not to the country's advantage."
Trump's stonewalling of congressional oversight does add weight to calls for impeachment,
Schiff said, adding: "But you know, part of our reluctance is we are already a bitterly divided
country and an impeachment process will divide us further."
"... We're fighting all the subpoenas," Trump said Wednesday. "These aren't, like, impartial people. The Democrats are out to win in 2020 ..."
"... the Justice Department is withholding from the Oversight Committee subpoenaed documents dealing with the decision to include a question on the 2020 Census about citizenship status. ..."
"... These House investigations constitute a massive political assault, in collusion with a hostile media, to destroy my presidency. ..."
"... We do not intend to cooperate in our own destruction. We are not going to play our assigned role in this scripted farce. We will resist their subpoenas all the way to November 2020. Let the people then decide the fate and future of the Trump presidency -- and that of Nancy Pelosi's House. ..."
President Donald Trump has decided to cease cooperating with what he sees, not incorrectly, as a Beltway conspiracy that is out
to destroy him.
"We're fighting all the subpoenas," Trump said Wednesday. "These aren't, like, impartial people. The Democrats are out to win
in 2020."
Thus the Treasury Department just breezed by a deadline from the House Ways and Means Committee to deliver Trump's tax returns.
Thus the White House will invoke executive privilege to deny the House Judiciary Committee access to ex-White House counsel Don
McGahn, who spent 30 hours being interrogated by Robert Mueller's team. Thus the Justice Department is withholding from the Oversight Committee subpoenaed documents dealing with the decision to include
a question on the 2020 Census about citizenship status.
Across the capital, the barricades are going up figuratively as they did physically in the 1960s and '70s. Once more, it's us
against them. Cognizant of the new reality, Trump seems to be saying:
These House investigations constitute a massive political assault, in collusion with a hostile media, to destroy my presidency.
We do not intend to cooperate in our own destruction. We are not going to play our assigned role in this scripted farce. We
will resist their subpoenas all the way to November 2020. Let the people then decide the fate and future of the Trump presidency
-- and that of Nancy Pelosi's House.
In response to Trump's resort to massive resistance, Rep. Gerald Connolly said:
"A respect for the limits of your branch of government, a respect for the role of other branches of government, is sort of
the oil that makes the machinery work. Absent that this breaks down. And I think we're definitely seeing that."
This is an easier way to prove Trump collision with Russians (real Israel-Russians oligarchs ;-). But they forgot to ask a
permission from Netanyahu...
Notable quotes:
"... " The potential use of the US financial system for illicit purposes is a very serious concern. The Financial Services Committee is exploring these matters, including as they may involve the president and his associates, as thoroughly as possible." ..."
"... Mad Maxine: " The potential use of the U.S. financial system for illicit purposes is a very serious concern." The biggest level of projection I've seen in my life. Especially coming from her, the multi-millionaire. Don't they understand every attack can then be used against them? Full insanity. ..."
"... So, Nana Pelosi has a net worth of 26.4 million dollars (now wait, this is the best part)... on a government salary ...lol. When is Adam Shits-Himself gonna call for Pelosi's tax records to be produced? I know for a fact there are some Samoan fishermen who can't wait to pour through them ;-) ..."
With just three days until the full (redacted) Mueller Report is released, shattering his entire
raison d'etre, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff refuses to give up on his search for
Trump-Russia collusion.
Bloomberg reports that
Congressional Democrats issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank AG and
other banks to obtain long-sought documents related to whether foreign nations tried to influence U.S.
politics,
signaling an escalation of their probes into President Donald Trump's finances and
any dealings with Russians.
Schiff said in a statement the subpoenas issued
included a "friendly subpoena to Deutsche
Bank." The Financial Services Committee chair, Maxine Waters, said in a statement:
"
The potential use of the US financial system for illicit purposes is a very serious
concern.
The Financial Services Committee is exploring these matters, including as they
may involve the president and his associates, as thoroughly as possible."
Deutsche Bank spokeswoman Kerrie McHugh said Monday:
"Deutsche Bank is engaged in a productive dialogue with the House Financial Services and
Intelligence Committees.
We remain committed to providing appropriate information to all authorized investigations in a
manner consistent with our legal obligations. If you have questions concerning the investigative
activities of the committees, we would refer you to the committees themselves."
Deutsche Bank had been Trump's go-to lender for decades,
even as other commercial
banks stopped doing business with him because of multiple bankruptcies.
Additionally,
CNN reports
that
the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has subpoenaed Trump financial
information from Mazars, an accounting firm that once prepared several years' worth of President
Donald Trump's financial statements,
according to a Monday memo to committee members from
Chairman Elijah Cummings.
Cummings had said he intended to issue a "friendly subpoena"
because Mazars USA
had requested it from the committee before providing records.
Cummings is requesting financial information dating back 10 years after Trump's former personal
attorney Michael Cohen accused Trump of inflating his net worth in an attempt to buy the Buffalo Bills
football team.
In the memo, Cummings said
the subpoena is also based on "corroborating documents" that
"raise grave questions
about whether the President has been accurate in his financial
reporting."
While
possible financial leverage wasn't mentioned in Attorney General William Barr's
four-page summary of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings
from his 22-month probe of
Russian election interference, Schiff remains unable to face his own cognitive dissonance, frequently
noting that billionaire real-estate-developer Trump was pursuing a Trump Tower (real estate) project
in Moscow during the presidential campaign...
"That's
a different form of collusion, but it is equally compromising to the countr
y
because it means the president of the United States is
looking out for his bank account
and not for the United States of America," Schiff said in an interview on NBC in February.
The polls said Hillary had a 93% chance of winning. Why wouldn't
Trump keep his business running and looking for more opportunities?
That's what businessmen do. I do it every day, even on vacation. It's
getting ******* old their little skunkworks strategy.
Declassification needs to come now. Hang these fuckers. Schiff first.
Just imagine what our country would be if these traitors spent half
as much time, creativity and tenacity improving our country. Instead
they cling to an imagined Russian collusion and are frantically
searching for an investigation to fit that outcome.
If I wasn't
paying taxes to watch this story unfold it would be *******
hilarious.
Schiff, Cummings, Waters, et al wouldn't last 1 day under the same
amount of scruitny they've put our president through these last 2
years. I pray one of these fuckers is on Nunes list for criminal
referral to the DOJ.
How Trump has avoided catastrophe so far during his 25 months
as President is more impressive than anything Houdini ever did. But
he's got every finger and nine toes in the dike and his good
fortune is nearing its inevitable conclusion. Thursday can't come
fast enough.
Anyone else sick of these ******* retarded assholes? At what point do
they do the job they were hired to do instead of continually trying
to dirty up Trump? Who gives a **** what they guy did 10 *******
years ago? He wasn't president. Everyone of these assholes needs to
go, this is complete ********.
Callin' like it is ... Yeah, who isn't ... Plus, they have
absolutely no viable interpretive skills with which to evaluate
the information. And forget the tax returns. Unless you're very
informed about the matters at hand you won't get it close, much
less right. Totally stupid. And I'm a former forensic accountant
at Ernst & Young.
Mad Maxine: "
The potential use of the U.S. financial system for
illicit purposes is a very serious concern." The biggest level
of projection I've seen in my life. Especially coming from her, the
multi-millionaire. Don't they understand every attack can then
be used against them? Full insanity.
So what has the democratic house actually done since wining majority?
Like what do they get paid for? Maybe they need to investigate Trumps
Barber after all isn't that where all those private conversation
could lead to something, anything!
So, Nana Pelosi has a net worth of 26.4 million dollars (now wait,
this is the best part)...
on a government salary
...lol.
When is Adam Shits-Himself gonna call for Pelosi's tax records to
be produced? I know for a fact there are some Samoan fishermen who
can't wait to pour through them ;-)
On a serious note, only a rabid Israel-firster and loyalist to Clintons could ignore the
excellent report of the patriotic Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS); the
report explains why Clinton/DNC emails were never hacked but "leaked."
True to the spirit of the DNC activists, the "progressives" and "liberals" are indifferent to
the death of the young DNC operative Seth Rich.
The centerpiece accusation of Kremlin "interference" in the 2016 presidential election
was the charge that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee emails and gave them to
WikiLeaks to embarrass Secretary Hillary Clinton and help Mr. Trump win.
In 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair asked Comey whether he ever had "access to
the actual hardware that was hacked." Comey answered, "In the case of the DNC we did not
have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private
party "
we [VIPS] know for sure that the person had to have direct access to the DNC
computers or servers in order to copy the emails. The apparent lack of evidence from the
most likely source, NSA, regarding a hack may help explain the FBI's curious preference for
forensic data from CrowdStrike.
Why the allegedly intelligent A. Schiff has never questioned the conclusions of a private
CrowdStrike led by a Russophobic Jewish emigre from Moscow? For an honest person with a
degree in law, Schiff should have been demanding an FBI investigation of the server in
question. Instead, Adam has been at the forefront of the putsch against POTUS . So
much for the "J.D. from Harvard Law School."
By the way, your attempts to impress the readers with your admiration for Harvard are
funny.
"... In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well. ..."
"... Both Shulyar and Chalupa said the purpose of their initial meeting was to organize a June reception at the embassy to promote Ukraine. According to the embassy's website, the event highlighted female Ukrainian leaders, featuring speeches by Ukrainian parliamentarian Hanna Hopko, who discussed "Ukraine's fight against the Russian aggression in Donbas," and longtime Hillary Clinton confidante Melanne Verveer, who worked for Clinton in the State Department and was a vocal surrogate during the presidential campaign. ..."
"... Almost as quickly as Chalupa's efforts attracted the attention of the Ukrainian Embassy and Democrats, she also found herself the subject of some unwanted attention from overseas. ..."
"... Chalupa, though, indicated in an email that was later hacked and released by WikiLeaks that the Open World Leadership Center "put me on the program to speak specifically about Paul Manafort." ..."
"... In the email, which was sent in early May to then-DNC communications director Luis Miranda, Chalupa noted that she had extended an invitation to the Library of Congress forum to veteran Washington investigative reporter Michael Isikoff. Two days before the event, he had published a story for Yahoo News revealing the unraveling of a $26 million deal between Manafort and a Russian oligarch related to a telecommunications venture in Ukraine. And Chalupa wrote in the email she'd been "working with for the past few weeks" with Isikoff "and connected him to the Ukrainians" at the event. ..."
"... A DNC official stressed that Chalupa was a consultant paid to do outreach for the party's political department, not a researcher. She undertook her investigations into Trump, Manafort and Russia on her own, and the party did not incorporate her findings in its dossiers on the subjects, the official said, stressing that the DNC had been building robust research books on Trump and his ties to Russia long before Chalupa began sounding alarms. ..."
"... Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, a Ukrainian former diplomat who served as the country's head of security under Poroshenko but is now affiliated with a leading opponent of Poroshenko, said it was fishy that "only one part of the black ledger appeared." He asked, "Where is the handwriting analysis?" and said it was "crazy" to announce an investigation based on the ledgers. He met last month in Washington with Trump allies, and said, "of course they all recognize that our [anti-corruption bureau] intervened in the presidential campaign." ..."
"... Ukraine's minister of internal affairs, Arsen Avakov, piled on, trashing Trump on Twitter in July as a "clown" and asserting that Trump is "an even bigger danger to the US than terrorism." ..."
"... Avakov, in a Facebook post, lashed out at Trump for his confusing Crimea comments, calling the assessment the "diagnosis of a dangerous misfit," according to a translated screenshot featured in one media report, though he later deleted the post. He called Trump "dangerous for Ukraine and the US" and noted that Manafort worked with Yanukovych when the former Ukrainian leader "fled to Russia through Crimea. Where would Manafort lead Trump?" ..."
Manafort's work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked
in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant,
for Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to Federal Election Commission records,
though she also was paid by other clients during that time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC's arm for engaging expatriate
Democrats around the world.
A daughter of Ukrainian immigrants who maintains strong ties to the Ukrainian-American diaspora and the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine,
Chalupa, a lawyer by training, in 2014 was doing pro bono work for another client interested in the Ukrainian crisis and began researching
Manafort's role in Yanukovych's rise, as well as his ties to the pro-Russian oligarchs who funded Yanukovych's political party.
In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative
journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle
centered on mobilizing ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely presidential campaign
began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well.
She occasionally shared her findings with officials from the DNC and Clinton's campaign, Chalupa said. In January 2016 -- months
before Manafort had taken any role in Trump's campaign -- Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump's campaign,
"I felt there was a Russia connection," Chalupa recalled. "And that, if there was, that we can expect Paul Manafort to be involved
in this election," said Chalupa, who at the time also was warning leaders in the Ukrainian-American community that Manafort was "Putin's
political brain for manipulating U.S. foreign policy and elections."
he said she shared her concern with Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., Valeriy Chaly, and one of his top aides, Oksana Shulyar,
during a March 2016 meeting at the Ukrainian Embassy. According to someone briefed on the meeting, Chaly said that Manafort was very
much on his radar, but that he wasn't particularly concerned about the operative's ties to Trump since he didn't believe Trump stood
much of a chance of winning the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency.
That was not an uncommon view at the time, and, perhaps as a result, Trump's ties to Russia -- let alone Manafort's -- were not
the subject of much attention.
That all started to change just four days after Chalupa's meeting at the embassy, when it was reported that Trump had in fact hired
Manafort, suggesting that Chalupa may have been on to something. She quickly found herself in high demand. The day after Manafort's
hiring was revealed, she briefed the DNC's communications staff on Manafort, Trump and their ties to Russia, according to an operative
familiar with the situation.
A former DNC staffer described the exchange as an "informal conversation," saying "'briefing' makes it sound way too formal,"
and adding, "We were not directing or driving her work on this." Yet, the former DNC staffer and the operative familiar with the
situation agreed that with the DNC's encouragement, Chalupa asked embassy staff to try to arrange an interview in which Poroshenko
might discuss Manafort's ties to Yanukovych.
While the embassy declined that request, officials there became "helpful" in Chalupa's efforts, she said, explaining that she
traded information and leads with them. "If I asked a question, they would provide guidance, or if there was someone I needed to
follow up with." But she stressed, "There were no documents given, nothing like that."
Chalupa said the embassy also worked directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and Russia to point them in the right
directions. She added, though, "they were being very protective and not speaking to the press as much as they should have. I think
they were being careful because their situation was that they had to be very, very careful because they could not pick sides. It's
a political issue, and they didn't want to get involved politically because they couldn't."
Shulyar vehemently denied working with reporters or with Chalupa on anything related to Trump or Manafort, explaining "we were
stormed by many reporters to comment on this subject, but our clear and adamant position was not to give any comment [and] not to
interfere into the campaign affairs."
Both Shulyar and Chalupa said the purpose of their initial meeting was to organize a June reception at the embassy to promote
Ukraine. According to the embassy's website, the event highlighted female Ukrainian leaders, featuring speeches by Ukrainian parliamentarian
Hanna Hopko, who discussed "Ukraine's fight against the Russian aggression in Donbas," and longtime Hillary Clinton confidante Melanne
Verveer, who worked for Clinton in the State Department and was a vocal surrogate during the presidential campaign.
Shulyar said her work with Chalupa "didn't involve the campaign," and she specifically stressed that "We have never worked to
research and disseminate damaging information about Donald Trump and Paul Manafort."
But Andrii Telizhenko, who worked as a political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy under Shulyar, said she instructed him to help
Chalupa research connections between Trump, Manafort and Russia. "Oksana said that if I had any information, or knew other people
who did, then I should contact Chalupa," recalled Telizhenko, who is now a political consultant in Kiev. "They were coordinating
an investigation with the Hillary team on Paul Manafort with Alexandra Chalupa," he said, adding "Oksana was keeping it all quiet,"
but "the embassy worked very closely with" Chalupa.
In fact, sources familiar with the effort say that Shulyar specifically called Telizhenko into a meeting with Chalupa to provide
an update on an American media outlet's ongoing investigation into Manafort.
Telizhenko recalled that Chalupa told him and Shulyar that, "If we can get enough information on Paul [Manafort] or Trump's involvement
with Russia, she can get a hearing in Congress by September."
Chalupa confirmed that, a week after Manafort's hiring was announced, she discussed the possibility of a congressional investigation
with a foreign policy legislative assistant in the office of Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), who co-chairs the Congressional Ukrainian
Caucus. But, Chalupa said, "It didn't go anywhere."
Asked about the effort, the Kaptur legislative assistant called it a "touchy subject" in an internal email to colleagues that
was accidentally forwarded to Politico.
Kaptur's office later emailed an official statement explaining that the lawmaker is backing a bill to create an independent commission
to investigate "possible outside interference in our elections." The office added "at this time, the evidence related to this matter
points to Russia, but Congresswoman Kaptur is concerned with any evidence of foreign entities interfering in our elections."
•••
Almost as quickly as Chalupa's efforts attracted the attention of the Ukrainian Embassy and Democrats, she also found herself
the subject of some unwanted attention from overseas.
Within a few weeks of her initial meeting at the embassy with Shulyar and Chaly, Chalupa on April 20 received the first of what
became a series of messages from the administrators of her private Yahoo email account, warning her that "state-sponsored actors"
were trying to hack into her emails.
She kept up her crusade, appearing on a panel a week after the initial hacking message to discuss her research on Manafort with
a group of Ukrainian investigative journalists gathered at the Library of Congress for a program sponsored by a U.S. congressional
agency called the Open World Leadership Center.
Center spokeswoman Maura Shelden stressed that her group is nonpartisan and ensures "that our delegations hear from both sides
of the aisle, receiving bipartisan information." She said the Ukrainian journalists in subsequent days met with Republican officials
in North Carolina and elsewhere. And she said that, before the Library of Congress event, "Open World's program manager for Ukraine
did contact Chalupa to advise her that Open World is a nonpartisan agency of the Congress."
Chalupa, though, indicated in an email that was later hacked and released by WikiLeaks that the Open World Leadership Center
"put me on the program to speak specifically about Paul Manafort."
In the email, which was sent in early May to then-DNC communications director Luis Miranda, Chalupa noted that she had extended
an invitation to the Library of Congress forum to veteran Washington investigative reporter Michael Isikoff. Two days before the
event, he had published a story for Yahoo News revealing the unraveling of a $26 million deal between Manafort and a Russian oligarch
related to a telecommunications venture in Ukraine. And Chalupa wrote in the email she'd been "working with for the past few weeks"
with Isikoff "and connected him to the Ukrainians" at the event.
Isikoff, who accompanied Chalupa to a reception at the Ukrainian Embassy immediately after the Library of Congress event, declined
to comment.
Chalupa further indicated in her hacked May email to the DNC that she had additional sensitive information about Manafort that
she intended to share "offline" with Miranda and DNC research director Lauren Dillon, including "a big Trump component you and Lauren
need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I'm working on you should be aware of." Explaining that she didn't
feel comfortable sharing the intel over email, Chalupa attached a screenshot of a warning from Yahoo administrators about "state-sponsored"
hacking on her account, explaining, "Since I started digging into Manafort these messages have been a daily occurrence on my yahoo
account despite changing my password often."
Dillon and Miranda declined to comment.
A DNC official stressed that Chalupa was a consultant paid to do outreach for the party's political department, not a researcher.
She undertook her investigations into Trump, Manafort and Russia on her own, and the party did not incorporate her findings in its
dossiers on the subjects, the official said, stressing that the DNC had been building robust research books on Trump and his ties
to Russia long before Chalupa began sounding alarms.
Nonetheless, Chalupa's hacked email reportedly escalated concerns among top party officials, hardening their conclusion that Russia
likely was behind the cyber intrusions with which the party was only then beginning to grapple.
Chalupa left the DNC after the Democratic convention in late July to focus fulltime on her research into Manafort, Trump and Russia
. She said she provided off-the-record information and guidance to "a lot of journalists" working on stories related to Manafort
and Trump's Russia connections, despite what she described as escalating harassment.
... ... ...
•••
While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between governments and reporters, one of the more damaging
Russia-related stories for the Trump campaign -- and certainly for Manafort -- can be traced more directly to the Ukrainian government.
Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency -- and publicized by a parliamentarian -- appeared to show $12.7
million in cash payments that were earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president, Yanukovych.
The New York Times, in the August story revealing the ledgers' existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were
"a focus" of an investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the FBI was pursuing an
overlapping inquiry.
Clinton's campaign seized on the story to advance Democrats' argument that Trump's campaign was closely linked to Russia. The
ledger represented "more troubling connections between Donald Trump's team and pro-Kremlin elements in Ukraine," Robby Mook, Clinton's
campaign manager, said in a statement. He demanded that Trump "disclose campaign chair Paul Manafort's and all other campaign employees'
and advisers' ties to Russian or pro-Kremlin entities, including whether any of Trump's employees or advisers are currently representing
and or being paid by them."
A former Ukrainian investigative journalist and current parliamentarian named Serhiy Leshchenko, who was elected in 2014 as part
of Poroshenko's party, held a news conference to highlight the ledgers, and to urge Ukrainian and American law enforcement to aggressively
investigate Manafort.
"I believe and understand the basis of these payments are totally against the law -- we have the proof from these books," Leshchenko
said during the news conference, which attracted international media coverage. "If Mr. Manafort denies any allegations, I think he
has to be interrogated into this case and prove his position that he was not involved in any misconduct on the territory of Ukraine,"
Leshchenko added.
Manafort
denied receiving any off-books cash from Yanukovych's Party of Regions, and said that he had never been contacted about the ledger
by Ukrainian or American investigators, later telling POLITICO "I was just caught in the crossfire."
According to a
series of memos reportedly compiled for Trump's opponents by a former British intelligence agent, Yanukovych, in a secret meeting
with Putin on the day after the Times published its report, admitted that he had authorized "substantial kickback payments
to Manafort." But according to the report, which was
published Tuesday
by BuzzFeed but remains unverified. Yanukovych assured Putin "that there was no documentary trail left behind which could provide
clear evidence of this" -- an alleged statement that seemed to implicitly question the authenticity of the ledger.
The scrutiny around the ledgers -- combined with that from
other stories about his
Ukraine
work -- proved too much, and he
stepped down from the
Trump campaign less than a week after the Times story.
At the time, Leshchenko suggested that his motivation was partly to undermine Trump. "For me, it was important to show not only
the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world," Leshchenko
told the Financial Times about two weeks after his news conference. The newspaper noted that Trump's candidacy had spurred "Kiev's
wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election,"
and the story quoted Leshchenko asserting that the majority of Ukraine's politicians are "on Hillary Clinton's side."
But by this month, Leshchenko was seeking to recast his motivation, telling Politico, "I didn't care who won the U.S. elections.
This was a decision for the American voters to decide." His goal in highlighting the ledgers, he said was "to raise these issues
on a political level and emphasize the importance of the investigation."
In a series of answers provided to Politico, a spokesman for Poroshenko distanced his administration from both Leshchenko's efforts
and those of the agency that reLeshchenko Leshchenko leased the ledgers, The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine. It was created
in 2014 as a condition for Ukraine to receive aid from the U.S. and the European Union, and it signed an evidence-sharing agreement
with the FBI in late June -- less than a month and a half before it released the ledgers.
The bureau is "fully independent," the Poroshenko spokesman said, adding that when it came to the presidential administration
there was "no targeted action against Manafort." He added "as to Serhiy Leshchenko, he positions himself as a representative of internal
opposition in the Bloc of Petro Poroshenko's faction, despite [the fact that] he belongs to the faction," the spokesman said, adding,
"it was about him personally who pushed [the anti-corruption bureau] to proceed with investigation on Manafort."
But an operative who has worked extensively in Ukraine, including as an adviser to Poroshenko, said it was highly unlikely that
either Leshchenko or the anti-corruption bureau would have pushed the issue without at least tacit approval from Poroshenko or his
closest allies.
"It was something that Poroshenko was probably aware of and could have stopped if he wanted to," said the operative.
And, almost immediately after Trump's stunning victory over Clinton, questions began mounting about the investigations into the
ledgers -- and the ledgers themselves.
An official with the anti-corruption bureau told a Ukrainian newspaper, "Mr. Manafort does not have a role in this case."
And, while the anti-corruption bureau told Politico late last month that a "general investigation [is] still ongoing" of the ledger,
it said Manafort is not a target of the investigation. "As he is not the Ukrainian citizen, [the anti-corruption bureau] by the law
couldn't investigate him personally," the bureau said in a statement.
Some Poroshenko critics have gone further, suggesting that the bureau is backing away from investigating because the ledgers might
have been doctored or even forged.
Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, a Ukrainian former diplomat who served as the country's head of security under Poroshenko but is now affiliated
with a leading opponent of Poroshenko, said it was fishy that "only one part of the black ledger appeared." He asked, "Where is the
handwriting analysis?" and said it was "crazy" to announce an investigation based on the ledgers. He met last month in Washington
with Trump allies, and said, "of course they all recognize that our [anti-corruption bureau] intervened in the presidential campaign."
And in an interview this week, Manafort, who re-emerged as an informal advisor to Trump after Election Day, suggested that the
ledgers were inauthentic and called their publication "a politically motivated false attack on me. My role as a paid consultant was
public. There was nothing off the books, but the way that this was presented tried to make it look shady."
He added that he felt particularly wronged by efforts to cast his work in Ukraine as pro-Russian, arguing "all my efforts were
focused on helping Ukraine move into Europe and the West." He specifically cited his work on denuclearizing the country and on the
European Union trade and political pact that Yanukovych spurned before fleeing to Russia. "In no case was I ever involved in anything
that would be contrary to U.S. interests," Manafort said.
Yet Russia seemed to come to the defense of Manafort and Trump last month, when a spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry charged
that the Ukrainian government used the ledgers as a political weapon.
"Ukraine seriously complicated the work of Trump's election campaign headquarters by planting information according to which Paul
Manafort, Trump's campaign chairman, allegedly accepted money from Ukrainian oligarchs," Maria Zakharova said at a news briefing,
according to a transcript of her remarks posted on the Foreign Ministry's website. "All of you have heard this remarkable story,"
she told assembled reporters.
•••
Beyond any efforts to sabotage Trump, Ukrainian officials didn't exactly extend a hand of friendship to the GOP nominee during
the campaign.
The ambassador, Chaly, penned an op-ed for The Hill, in which he chastised Trump for a confusing series of statements in which
the GOP candidate at one point expressed a willingness to consider recognizing Russia's annexation of the Ukrainian territory of
Crimea as legitimate. The op-ed made some in the embassy uneasy, sources said.
"That was like too close for comfort, even for them," said Chalupa. "That was something that was as risky as they were going to
be."
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk warned on Facebook that Trump had "challenged the very values of the free world."
Ukraine's minister of internal affairs, Arsen Avakov, piled on, trashing Trump on Twitter in July as a "clown" and asserting that
Trump is "an even bigger danger to the US than terrorism."
Avakov, in a Facebook post, lashed out at Trump for his confusing Crimea comments, calling the assessment the "diagnosis of a
dangerous misfit," according to a translated screenshot featured in one media report, though he later deleted the post. He called
Trump "dangerous for Ukraine and the US" and noted that Manafort worked with Yanukovych when the former Ukrainian leader "fled to
Russia through Crimea. Where would Manafort lead Trump?"
The Trump-Ukraine relationship grew even more fraught in September with reports that the GOP nominee had snubbed Poroshenko on
the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where the Ukrainian president tried to meet both major party candidates,
but scored only a meeting with Clinton.
Telizhenko, the former embassy staffer, said that, during the primaries, Chaly, the country's ambassador in Washington, had actually
instructed the embassy not to reach out to Trump's campaign, even as it was engaging with those of Clinton and Trump's leading GOP
rival, Ted Cruz.
"We had an order not to talk to the Trump team, because he was critical of Ukraine and the government and his critical position
on Crimea and the conflict," said Telizhenko. "I was yelled at when I proposed to talk to Trump," he said, adding, "The ambassador
said not to get involved -- Hillary is going to win."
This account was confirmed by Nalyvaichenko, the former diplomat and security chief now affiliated with a Poroshenko opponent,
who said, "The Ukrainian authorities closed all doors and windows -- this is from the Ukrainian side." He called the strategy "bad
and short-sighted."
Andriy Artemenko, a Ukrainian parliamentarian associated with a conservative opposition party, did meet with Trump's team during
the campaign and said he personally offered to set up similar meetings for Chaly but was rebuffed.
"It was clear that they were supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy," Artemenko said. "They did everything from organizing meetings
with the Clinton team, to publicly supporting her, to criticizing Trump. I think that they simply didn't meet because they thought
that Hillary would win."
Shulyar rejected the characterizations that the embassy had a ban on interacting with Trump, instead explaining that it "had different
diplomats assigned for dealing with different teams tailoring the content and messaging. So it was not an instruction to abstain
from the engagement but rather an internal discipline for diplomats not to get involved into a field she or he was not assigned to,
but where another colleague was involved."
And she pointed out that Chaly traveled to the GOP convention in Cleveland in late July and met with members of Trump's foreign
policy team "to highlight the importance of Ukraine and the support of it by the U.S."
Despite the outreach, Trump's campaign in Cleveland gutted a proposed amendment to the Republican Party platform that called for
the U.S. to provide "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine to defend itself against Russian incursion, backers of the measure charged.
The outreach ramped up after Trump's victory. Shulyar pointed out that Poroshenko was among the first foreign leaders to call
to congratulate Trump. And she said that, since Election Day, Chaly has met with close Trump allies, including Sens. Jeff Sessions,
Trump's nominee for attorney general, and Bob Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, while the ambassador
accompanied Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, Ukraine's vice prime minister for European and Euro-Atlantic integration, to a round of Washington
meetings with Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.), an early Trump backer, and Jim DeMint, president of The Heritage Foundation, which played
a prominent role in Trump's transition.
•••
Many Ukrainian officials and operatives and their American allies see Trump's inauguration this month as an existential threat
to the country, made worse, they admit, by the dissemination of the secret ledger, the antagonistic social media posts and the perception
that the embassy meddled against -- or at least shut out -- Trump.
"It's really bad. The [Poroshenko] administration right now is trying to re-coordinate communications," said Telizhenko, adding,
"The Trump organization doesn't want to talk to our administration at all."
During Nalyvaichenko's trip to Washington last month, he detected lingering ill will toward Ukraine from some, and lack of
interest from others, he recalled. "Ukraine is not on the top of the list, not even the middle," he said.
Poroshenko's allies are scrambling to figure out how to build a relationship with Trump, who is known for harboring and prosecuting
grudges for years.
A delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians allied with Poroshenko last month traveled to Washington partly to try to make inroads
with the Trump transition team, but they were unable to secure a meeting, according to a Washington foreign policy operative familiar
with the trip. And operatives in Washington and Kiev say that after the election, Poroshenko met in Kiev with top executives from
the Washington lobbying firm BGR -- including Ed Rogers and Lester Munson -- about how to navigate the Trump regime.
Weeks later, BGR reported to the Department of Justice that the government of Ukraine would pay the firm $50,000 a month to "provide
strategic public relations and government affairs counsel," including "outreach to U.S. government officials, non-government organizations,
members of the media and other individuals."
Firm spokesman Jeffrey Birnbaum suggested that "pro-Putin oligarchs" were already trying to sow doubts about BGR's work with Poroshenko.
While the firm maintains close relationships with GOP congressional leaders, several of its principals were dismissive or sharply
critical of Trump during the GOP primary, which could limit their effectiveness lobbying the new administration.
The Poroshenko regime's standing with Trump is considered so dire that the president's allies after the election actually reached
out to make amends with -- and even seek assistance from -- Manafort, according to two operatives familiar with Ukraine's efforts
to make inroads with Trump.
Meanwhile, Poroshenko's rivals are seeking to capitalize on his dicey relationship with Trump's team. Some are pressuring him
to replace Chaly, a close ally of Poroshenko's who is being blamed by critics in Kiev and Washington for implementing -- if not engineering
-- the country's anti-Trump efforts, according to Ukrainian and U.S. politicians and operatives interviewed for this story. They
say that several potential Poroshenko opponents have been through Washington since the election seeking audiences of their own with
Trump allies, though most have failed to do do so.
"None of the Ukrainians have any access to Trump -- they are all desperate to get it, and are willing to pay big for it," said
one American consultant whose company recently met in Washington with Yuriy Boyko, a former vice prime minister under Yanukovych.
Boyko, who like Yanukovych has a pro-Russian worldview, is considering a presidential campaign of his own, and his representatives
offered "to pay a shit-ton of money" to get access to Trump and his inaugural events, according to the consultant.
The consultant turned down the work, explaining, "It sounded shady, and we don't want to get in the middle of that kind of stuff."
Looks like Chalupa was an important player in Steele dossier. That suggests Ukrainian diaspora, and possibly Ukrainian SBU links.
Notable quotes:
"... Just worth noting that in the hand-written notes taken by Bruce Ohr after meetings with Chris Steele, there is the comment that the majority of the Steele Dossier was obtained from an expat Russian living in the US, and not from actual Russian sources in Russia. ..."
"... That would tend to work against theories that involve Skripal in a significant role in generating the dossier; though it would not rule him out in a more peripheral role ..."
"... We can also conclude neither bruce ohr, or the expat russian living in the us are neutral players in any of this too.. Was someone paid a fee to say something?? ..."
"... Steele is a stranger to the truth in any event so I wouldn't set much store by it – though if the dossier is third hand material at best it certainly explains why it is such rubbish. Steele's ability to get cash by selling steaming nonsense to the gullible is amazing. ..."
"... "A Ukrainian political consultant has revealed to Sputnik that former MI6 agent Christopher Steele sought and paid for researchers in Ukraine to concoct fake stories about Donald Trump prior his election as US president to use in the now-infamous dossier that supposedly contained damning evidence of Russia-Trump collusion. ..."
"... Radio Sputnik's Lee Stranahan spoke previously with Ukrainian political consultant and former diplomat Andrii Telizhenko about his connections to a Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative named Alexandra Chalupa who also worked for clients in Ukrainian politics. Chalupa told Politico in January 2017 that beginning in 2015, she pulled on a network of sources she'd established in Kiev and Washington to try and turn up dirt on Trump, once his star began to rise in the Republican primary campaign." ..."
Just worth noting that in the hand-written notes taken by Bruce Ohr after meetings with Chris Steele, there is the comment
that the majority of the Steele Dossier was obtained from an expat Russian living in the US, and not from actual Russian sources
in Russia.
That would tend to work against theories that involve Skripal in a significant role in generating the dossier; though it
would not rule him out in a more peripheral role.
We can also conclude neither bruce ohr, or the expat russian living in the us are neutral players in any of this too..
Was someone paid a fee to say something?? your last comment-conclusion is very shaky at best..
Could you give a link to the source of that info? Steele is a stranger to the truth in any event so I wouldn't set much
store by it – though if the dossier is third hand material at best it certainly explains why it is such rubbish. Steele's ability
to get cash by selling steaming nonsense to the gullible is amazing.
"A Ukrainian political consultant has revealed to Sputnik that former MI6 agent Christopher Steele sought and paid for
researchers in Ukraine to concoct fake stories about Donald Trump prior his election as US president to use in the now-infamous
dossier that supposedly contained damning evidence of Russia-Trump collusion.
Radio Sputnik's Lee Stranahan spoke previously with Ukrainian political consultant and former diplomat Andrii Telizhenko
about his connections to a Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative named Alexandra Chalupa who also worked for clients in
Ukrainian politics. Chalupa told Politico in January 2017 that beginning in 2015, she pulled on a network of sources she'd established
in Kiev and Washington to try and turn up dirt on Trump, once his star began to rise in the Republican primary campaign."
"... Also note: Crowdstrike planted the malware on DNC systems, which they "discovered" later - https://disobedientmedia.com/2017/12/fancy-frauds-bogus-bears-malware-m
..."
"... And look who else sits on the Atlantic Council - http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts/list/irene-chalupa why it's the
sister of Andrea Chalupa, unregistered foreign agent employed by the DNC as a "Consultant", whose entire family is tied to Ukraine Intelligence.
..."
"... Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor for Ukraine's propaganda channel Stopfake.org She is a Ukrainian Diaspora leader. The
Chalupas are the first family of Ukrainian propaganda. She works with and for Ukrainian Intelligence through the Atlantic Council, Stopfake.org,
and her sisters Andrea (EuromaidanPR) and Alexandra. ..."
(if that's too 'in the weeds' for you, ask your tech guys to read and verify)
And look who else sits on the Atlantic Council -
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/experts/list/irene-chalupa
why it's the sister of Andrea Chalupa, unregistered foreign agent employed by the DNC as a "Consultant", whose entire family
is tied to Ukraine Intelligence.
Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor for Ukraine's propaganda channel
Stopfake.org She is a
Ukrainian Diaspora
leader. The Chalupas are the first family of Ukrainian propaganda. She works with and for Ukrainian Intelligence through
the Atlantic Council, Stopfake.org, and her sisters Andrea (EuromaidanPR) and Alexandra.
"... Ukraine has been screaming for the US to start a war with Russia for the past 2 1/2 years. ..."
"... Is Ukrainian Intelligence trying to invent a reason for the US to take a hard-line stance against Russia? Are they using Crowdstrike to carry this out? ..."
"... Meet the real Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, part of the groups that are targeting Ukrainian positions for the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. These people were so tech savvy they didn't know the Ukrainian SBU (Ukrainian CIA/internal security) records every phone call and most internet use in Ukraine and Donbass. Donbass still uses Ukrainian phone and internet services. ..."
"... This is a civil war and people supporting either side are on both sides of the contact line. The SBU is awestruck because there are hundreds if not thousands of people helping to target the private volunteer armies supported by Ukrainian-Americans. ..."
"... If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news. The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by Russian actors based on the work done by Alexandra Chalupa? That is the conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the Russian government connection. These words mirror Dimitri Alperovitch's identification process in his interview with PBS Judy Woodruff. ..."
"... How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a presidential election in a new direction. ..."
"... According to Esquire.com , Alperovitch has vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the measures taken were directly because of his work. ..."
"... Still, this is not enough to show a conflict of interest. Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers do. When it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016. ..."
"... According to Robert Parry's article At the forefront of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council. Their main goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
"... The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia. Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support throughout the campaign. ..."
"... What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or Homeland Security? ..."
"... Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers. ..."
"... When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and its hackers individually . There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. ..."
"... Alperovitch and Fancy Bear tweet each other? ..."
"... Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network ..."
"... In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA. They consider the CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity, Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency." ..."
"... Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence. The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could be on the list. ..."
"... This single tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it to themselves and not draw unwanted attention. ..."
"... Pravy Sektor Hackers and Crowdstrike? ..."
"... What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored, Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are also laughing at US intel efforts. ..."
"... The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated. ..."
"... According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any other way," he told me. "I have." ..."
"... While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to Ukraine. ..."
In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing the
2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing substantial
to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security firm Crowdstrike
that is clearly not on par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is
an "as is" statement showing this.
The difference between Dmitri Alperovitch's claims which are reflected in JAR-1620296 and
this article is that enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of specific
parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors that need to
be investigated for real crimes.
For instance, the malware used was an out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one
other interesting point is that the Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe
is from Ukraine . How did Crowdstrike miss this when it is their business to know?
Later in this article you'll meet and know a little more about the real "Fancy Bear and Cozy
Bear." The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words
like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution.
The article is lengthy because the facts need to be in one place. The bar Dimitri
Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking America to
trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of Russian
involvement?
The December 29th JAR adds a flowchart that shows how a basic phishing hack is performed. It
doesn't add anything significant beyond that. Noticeably, they use both their designation APT
28 and APT 29 as well as the Crowdstrike labels of Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear separately.
This is important because information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of
rumor or unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to
be free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90's that
every private actor in the information game was radically political.
The
Hill.com article about Russia hacking the electric grid is a perfect example of why this
intelligence is political and not taken seriously. If any proof of Russian involvement existed,
the US would be at war. Under current laws of war, there would be no difference between an
attack on the power grid or a missile strike.
According
to the Hill "Private security firms provided more detailed forensic analysis, which the FBI
and DHS said Thursday correlated with the IC's findings.
"The Joint Analysis Report recognizes the excellent work undertaken by
security companies and private sector network owners and operators, and provides new indicators
of compromise and malicious infrastructure
identified during the course of investigations and incident response," read a statement. The
report identities two Russian intelligence groups already named by CrowdStrike and other
private security firms."
In an interview with Washingtonsblog , William Binney, the creator of the NSA global
surveillance system said "I expected to see the IP's or other signatures of APT's 28/29 [the
entities which the U.S. claims hacked the Democratic emails] and where they were located and
how/when the data got transferred to them from DNC/HRC [i.e. Hillary Rodham Clinton]/etc. They
seem to have been following APT 28/29 since at least 2015, so, where are they?"
According to the latest Washington Post story, Crowdstrike's CEO tied a group his company
dubbed "Fancy Bear" to targeting Ukrainian artillery positions in Debaltsevo as well as across
the Ukrainian civil war front for the past 2 years.
Alperovitch states in many articles the Ukrainians were using an Android app to target the
self-proclaimed Republics positions and that hacking this app was what gave targeting data to
the armies in Donbass instead.
Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with McAfee.
Asked to comment on Alperovitch's
discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John McAfee had this to say. "Based on all of his
experience, McAfee does not believe that Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic
National Committee (DNC), John Podesta's emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
As he told RT, "if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the
Russians."
How does Crowdstrike's story part with reality? First is the admission that it is probably,
maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. "
Intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin
'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks."
The public evidence never goes beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or
using facts, Crowdstrike insists that it's Russia behind both Clinton's and the Ukrainian
losses. NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant
for NBC.
According to NBC the story reads like this."
The company, Crowdstrike, was hired by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report
publicly attributing it to Russian intelligence. One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is
Shawn Henry, a former senior FBI official who consults for NBC News.
"But the Russians used the app to turn the tables on their foes, Crowdstrike says. Once a
Ukrainian soldier downloaded it on his Android phone, the Russians were able to eavesdrop on
his communications and determine his position through geo-location.
In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian intelligence
agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers call Cozy Bear, is
believed to be linked to Russia's CIA, known as the FSB. The other, known as Fancy Bear, is
believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called the GRU."
The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above "believed to be."
According to the December 12th Intercept article "Most importantly, the Post adds that
"intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin
'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks."
Because Ukrainian soldiers are using a smartphone app they activate their geolocation to use
it. Targeting is from location to location. The app would need the current user location to
make it work.
In 2015 I wrote an article that showed many of the available open source tools that
geolocate, and track people. They even show street view. This means that using simple means,
someone with freeware or an online website, and not a military budget can look at what you are
seeing at any given moment.
Where Crowdstrike fails is insisting people believe that the code they see is (a) an
advanced way to geolocate and (b) it was how a state with large resources would do it. Would
you leave a calling card where you would get caught and fined through sanctions or worse? If
you use an anonymous online resource at least Crowdstrike won't believe you are Russian and
possibly up to something.
If you read that article and watch the video you'll see that using "geo-stalker" is a better
choice if you are on a low budget or no budget. Should someone tell the Russians they
overpaid?
According to Alperovitch, the smartphone app
plotted targets in about 15 seconds . This means that there is only a small window to get
information this way.
Using the open source tools I wrote about previously, you could track your targets all-day.
In 2014, most Ukrainian forces were using social media regularly. It would be easy to maintain
a map of their locations and track them individually.
From my research into those tools, someone using Python scripts would find it easy to take
photos, listen to conversations, turn on GPS, or even turn the phone on when they chose to.
Going a step further than Alperovitch, without the help of the Russian government, GRU, or FSB,
anyone could
take control of the drones Ukraine is fond of flying and land them. Or they could download
the footage the drones are taking. It's copy and paste at that point. Would you bother the FSB,
GRU, or Vladimir Putin with the details or just do it?
In the WaPo article Alperovitch states "The Fancy Bear crew evidently hacked the app,
allowing the GRU to use the phone's GPS coordinates to track the Ukrainian troops'
position.
In that way, the Russian military could then target the Ukrainian army with artillery and
other weaponry. Ukrainian brigades operating in eastern Ukraine were on the front lines of the
conflict with Russian-backed separatist forces during the early stages of the conflict in late
2014, CrowdStrike noted. By late 2014, Russian forces in the region numbered about 10,000. The
Android app was useful in helping the Russian troops locate Ukrainian artillery positions."
In late 2014,
I personally did the only invasive passport and weapons checks that I know of during the
Ukrainian civil war.
I spent days looking for the Russian army every major publication said were attacking
Ukraine. The keyword Cyber Security industry leader Alperovitch used is "evidently."
Crowdstrike noted that in late 2014, there were 10,000 Russian forces in the region.
When I did the passport and weapons check, it was under the condition there would be no
telephone calls. We went where I wanted to go. We stopped when I said to stop. I checked the
documents and the weapons with no obstacles. The weapons check was important because Ukraine
was stating that Russia was giving Donbass modern weapons at the time. Each weapon is stamped
with a manufacture date. The results are in the articles above.
Based on my findings which the CIA would call hard evidence, almost all the fighters had
Ukrainian passports. There are volunteers from other countries. In Debaltsevo today, I would
question Alperovitch's assertion of Russian troops based on the fact the passports will be
Ukrainian and reflect my earlier findings. There is no possibly, could be, might be, about
it.
The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that
Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment . Although subtitles aren't on it, the former
Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine would have
been in deep trouble.
How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this wrong on easily checked detail and
still get this much media attention? Could the investment made by Google and some
very large players have anything to do with the media Crowdstrike is causing?
According to Alperovitch, the CEO of a $150 million dollar cyber security company "And when
you think about, well, who would be interested in targeting Ukraine artillerymen in eastern
Ukraine who has interest in hacking the Democratic Party, Russia government comes to mind, but
specifically, Russian military that would have operational over forces in the Ukraine and would
target these artillerymen."
That statement is most of the proof of Russian involvement he has. That's it, that's all the
CIA, FBI have to go on. It's why they can't certify the intelligence. It's why they can't get
beyond the threshold of maybe.
Woodruff then asked two important questions. She asked if Crowdstrike was still working for
the DNC. Alperovitch responded "We're protecting them going forward. The investigation is
closed in terms of what happened there. But certainly, we've seen the campaigns, political
organizations are continued to be targeted, and they continue to hire us and use our technology
to protect themselves."
Based on the evidence he presented Woodruff, there is no need to investigate further?
Obviously, there is no need, the money is rolling in.
Second and most important Judy Woodruff asked if there were any questions about conflicts of
interest, how he would answer? This is where Dmitri Alperovitch's story starts to unwind.
His response was "Well, this report was not about the DNC. This report was about information
we uncovered about what these Russian actors were doing in eastern Ukraine in terms of locating
these artillery units of the Ukrainian army and then targeting them. So, what we just did is
said that it looks exactly as the same to the evidence we've already uncovered from the DNC,
linking the two together."
Why is this reasonable statement going to take his story off the rails? First, let's look at
the facts surrounding his evidence and then look at the real conflicts of interest involved.
While carefully evading the question, he neglects to state his conflicts of interest are worthy
of a DOJ investigation. Can you mislead the federal government about national security issues
and not get investigated yourself?
If Alperovitch's evidence is all there is, then the US government owes some large apologies
to Russia.
After showing who is targeting Ukrainian artillerymen, we'll look at what might be a
criminal conspiracy.
Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary Clinton the
election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in Ukraine. If Dimitri
Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing intelligence to 17 US
Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?
Ukraine has been screaming for the US to start a war with Russia for the past 2 1/2 years.
Using facts accepted by leaders on both sides of the conflict, the main proof Crowdstrike shows
for evidence doesn't just unravel, it falls apart. Is Ukrainian Intelligence trying to invent a
reason for the US to take a hard-line stance against Russia? Are they using Crowdstrike to
carry this out?
Real Fancy Bear?
Meet the real Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, part of the groups that are targeting Ukrainian
positions for the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. These people were so tech savvy they
didn't know the Ukrainian SBU (Ukrainian CIA/internal security) records every phone call and
most internet use in Ukraine and Donbass. Donbass still uses Ukrainian phone and internet
services.
These are normal people fighting back against private volunteer armies that target their
homes, schools, and hospitals. The private volunteer armies like Pravy Sektor, Donbas
Battalion, Azov, and Aidar have been cited for atrocities like child rape, torture, murder, and
kidnapping. That just gets the ball rolling. These are a large swath of the Ukrainian
servicemen Crowdstrike hopes to protect.
This story which just aired on Ukrainian news channel TCN shows the SBU questioning and
arresting some of what they call an army of people in the Ukrainian-controlled areas. This news
video shows people in Toretsk that provided targeting information to Donbass and people
probably caught up in the net accidentally.
This is a civil war and people supporting either side are on both sides of the contact line.
The SBU is awestruck because there are hundreds if not thousands of people helping to target
the private volunteer armies supported by Ukrainian-Americans.
The first person they show on the video is a woman named Olga Lubochka. On the video her
voice is heard from a recorded call saying " In the field, on the left about 130 degrees. Aim
and you'll get it." and then " Oh, you hit it so hard you leveled it to the ground.""Am I going
to get a medal for this?"
Other people caught up in the raid claim and probably were only calling friends they know.
It's common for people to call and tell their family about what is going on around them. This
has been a staple in the war especially in outlying villages for people aligned with both sides
of the conflict. A neighbor calls his friend and says "you won't believe what I just saw."
Another "fancy bear," Alexander Schevchenko was caught calling friends and telling them that
armored personnel carriers had just driven by.
Anatoli Prima, father of a DNR(Donetsk People's Republic) soldier was asked to find out what
unit was there and how many artillery pieces.
One woman providing information about fuel and incoming equipment has a husband fighting on
the opposite side in Gorlovka. Gorlovka is a major city that's been under artillery attack
since 2014. For the past 2 1/2 years, she has remained in their home in Toretsk. According to
the video, he's vowed to take no prisoners when they rescue the area.
When asked why they hate Ukraine so much, one responded that they just wanted things to go
back to what they were like before the coup in February 2014.
Another said they were born in the Soviet Union and didn't like what was going on in Kiev.
At the heart of this statement is the anti- OUN, antinationalist sentiment that most people
living in Ukraine feel. The OUNb Bandera killed millions of people in Ukraine, including
starving 3 million Soviet soldiers to death. The new Ukraine was founded
in 1991 by OUN nationalists outside the fledgling country.
Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If it's
done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be investigated? If
unwinding the story from the "targeting of Ukrainian volunteers" side isn't enough, we should
look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia influencing the election and DNC
hack story evolve? Who's involved? Does this pose conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch
and Crowdstrike? And let's face it, a hacking story isn't complete until real hackers with the
skills, motivation, and reason are exposed.
In the last article exploring the
DNC hacks the focus was on the Chalupas . The article focused on Alexandra, Andrea, and
Irene Chalupa. Their participation in the DNC hack story is what brought it to international
attention in the first place.
According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page "
After Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter
to a meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns within
the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. "That's when we knew it was the Russians,"
said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal probe into the
hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, "we told her to stop her
research."" July 25, 2016
If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her sister
Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news. The DNC hacking
investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by Russian actors based on the
work done by Alexandra Chalupa? That is the conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and
obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the Russian government connection. These words mirror
Dimitri Alperovitch's identification process in his interview with PBS Judy Woodruff.
How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he should
have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a presidential election
in a new direction.
According to Esquire.com ,
Alperovitch has vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the
past. Because of his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said
the measures taken were directly because of his work.
Still, this is not enough to show a conflict of interest. Alperovitch's relationships with
the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian propagandists, and Ukrainian state
supported hackers do. When it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that
tried hard to influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.
In my
previous article I showed in detail how the Chalupas fit into this. A brief bullet point
review looks like this.
The Chalupas are not Democrat or Republican. They are OUNb. The OUNb worked hard to start
a war between the USA and Russia for the last 50 years. According to the
Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, "Other statements
were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera
wing) called for" What is OUNb Bandera? They follow the same political policy and platform
that was developed in the 1930's by Stepan Bandera. When these people go to a Holocaust
memorial they are celebrating both the dead and the OUNb SS that killed
There is no getting around this fact. The OUNb have no concept of democratic values and
want an authoritarian fascism.
Alexandra Chalupa- According
to the Ukrainian Weekly , "The effort, known as Digital Miadan, gained momentum following
the initial Twitter storms. Leading the effort were: Lara Chelak, Andrea Chalupa, Alexandra
Chalupa, Constatin Kostenko and others." The Digital Maidan was also how they raised money
for the coup. This was how the Ukrainian
emigres bought the bullets that were used on Euromaidan. Ukraine's chubby nazi, Dima
Yarosh stated openly he was taking money from the Ukrainian emigres during Euromaidan and
Pravy Sektor still fundraises openly in North America. The "Sniper
Massacre" on the Maidan in Ukraine by Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottowa shows
clearly detailed evidence how the massacre happened. It has Pravy Sektor confessions that
show who created the "heavenly hundred. Their admitted involvement as leaders of Digital
Maidan by both Chalupas is a
clear violation of the Neutrality Act and has up to a 25
year prison sentence attached to it because it ended in a coup.
Andrea Chalupa-2014, in a Huff Post article Sept. 1 2016, Andrea Chalupa described
Sviatoslav Yurash as one of Ukraine's important "dreamers." He is a young activist that
founded Euromaidan
Press . Beyond the gushing glow what she doesn't say is who he actually is. Sviatoslav
Yurash was Dmitri Yarosh's spokesman just after Maidan. He is a hardcore Ukrainian
nationalist and was rewarded with the Deputy Director
position for the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) in Kiev .
In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He became the
foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni Yatsenyuk, and Oleh
Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet Dimitri Yurash you had
to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found out.
At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense of Ukraine
under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh's spokesman and can be seen either behind Yarosh on
videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to reporters. From January 2014 onward, to
speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an appointment with Yurash.
Irene Chalupa- Another involved Chalupa we need to cover to do the story justice is Irene
Chalupa. From her bio – Irena
Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center.
She is also a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has
worked for more than twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the
Atlantic Council, where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the
news anchor for Ukraine's propaganda channel org She is also a Ukrainian
emigre leader.
According to
Robert Parry's article At the forefront of people that would have taken senior positions in
a Clinton administration and especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council. Their main
goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the
CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with
Russia. Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you
willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support
throughout the campaign.
What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the
Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship
status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite conflict
of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground and Clinton
needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or Homeland
Security?
When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that could
change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked heavily to
groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it opens up criminal
conspiracy.
If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants a
major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic Council and
clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of his work affects
the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri Alperovitch's case, he
found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a crime.
Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence groups
is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and Informnapalm.org which is the outlet
for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.
When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the CEO of
a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm
and its hackers individually . There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for
the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be
investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government.
Alperovitch and Fancy Bear tweet each other?
Crowdstrike is also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC
hack. It closely resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.
Crowdstrike's product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon Overwatch and
Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service Crowdstrike offers?
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he
writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This
image shows Crowdstrike in their network.
Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network
In an interview with
Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA. They consider the CIA
amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance is a
quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity, Falcon
Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the Myrotvorets
site, Informnapalm analytical agency."
In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The
network communication goes through a secondary source. This is something you do when you don't
want to be too obvious. Here is another example of that.
Ukrainian Intelligence and the real Fancy Bear?
Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for
Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence.
The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates
journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could
be on the list.
Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine's Information Ministry (UA Intelligence)
tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the Ukrainian
Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter.
Trying to keep it hush hush?
This single tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of
Information Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him
and Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or shared.
If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be shared
heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it to themselves
and not draw unwanted attention.
These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through the
portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded and
directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and with to
promote the story of Russian hacking.
Pravy Sektor Hackers and Crowdstrike?
When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article, one of the
hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh's Pravy Sektor members by the Pravy
Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor admitted to killing the people at the
Maidan protest and sparked the coup.
Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say" Let's understand that
Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very powerful group. Ukrainian
hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of the USA I don't know, why would we
need it? We have all the talent and special means for this. And I don't think that the USA or
any NATO country would make such sharp movements in international politics."
What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it out
for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored, Russian
language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack they have the
tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are also laughing at US
intel efforts.
The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting a war
between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt Russia worst.
Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by Alperovitch, both he
and these hackers need to be investigated.
According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought the
government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of the personal
in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate the freedoms we have,
the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any other way," he told me. "I
have."
While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism is
not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering a conflict
with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't serving US interests.
He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to Ukraine.
The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for conflict of
interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these hackers are the real
Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in international politics.
By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment of an outgoing President of
the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of rumor.
From the Observer.com , " Andrea
Chalupa -- the sister of DNC
research staffer Alexandra Chalupa -- claimed on
social media, without any evidence, that despite Clinton
conceding the election to Trump, the voting results need to be audited to because
Clinton couldn't have lost -- it must have been Russia. Chalupa hysterically
tweeted to every politician on Twitter to audit the vote because of Russia and claimed the TV
show The Americans
, about two KGB spies living in America, is real."
Quite possibly now the former UK Ambassador Craig Murry's admission of being the involved
party to "leaks" should be looked at. " Now both Julian
Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia . Do we credibly
have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access
to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access.
After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for
truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has
released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for
inconvenient truth telling."
"Foreign agents introduced Ukranian politician to US political figures in secretive
lobbying arrangement" [
OpenSecrets ]. "Foreign agents and lobbyists accused of orchestrating a disinformation
campaign attacking former Ukrainian Prime Minister and 2019 presidential candidate Yulia
Tymoshenko actually introduced her to key U.S. political players last year, an investigation
by the Center for Responsive Responsive Politics has found. New FARA records reveal foreign
agents and lobbyists on the payroll of Livingston Group, a lobbying firm run by former Rep.
Bob Livingston (R-La.), played a previously unreported role in Tymoshenko's meetings with
lawmakers during a December 2018 trip to Washington, D.C., including House Intelligence
Committee chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.)." • Mostly
Republicans, to be sure, but Schiff's presence is interesting. UkraineGate. SaudiGate.
UAEGate .
Looks more and more like Crowdstrike conducted false flag operation to implicate Russians, not a real investigation.
I always assumed that #Guccifer2 was either a Crowdstryke construction at DNC request (that's probably why it was so badly,
incompetently done) or a NSA construction (then, we somehow need to explain, why it was so badly done?). In both cases the
goal was to implicate Russia in a DNC 'hack' ...
Craig Murray has stated he received the DNC files in Wash DC from a leaker. Mueller failed to interview him, which
suggest the Mueller and his team were the part of cover-up, not the part of investigation.
Notable quotes:
"... We are told the GRU obtained files from the DNC network on April 22, 2016, (this is a little different to the Netyksho indictment that states the files were archived on April 22, 2016 and extracted later): ..."
"... The malware samples provided by CrowdStrike show that the earliest compile date of Fancy Bear malware reportedly discovered at the DNC was April 25, 2016 . ..."
"... Whoever was controlling the Guccifer 2.0 persona went out of their way to be perceived as Russian and made specious claims about having already sent WikiLeaks documents, even claiming that WikiLeaks would release them soon (all before Mueller records any initial contact between the parties) . ..."
"... The Special Counsel seems to have been impervious to critical pieces of countervailing evidence (some of which demonstrates that Guccifer 2.0 deliberately manufactured Russian breadcrumbs) and they have failed to accurately account for the acquisition of WikiLeaks' DNC emails (missing the date on which approximately 70% of them were collected) , which is, in itself, a stunning failure for a supposedly thorough investigation costing US taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. ..."
"... There should have been a proper, thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the Guccifer 2.0 persona. The Special Counsel certainly hasn't done that job and, in retrospect, looks to have been ill-equipped (and perhaps somewhat reluctant) to do so from the outset. ..."
On April 18, 2019, a redacted version of Robert Mueller's report on "RussiaGate" related
activities was released to the public.
This article focuses on Volume I Part III titled "Russian Hacking & Dumping Operations"
and provides details of the errors made, critical omissions, lack of conclusive evidence and
reliance on assumptions and speculation.
We will also look at problems relating to attribution methods used, countervailing evidence
that has clearly been disregarded and other problems that are likely to have affected the
quality of the investigation and the report.
The Mueller Report: Context & Contradiction
We start with a read-through of this section of the report, highlighting missing context,
contradictions and errors.
Page 36
[To minimize repetition, we'll deal with statements made in this introduction where the
basis is explained or details are provided on other pages ahead.]
Page 36
While the Netyksho
indictment does provide details of intrusions and infrastructure used, it's still unclear
how the infrastructure has been attributed back to individuals in the GRU and no conclusive
evidence has been presented to support that in the indictment or the report.
In the Netyksho
indictment it is stated that the "middle-servers" are overseas:
So, what was the point in having a US-based AMS Panel if you're using overseas servers as
proxies?
This seems to be a needlessly noisy setup that somewhat defeats the purpose of having a
US-based server for the AMS panel.
This setup makes the assets allegedly used by GRU officers subject to US laws, subject to
Internet monitoring by US intelligence agencies and prone to being physically seized.
With the GRU using middle-servers, as alleged, there would have been absolutely no reason to
have the AMS panel hosted on a server within the US and every reason to have it hosted
elsewhere.
It almost seems like they wanted to get caught!
Page 40
We are told the GRU obtained files from the DNC network on April 22, 2016, (this is a
little different to the Netyksho indictment that states the files were archived on April 22,
2016 and extracted later):
The problem with this is that it suggests the GRU had their implant on the DNC network
earlier than what the available evidence supports.
Perhaps they didn't discover all the malware until later? (Though, with their flagship
product installed across the network, one would think they'd have detected all the malware
present by the time they reported on discoveries).
The implication that this was stolen from the DNC is questionable due to this.
Going further, the story surrounding this changed in November 2017 when the Associated Press
published a story titled " How Russians
hacked the Democrats' emails " in which they cite an anonymous former DNC official who
asserts that Guccifer 2.0's first document (the Trump opposition report) did not
originate in the DNC as initially reported.
Another interesting point relating to this is the "HRC_pass.zip" archive released by
Guccifer 2.0 on June 21, 2016 (
which also provided another US central timezone indication ) contained files with last
modification dates of April 26, 2016. While this fits within the above timeframe, the transfer
of the files individually, the apparent transfer speeds involved and the presence of FAT-like
2-second rounding artifacts ( noted elsewhere
in Guccifer 2.0's releases ) when the files came from an NTFS system (and the ZIP
implementation was not the cause) does not correlate well with what the report
outlines.
In spite of its name ("HRC_pass.zip") this archive appears to contain files that can be
sourced to the DNC. Out of 200 files, only one showed up as an attachment (in the Podesta
emails) .
Regarding the May 25 - June 1 timeframe cited, this seems to exclude the date on which
approximately 70% of the DNC's emails published on WikiLeaks' website were acquired (May 23,
2016)
What makes this interesting is that this is apparently being evaluated on evidence that was
very likely to have been provided by CrowdStrike:
Page 40
How did Crowdstrike's evidence not inform the FBI and Special Counsel of the real initial
acquisition date of WikiLeaks' DNC emails?
Was the May 23, 2016 activity not recorded?
Going back to the Netyksho indictment , we have also been
told that Yermakov was searching for Powershell commands between the May 25 - June 1st
period:
However, we know 70% of the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks had already been acquired
prior to that time, before Yermakov had allegedly researched how to access and manage the
Exchange server.
Page 41
We can tell from the use of "appear" here that the Special Counsel does not have conclusive
evidence to demonstrate this.
Page 41
While the overlap between reported phishing victims and the output of DCLeaks cannot be
denied, it is still unclear how bitcoin pools or leased infrastructure have been definitively
tied back to any GRU officers or the GRU itself.
This isn't to say that there isn't evidence of it (I would assume there is some evidence
or intelligence that supports the premise to some degree, at the very least) but we have no
idea what that could be and there is no explanation of how associations to individual GRU
officers were made (perhaps to protect HUMINT but this still leaves us completely in the
dark as to how attributions were made) .
We know already that things are assumed by the Special Counsel on the basis of
circumstantial evidence, so there is good reason to question whether the attributions made are
based on conclusive evidence.
Page 42
This is the first point at which to recall Assange's announcement on 12 June that WikiLeaks
was working on a release of "emails related to Hillary Clinton" - two days before the DNC goes
public about being hacked by Russians, and three days before the appearance of Guccifer
2.0.
It's also approximately one month before Mueller says Guccifer 2.0 first successfully sent
anything to WikiLeaks.
While WikiLeaks did mention this via their Twitter feed on June 16, 2016, they were clearly
skeptical of his claims to be a hacker and although they cite his claim about sending material
to WikiLeaks, they don't confirm it:
It also seems a little odd that the GRU would do searches for already translated phrases
(using Google translate to get English translations would be more understandable) and if
it's Guccifer 2.0 doing it why did he not use the VPN he used for his other activities
throughout the same day?
Why does the Mueller report not report on the IP address of the Moscow-based server from
which searches occurred? It wouldn't really expose sources and methods to disclose it and it's
unclear how it was determined to have been used and managed by a unit of the GRU. (Citation
#146 references the Netyksho indictment, however, that fails to provide evidence or explanation
of this too.)
The body content of a Trump Opposition research document (originally authored by Lauren
Dillon) that was attached to another of Podesta's emails was then
copied into the template document.
The document was saved (with a Russian author name), its body content cleared and this was
then re-used to produce two further "Russia-tainted" documents.
It was no accident that led to the documents being tainted in the way that they were and it
looks like Guccifer 2.0's version of the Trump opposition research didn't really come from the
DNC.
It should be noted that the data referenced above was also unrelated to the general election
and didn't have any noticeable impact on it (the 2.5Gb of data Guccifer 2.0 provided to
Aaron Nevins was unlikely to have hurt the Clinton campaign or affect the outcome of the
general election) .
In the states that the data related to, general election results didn't flip between the
time of the publication of the documents and the election:
Page 43
Interesting to note that Guccifer 2.0 lied about DCLeaks being a "sub project" of
WikiLeaks.
Page 44
The only materials Mueller alleges that WikiLeaks confirmed receipt of was a "1gb or so"
archive, for which, instructions to access were communicated in an attached message
(none-too-discreetly titled "wk dnc link1.txt.gpg") and sent by Guccifer 2 via
unencrypted email.
It is an assumption that this was an archive of DNC emails (it could have contained other
files Guccifer 2.0 subsequently released elsewhere).
We don't even know for sure whether WikiLeaks released what had been sent to them by either
entity.
This, of course, doesn't rule out the possibility of it being a portion of the overall
collection but what the persona had sent to WikiLeaks could also easily have been other
material relating to the DNC that we know Guccifer 2.0 later released or shared with other
parties.
Page 45
This is the second point at which to recall Assange's 12 June TV announcement of upcoming
"emails related to Hillary Clinton", coming two days before Guccifer 2.0's colleagues at
DCLeaks reach out to WikiLeaks via unencrypted means on 14 June 2016 to offer "sensitive
information" on Clinton.
Then, seven days after Guccifer 2 had already claimed to have sent material to WikiLeaks and
stated that they'd soon release it (which made it sound as though he'd had confirmation
back), we see that WikiLeaks reaches out to Guccifer 2.0 and suggests he sends material to
them (as though there's never been any prior contact or provision of materials previously
discussed) .
Page 45
How is it "clear" that both the DNC and Podesta documents were transferred from the GRU to
WikiLeaks when there is only around a gigabyte of data acknowledged as received (and we
don't even know what that data is) and little is known about the rest (and the report
just speculates at possibilities) ?
Page 46
We aren't provided the full dialogue between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0. Instead we have
just a few words selected from the communication that could easily be out of context. The
Netyksho indictment did exactly the same thing. Neither the indictment nor the report provide
the full DM conversation in context.
(It certainly wouldn't harm HUMINT resources or expose methods if this evidence was
released in full context.)
Would the GRU really engage in internal communications (eg GRU Guccifer 2.0 to GRU
DCLeaks) via Twitter DMs? Maybe, but it seems insanely sloppy with regards to operational
security of a clandestine organization communicating between its own staff.
The statement that concludes on the following page (see below) also seems a little
bizarre. Would WikiLeaks really ask Guccifer 2.0 to DM DCLeaks to pass on such a message on
their behalf?
Why doesn't Mueller provide the comms evidence of WikiLeaks asking Guccifer 2.0 for
assistance in contacting DCLeaks?
As written, we are expected to take the words of Guccifer 2.0 (stating that the media
organisation wished to talk to DCLeaks) at face value.
It was actually the last-modification date, not the creation date that was recorded as 19
September, 2016.
This wasn't necessarily the creation date and is only indicative of the last recorded
write/copy operation (unless last modification date is preserved when copying but there's no
way to determine that based on the available evidence) .
The gap between email file timestamps and attachment timestamps may simply be explained by
WikiLeaks extracting the attachments from the EML files at a later stage. With the DNC emails
we observed last-modifications dates as far back as May 23, 2016 but the attachments had
last-modification dates that were much later (eg. July 21, 2016).
The wording is also worth noting: "Based on information about Assange's computer and its
possible operating system" [emphasis mine] does not sound like it's based on
reliable and factual information, it sounds like this is based on assessment/estimation. This
also seems to be relying on an assumption that the only person handling files for WikiLeaks is
Assange.
How have the Special Counsel cited WikiLeaks metadata for evidence where it's suited them
yet, somehow, have managed to miss the May 23, 2016 date on which the DNC emails were initially
being collected?
Going further, the report, based on speculation, suggests that the GRU staged releases in
July (for DNC emails) and September (for Podesta emails). However, going off the same logic as
the Special Counsel, with last-modification dates indicating when the email files are "staged",
the evidence would theoretically point to the DNC emails being "staged" in May 2016).
It doesn't seem so reliable when the rule is applied multilaterally.
Of course, if both assumptions about staging dates are true, then we're left wondering what
Julian Assange could have been talking about on June 12, 2016 when mentioning having emails
relating to Hillary Clinton.
The speculation in the final paragraph of the above section also shows us that the Special
Counsel lacks certainty on sources.
Page 48
Really, this correlation of dates (March 21, 2016 and the reported phishing incident
relating to March 19, 2016) is one of the best arguments for saying that emails published
by WikiLeaks were acquired through phishing or hacking incidents reported.
However, this merely suggests the method of acquisition, it says nothing of how the material
got to WikiLeaks. We can make assumptions, but that's all we can do because the available
evidence is circumstantial rather than conclusive.
Page 48
Far from "discredit[ing] WikiLeaks' claims about the source of the material it posted", the
file transfer evidence doesn't conclusively demonstrate that WikiLeaks published anything sent
to it by Guccifer 2.0 or DCLeaks.
Although there are hints that what was sent by Guccifer 2.0 related to the DNC, we don't
know if this contained DNC emails or the other DNC related content he later released and shared
with others.
"The statements about Seth Rich implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen
DNC emails" is itself a false statement. The reason Assange gave for offering a reward for
information leading to the conviction of Seth Rich's killers was "Our sources take risks and
they become concerned when they see things occurring like that [the death of DNC worker Seth
Rich]... We have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States" ( source ) .
This implies WikiLeaks is offering the reward for info about Seth Rich at the behest of its
actual source/s.
Page 49
By the time Trump had made the statements cited above, it was already assumed that Hillary
had been hacked by the Russians, so Trump saying he hoped the Russians would find the emails
seems more likely to have been in reference to what he assumed was already in their
possession.
What is being described here is, to a considerable extent, just common exploit scanning on
web services, scanning that will almost certainly have come from other nodes based in other
nations too .
These scans are typically done via compromised machines, often with machines that are in
nations completely separate to the nationality of those running the scanning effort.
The Department of Homeland Security threw
cold water on this a long time ago.
DHS would not characterize these efforts as attacks, only "simple scanning ... which occurs
all the time".
The remaining pages in this section of the report include a lot of redactions and mostly
cover the actions of individuals in the US in relation to communications they had with or in
relation to WikiLeaks. As this article is about the technical claims made in relation to
hacking and so much is redacted, we'll only look at those really relevant to this.
[The remaining pages in this section have little relevance to the technical aspects of
this section of the report and/or acquisition of materials that this article is intended to
cover.]
While the above does show numerous issues with the report, it's important not to fall into
the trap of outright dismissing as false anything for which evidence is lacking or assuming
there is no evidence at all to support assertions.
However, without knowing what evidence exists we're left to make assumptions about whether
it's conclusive or circumstantial, we don't know if the source of evidence is dependable and
it's clear in the report that the Special Counsel has relied on assumptions and made numerous
statements on the basis of presuppositions.
There is also a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence that, although it doesn't
conclusively prove what the report tries to convince us of, it does at least raise questions
about relationships between different entities, especially with regards to any overlaps in
resources and infrastructure used.
For example, based on the cited evidence, it is perfectly understandable that people will
assume Guccifer 2.0 provided DNC emails to WikiLeaks and will also assume that WikiLeaks
published whatever it was that Guccifer 2.0 had sent them (especially with Mueller
presenting that conversation in the form of a couple of words devoid of all context) .
The apparent overlap between a VPN service used by Guccifer 2.0 and by DCLeaks does suggest
the two could be associated beyond Guccifer 2.0 just being a source of leaks for them.
Also, DCLeaks publishing some DNC emails that later appeared in the DNC email collection
(though not necessarily from the same mailboxes) also suggests that DCLeaks and WikiLeaks could
have had access to some of the same material and/or sources.
The same is true for Guccifer 2.0 releasing Podesta and DNC email attachments before
WikiLeaks released both collections. Unless given good reason to consider any ulterior motive,
the implied explanation, on the surface, seems to be that it was this persona that was a source
for those emails. If nothing else, that's how it appears based on the little information
typically made available to us by the mainstream press.
However, despite all of this, we still have not seen conclusive evidence showing that either
of the entities was really controlled by the GRU and, when the countervailing evidence
(which seems to have been completely ignored by the Special Counsel's investigation) is
considered, there is reason to give consideration to Guccifer 2.0's efforts to not just
associate himself with WikiLeaks and DCLeaks but also to associate third parties with each
other through false claims.
The Mystery Of The May 23, 2016 Omission
One of the most notable omissions is the date on which emails from several mailboxes
(including Luis Miranda's) were originally collected.
Not only is this prior to the May 25, 2016 - June 1, 2016 timeframe given for the DNC's
exchange server being hacked, this activity is unmentioned throughout the entire report.
How has this failed to come to the surface when it should have been apparent in evidence
CrowdStrike provided to the FBI and also apparent based on the WikiLeaks metadata? How is it
the Special Counsel can cite some of the metadata in relation to WikiLeaks releases yet somehow
manage to miss this?
Countervailing Evidence
What the Special Counsel's investigation also seems to have completely disregarded is the
volume of countervailing evidence that has been discovered by several independent researchers
in relation to the Guccifer 2.0 persona.
It's worth considering what evidence the Special Counsel has brought to the surface and
comparing it with the evidence that has come to the surface as a result of discoveries being
made by independent researchers over the past two years and the differences between the two
sets of evidence (especially with regards to falsifiability and verifiability of
evidence) .
Some excellent examples are covered in the following articles:
Skip Folden (who introduced me to VIPS members and has been a good friend ever since)
recently shared with me his assessment of problems with the current attribution methods being
relied on by the Special Counsel and others.
It covered several important points and was far more concise than anything I would have
written, so, with his permission, I'm publishing his comments on this topic:
No basis whatsoever
APT28, aka Fancy Bear, Sofacy, Strontium, Pawn Storm, Sednit, etc., and APT29, aka Cozy
Bear, Cozy Duke, Monkeys, CozyCar,The Dukes, etc., are used as 'proof' of Russia 'hacking' by
Russian Intelligence agencies GRU and FSB respectively.
There is no basis whatsoever to attribute the use of known intrusion elements to Russia,
not even if they were once reverse routed to Russia, which claim has never been made by NSA
or any other of our IC.
On June 15, 2016 Dmitri Alperovitch himself, in an Atlantic Council article, gave only
"medium-level of confidence that Fancy Bear is GRU" and "low-level of confidence that Cozy
Bear is FSB." These assessments, from the main source himself, that either APT is Russian
intelligence, averages 37%-38% [(50 + 25) / 2].
Exclusivity :
None of the technical indicators, e.g., intrusion tools (such as X-Agent, X-Tunnel),
facilities, tactics, techniques, or procedures, etc., of the 28 and 29 APTs can be uniquely
attributed to Russia, even if one or more had ever been trace routed to Russia. Once an
element of a set of intrusion tools is used in the public domain it can be reverse-engineered
and used by other groups which precludes the assumption of exclusivity in future use. The
proof that any of these tools have never been reverse engineered and used by others is left
to the student - or prosecutor.
Using targets
Also, targets have been used as basis for attributing intrusions to Russia, and that is
pure nonsense. Both many state and non-state players have deep interests in the same targets
and have the technical expertise to launch intrusions. In Grizzly Steppe, page 2, second
paragraph, beginning with, "Both groups have historically targeted ...," is there anything in
that paragraph which can be claimed as unique to Russia or which excludes all other major
state players in the world or any of the non-state organizations? No.
Key Logger Consideration
On the subject of naming specific GRU officers initiating specific actions on GRU Russian
facilities on certain dates / times, other than via implanted ID chips under the finger tips
of these named GRU officers, the logical assumption would be by installed key logger
capabilities, physical or malware, on one or more GRU Russian computers.
The GRU is a highly advanced Russian intelligence unit. It would be very surprising were
the GRU open to any method used to install key logger capabilities. It would be even more
surprising, if not beyond comprehension that the GRU did not scan all systems upon start-up
and in real time, including key logger protection and anomalies of performance degradation
and data transmissions.
Foreign intelligence source
Other option would be via a foreign intelligence unit source with local GRU access. Any
such would be quite anti-Russian and be another nail in the coffin of any chain of evidence /
custody validity at Russian site.
Chain Of Custody - Without An Anchor There Is No Chain
Another big problem with the whole RussiaGate investigation is the reliance on a private
firm, hired by the DNC, to be the source of evidence.
As I don't have a good understanding of US law and processes surrounding evidence collection
and handling, I will, again, defer to something that my aforementioned contact shared:
Chain of Evidence / Custody at US end, i.e., DNC and related computing facilities
Summary: There is no US end Chain of Evidence / Custody
The anchor of any chain of evidence custody is the on-site crime scene investigation of a
jurisdictional law enforcement agency and neutral jurisdictional forensic team which
investigate, discover, identify where possible, log, mark, package, seal, or takes images
there of, of all identified elements of potential evidence as discovered at the scene of a
crime by the authorized teams. The chain of this anchor is then the careful, documented
movement of each element of captured evidence from crime scene to court.
In the case of the alleged series of intrusions into the DNC computing facilities, there
is no anchor to any chain of evidence / custody.
There has been no claim that any jurisdictional law enforcement agency was allowed access
to the DNC computing facilities. The FBI was denied access to DNC facilities, thereby
supposedly denying the FBI the ability to conduct any on-site investigation of the alleged
crime scene for discovery or collection of evidence.
Nor did the FBI exercise its authority to investigate the crime scene of a purported
federal crime. Since when does the FBI need permission to investigate an alleged crime site
where it is claimed a foreign government's intelligence attacked political files in order to
interfere in a US presidential election?
Instead, the FBI accepted images of purported crime scene evidence from a contractor hired
by and, therefore, working for the DNC. On July 05, 2017 a Crowdstrike statement said that
they had provided "... forensic images of the DNC system to the FBI." It was not stated when
these images were provided. Crowdstrike was working for the DNC as a contractor at the
time.
This scenario is analogous to an employee of a crime scene owner telling law enforcement,
"Trust me; I have examined the crime scene for you and here's what I've found. It's not
necessary for you to see the crime scene."
Crowdstrike cannot be accepted as a neutral forensic organization. It was working for and
being paid by the DNC. It is neither a law enforcement agency nor a federal forensic
organization. Further Crowdstrike has serious conflicts of interest when it comes to any
investigation of Russia.
Crowdstrike co-founder and Director of Technology, Dimitri Alperovitch, is a Nonresident
Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative, of the Atlantic Council. Alperovitch has made it
clear of his dislike of the government of Putin, and The Atlantic Council can not be
considered neutral to Russia, receiving funding from many very staunch and outspoken enemies
of Russia.
Summary: Not only was no federal jurisdictional law enforcement agency allowed to
investigate the alleged crime scene, but the organization which allegedly collected and
provided the 'evidence' was not neutral by being employed by the owner of the alleged crime
scene, but seriously compromised by strong anti-Russian links.
This issue of this substitute for an anchor then leads us to our next problem: an apparent
conflict of interest from the investigation's outset.
Conflict of Interest Inherent In The Investigation?
Would it seem like a conflict of interest if the person in charge of an investigation were
friends with a witness and source of critical evidence relied upon by that investigation?
This is effectively the situation we have with the Special Counsel investigation because
Robert Mueller and CrowdStrike's CSO (and President) Shawn Henry are former colleagues
and friends.
If nothing else, it's understandable for people to feel that the Special Counsel would have
struggled to be truly impartial due to such relationships.
Conclusion
The Special Counsel seems to have been impervious to critical pieces of countervailing
evidence (some of which demonstrates that Guccifer 2.0 deliberately manufactured Russian
breadcrumbs) and they have failed to accurately account for the acquisition of WikiLeaks'
DNC emails (missing the date on which approximately 70% of them were collected) , which
is, in itself, a stunning failure for a supposedly thorough investigation costing US taxpayers
tens of millions of dollars.
There should have been a proper, thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the
Guccifer 2.0 persona. The Special Counsel certainly hasn't done that job and, in retrospect,
looks to have been ill-equipped (and perhaps somewhat reluctant) to do so from the
outset.
This article may be republished/reproduced in part or in full on condition that content
above is unaltered and that the author is credited (or, alternatively, that a link to the full
article is included).
"... In both cases # Assange had announced the release before allegedly getting material from # Guccifer2 (aka GRU). There might be other sources other than # G2 . # MuellerReport pic.twitter.com/bPN7NHpM9N ..."
"... Good Lord, @ Birgittaj , not you as well? That timeline is rubbish. Ask yourself, how could # Assange tell UK TV on 12 June # WikiLeaks already had possession of # DNCLeaks if # Mueller says "source" # Guccifer2 didn't send anything to WL until 14 July? http://www. itv.com/news/update/20 16-06-12/assange-on-peston-on-sunday-more-clinton-leaks-to-come/ # SaySorry pic.twitter.com/B0WRAjv15G ..."
"... LINDSEY GRAHAM FORGOT TO MENTION THAT SPEAKER PAUL RYAN SHUT DOWN # HouseIntelInvestigations into # Awan # Guccifer2 and # ClintonEmails . ..."
"... Always assumed that # Guccifer2 was either a DNC construction (as it was so badly done) or a NSA construction ..."
"... Says VIPs analyzed the @ wikileaks docs; via metadata discovered it had to be a thumb drive download. 2 years ago VIPs said # Guccifer2 docs had that character. ? Mr. President -- Listen to Bill Binney. Russiagate is a Worse Hoax than You Thought https:// youtu.be/-9TyASfZV0c # RussiaGate ..."
In April 2016, the #GRU hacked into the computers
of the @DCCC &
@DNC & stole 100s of
1000s of docs. In mid-June 2016 the GRU began disseminating stolen materials through the
fictitious online personas " #DCLeaks " and " #Guccifer2
.0." and then through @WikiLeaks . - #MuellerReport
This is an interesting thread. Also note that Mueller has already released portions of
logs of communications between #WikiLeaks and #Guccifer2
, a contact first reported by @KevinCollier using logs I provided.
pic.twitter.com/lVjeq9nTA2
4:04 PM - 4 May 2019
The @DNC , etc docs
that #Guccifer2 .0 provided to @wikileaks prove that Hillary promoted
Trump because she thought she could beat him (mistake) and the @DNC rigged the primary so Hillary would win the
nomination (mistake). All of this is talked about in the #MuellerReport .
Michael Holloway - Schroedinger's Cyclist 12:25 PM - 13 Mar 2019
Always assumed that #Guccifer2 was either a
DNC construction (as it was so badly done) or a NSA construction (or 2 working together); in
both cases designed to implicate Russia in a DNC 'hack' ...while @CraigMurrayOrg has stated he
received the DNC files in Wash DC from a leaker.
Michael Holloway - Schroedinger's Cyclist 12:17 PM - 13 Mar 2019
Says VIPs analyzed the @wikileaks docs; via metadata discovered it had to be a thumb drive download. 2
years ago VIPs said #Guccifer2 docs had that
character. ? Mr. President -- Listen to Bill Binney. Russiagate is a Worse Hoax than You
Thought https:// youtu.be/-9TyASfZV0c#RussiaGate
Did you read any of the dos that were leaked by #Guccifer2 .0, #DCLeaks , or
@Wikeleaks ? If
not, let me hip you to something. Corrupt Dems in the @DCCC and the @DNC , as well as crooked @HillaryClinton , are the main
reasons Trump is in the White House. Dems blew it. Face the truth.
#BlackWomenForBernie2020 3:17 PM - 14 Mar 2019
*cough* Former Speaker Paul Ryan closed down HOUSE INTEL INVESTIGATIONS. Including
#AWAN
and #GUCCIFER2
"... The fresh statement comes several months after a Ukrainian court ruled that the country's National Anti-Corruption Bureau, closely aligned with the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, and a parliamentarian named Serhiy Leshchenko wrongly interfered in the 2016 American election by releasing documents related to Manafort. ..."
"... Federal Election Commission records show Chalupa's firm, Chalupa & Associates, was paid $71,918 by the DNC during the 2016 election cycle. ..."
"... Chalupa, meanwhile, continued to build a case that Manafort and Trump were tied to Russia. In April 2016, she attended an international symposium where she reported back to the DNC that she had met with 68 Ukrainian investigative journalists to talk about Manafort. She also wrote that she invited American reporter Michael Isikoff to speak with her. Isikoff wrote some of the seminal stories tying Manafort to Ukraine and Trump to Russia; he later wrote a book making a case for Russian collusion ..."
"... Less than a month later, the " black ledger " identifying payments to Manafort was announced in Ukraine, forcing Manafort to resign as Trump's campaign chairman and eventually to face criminal prosecution for improper foreign lobbying. ..."
"... Though Chaly and Telizhenko disagree on what Ukraine did after it got Chalupa's request, they confirm that a paid contractor of the DNC solicited their government's help to find dirt on Trump that could sway the 2016 election. ..."
"... For a Democratic Party that spent more than two years building the now disproven theory that Trump colluded with Russia to hijack the 2016 election, the tale of the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington feels just like a speeding political boomerang. ..."
The boomerang from the Democratic Party's failed attempt to connect Donald Trump to Russia's 2016 election meddling is
picking up speed, and its flight path crosses right through Moscow's pesky neighbor, Ukraine.
That is where there is growing evidence a foreign power was asked, and in some cases tried, to
help Hillary Clinton.
In its most detailed account yet, the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington says a Democratic
National Committee (DNC) insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump's
campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help.
In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor
Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort's dealings inside the country in
hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.
In that story, the embassy was broadly quoted as denying interference in the election and
suggested Chalupa's main reason for contacting the ambassador's office was to organize an event
celebrating female leaders.
The fresh statement comes several months after a
Ukrainian court ruled that the country's National Anti-Corruption Bureau, closely aligned
with the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, and a parliamentarian named Serhiy Leshchenko wrongly interfered
in the 2016 American election by releasing documents related to Manafort.
The acknowledgement by Kiev's embassy, plus newly released testimony, suggests the Ukrainian
efforts to influence the U.S. election had some intersections in Washington as well.
Nellie Ohr, wife of senior U.S. Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, acknowledged in
congressional testimony that, while working for the Clinton-hired research firm Fusion GPS, she
researched Trump's and Manafort's ties to Russia and learned that Leshchenko, the Ukrainian
lawmaker, was providing dirt to Fusion.
Fusion also paid British intelligence operative Christopher Steele, whose anti-Trump dossier
the FBI used as primary evidence to support its request to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page.
In addition, I
wrote last month that the Obama White House invited Ukrainian law enforcement officials to
a meeting in January 2016 as Trump rose in the polls on his improbable path to the presidency.
The meeting led to U.S. requests to the Ukrainians to help investigate Manafort, setting in
motion a series of events that led to the Ukrainians leaking the documents about Manafort in
May 2016.
The DNC's embassy contacts add a new dimension, though. Chalupa discussed in the 2017
Politico article about her efforts to dig up dirt on Trump and Manafort, including at the
Ukrainian Embassy.
Exactly how the Ukrainian Embassy responded to Chalupa's inquiries remains in dispute.
Chaly's statement says the embassy rebuffed her requests for information: "No documents
related to Trump campaign or any individuals involved in the campaign have been passed to Ms.
Chalupa or the DNC neither from the Embassy nor via the Embassy. No documents exchange was even
discussed."
But Andrii Telizhenko, a former political officer who worked under Chaly from December 2015
through June 2016, told me he was instructed by the ambassador and his top deputy to meet with
Chalupa in March 2016 and to gather whatever dirt Ukraine had in its government files about
Trump and Manafort.
Telizhenko said that when he was told by the embassy to arrange the meeting, both Chaly and
the ambassador's top deputy identified Chalupa "as someone working for the DNC and trying to
get Clinton elected."
Over lunch at a Washington restaurant, Chalupa told Telizhenko in stark terms what she hoped
the Ukrainians could provide the DNC and the Clinton campaign, according to his account.
"She said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were
Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin
against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it
in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot,
from the election," he recalled.
After the meeting, Telizhenko said he became concerned about the legality of using his
country's assets to help an American political party win a U.S. election. But he proceeded with
his assignment.
Telizhenko said that as he began his research, he discovered that Fusion GPS was nosing
around Ukraine, seeking similar information, and he believed they, too, worked for the
Democrats.
As a former aide inside the general prosecutor's office in Kiev, Telizhenko used contacts
with intelligence, police and prosecutors across the country to secure information connecting
Russian figures to assistance on some of the Trump organization's real estate deals overseas,
including a tower in Toronto.
Telizhenko said he did not want to provide the intelligence he collected directly to Chalupa
and instead handed the materials to Chaly: "I told him what we were doing was illegal, that it
was unethical doing this as diplomats." He said the ambassador told him he would handle the
matter and had opened a second channel back in Ukraine to continue finding dirt on Trump.
Telizhenko said he also was instructed by his bosses to meet with an American journalist
researching Manafort's ties to Ukraine.
About a month later, he said his relationship with the ambassador soured and, by June 2016,
he was ordered to return to Ukraine. There, he reported his concerns about the embassy's
contacts with the Democrats to the former prosecutor general's office and officials in the
Poroshenko administration: "Everybody already knew what was going on and told me it had been
approved at the highest levels."
Telizhenko said he never was able to confirm whether the information he collected for
Chalupa was delivered to her, the DNC or the Clinton campaign.
Chalupa, meanwhile, continued to build a case that Manafort and Trump were tied to
Russia. In April 2016, she attended an international symposium where she reported back to the DNC
that she had met with 68 Ukrainian investigative journalists to talk about Manafort. She also
wrote that she invited American reporter Michael Isikoff to speak with her. Isikoff wrote some
of the
seminal stories tying Manafort to Ukraine and Trump to Russia; he later wrote a
book making a case for Russian collusion.
"A lot more coming down the pipe," Chalupa wrote a top DNC official on May 3, 2016 ,
recounting her effort to educate Ukrainian journalists and Isikoff about Manafort. Then she added, "More offline tomorrow since there is a big Trump component you and Lauren
need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I'm working on you should be
aware of."
Less than a month later, the " black
ledger " identifying payments to Manafort was announced in Ukraine, forcing Manafort to
resign as Trump's campaign chairman and eventually to face criminal prosecution for improper
foreign lobbying.
DNC officials have suggested in the past that Chalupa's efforts were personal, not
officially on behalf of the DNC. But Chalupa's May 2016 email clearly informed a senior DNC
official that she was "digging into Manafort" and she suspected someone was trying to hack into
her email account.
Chaly over the years has tried to portray his role as Ukraine's ambassador in Washington as
one of neutrality during the 2016 election. But in August 2016 he raised eyebrows in some
diplomatic circles when he wrote an
op-ed for The Hill skewering Trump for some of his comments on Russia. "Trump's comments
send wrong message to world," Chaly's article blared in the headline.
In his statement to me, Chaly said he wrote the op-ed because he had been solicited for his
views by The Hill's opinion team.
Chaly's office also acknowledged that a month after the op-ed, President Poroshenko met with
then-candidate Clinton during a stop in New York. The office said the ambassador requested a
similar meeting with Trump but it didn't get organized.
Though Chaly and Telizhenko
disagree on what Ukraine did after it got Chalupa's request, they confirm that a paid
contractor of the DNC solicited their government's help to find dirt on Trump that could sway
the 2016 election.For a Democratic Party that spent more than two years building the
now disproven theory
that Trump colluded with Russia to hijack the 2016 election, the tale of the Ukrainian Embassy
in Washington feels just like a speeding political boomerang.
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has
exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists'
misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political
corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at
The Hill. Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports . Tags Hillary ClintonPaul ManafortDonald TrumpTrump–Russia dossierDNCHillary Clinton campaign
"... Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization. Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies. ..."
The world is at a dangerous crossroads. The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens
the future of humanity. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East,
Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations
as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.
America's hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through acts of war, covert operations in support of terrorist
organizations, regime change and economic warfare. The latter includes the imposition of deadly macro-economic reforms on indebted
countries as well the manipulation of financial markets, the engineered collapse of national currencies, the privatization of State
property, the imposition of economic sanctions, the triggering of inflation and black markets.
The economic dimensions of this military agenda must be clearly understood. War and Globalization are intimately related. These
military and intelligence operations are implemented alongside a process of economic and political destabilization targeting specific
countries in all major regions of World.
Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization.
Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which
consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies.
In turn, the demise of national sovereignty was also facilitated by the instatement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995,
evolving towards the global trading agreements (TTIP and TPP) which (if adopted) would essentially transfer state policy entirely
into the hands of corporations. In recent years, neoliberalism has extend its grip from the so-called developing countries to the
developed countries of both Eastern and Western Europe. Bankruptcy programs have been set in motion. Island, Portugal, Greece, Ireland,
etc, have been the target of sweeping austerity measures coupled with the privatization of key sectors of the national economy.
The global economic crisis is intimately related to America's hegemonic agenda. In the US and the EU, a spiralling defense budget
backlashes on the civilian sectors of economic activity. "War is Good for Business": the powerful financial groups which routinely
manipulate stock markets, currency and commodity markets, are also promoting the continuation and escalation of the Middle East war.
A worldwide process of impoverishment is an integral part of the New World Order agenda.
Beyond the Globalization of Poverty
Historically, impoverishment of large sectors of the World population has been engineered through the imposition of IMF-style macro-economic
reforms. Yet, in the course of the last 15 years, a new destructive phase has been set in motion. The World has moved beyond the
"globalization of poverty": countries are transformed in open territories,
State institutions collapse, schools and hospitals are closed down, the legal system disintegrates, borders are redefined, broad
sectors of economic activity including agriculture and manufacturing are precipitated into bankruptcy, all of which ultimately leads
to a process of social collapse, exclusion and destruction of human life including the outbreak of famines, the displacement of entire
populations (refugee crisis).
This "second stage" goes beyond the process of impoverishment instigated in the early 1980s by creditors and international financial
institutions. In this regard, mass poverty resulting from macro-economic reform sets the stage of a process of outright destruction
of human life.
In turn, under conditions of widespread unemployment, the costs of labor in developing countries has plummeted. The driving force
of the global economy is luxury consumption and the weapons industry.
The New World Order
Broadly speaking, the main corporate actors of the New World Order are
Wall Street and the Western banking conglomerates including its offshore money laundering facilities, tax havens, hedge funds
and secret accounts,
the Military Industrial Complex regrouping major "defense contractors", security and mercenary companies, intelligence outfits,
on contract to the Pentagon;
the Anglo-American Oil and Energy Giants,
The Biotech Conglomerates, which increasingly control agriculture and the food chain;
Big Pharma,
The Communication Giants and Media conglomerates, which constitute the propaganda arm of the New World Order.
There is of course overlap, between Big Pharma and the Weapons industry, the oil conglomerates and Wall Street, etc.
These various corporate entities interact with government bodies, international financial institutions, US intelligence. The state
structure has evolved towards what Peter Dale Scott calls the "Deep State", integrated by covert intelligence bodies, think tanks,
secret councils and consultative bodies, where important New World Order decisions are ultimately reached on behalf of powerful corporate
interests.
In turn, intelligence operatives increasingly permeate the United Nations including its specialized agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, trade unions, political parties.
What this means is that the executive and legislature constitute a smokescreen, a mechanism for providing political legitimacy
to decisions taken by the corporate establishment behind closed doors.
Media Propaganda
The corporate media, which constitutes the propaganda arm of the New World Order, has a long history whereby intelligence ops
oversee the news chain. In turn, the corporate media serves the useful purpose of obfuscating war crimes, of presenting a humanitarian
narrative which upholds the legitimacy of politicians in high office.
Acts of war and economic destabilization are granted legitimacy. War is presented as a peace-keeping undertaking.
Both the global economy as well as the political fabric of Western capitalism have become criminalized. The judicial apparatus
at a national level as well the various international human rights tribunals and criminal courts serve the useful function of upholding
the legitimacy of US-NATO led wars and human rights violations.
Destabilizing Competing Poles of Capitalist Development
There are of course significant divisions and capitalist rivalry within the corporate establishment. In the post Cold War era,
the US hegemonic project consists in destabilizing competing poles of capitalist development including China, Russia and Iran as
well as countries such as India, Brazil and Argentina.
In recent developments, the US has also exerted pressure on the capitalist structures of the member states of the European Union.
Washington exerts influence in the election of heads of State including Germany and France, which are increasingly aligned with Washington.
The monetary dimensions are crucial. The international financial system established under Bretton Woods prevails. The global financial
apparatus is dollarized. The powers of money creation are used as a mechanism to appropriate real economy assets. Speculative financial
trade has become an instrument of enrichment at the expense of the real economy. Excess corporate profits and multibillion dollar
speculative earnings (deposited in tax free corporate charities) are also recycled towards the corporate control of politicians,
civil society organizations, not to mention scientists and intellectuals. It's called corruption, co-optation, fraud.
Latin America: The Transition towards a "Democratic Dictatorship"
In Latin America, the military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s have in large part been replaced by US proxy regimes, i.e.
a democratic dictatorship has been installed which ensures continuity. At the same time the ruling elites in Latin America have remoulded.
They have become increasingly integrated into the logic of global capitalism, requiring an acceptance of the US hegemonic project.
Macro-economic reform has been conducive to the impoverishment of the entire Latin America region.
In the course of the last 40 years, impoverishment has been triggered by hyperinflation, starting with the 1973 military coup
in Chile and the devastating reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s.
The implementation of these deadly economic reforms including sweeping privatization, trade deregulation, etc. is coordinated
in liaison with US intelligence ops, including the "Dirty war" and Operation Condor, the Contra insurrection in Nicaragua, etc.
The development of a new and privileged elite integrated into the structures of Western investment and consumerism has emerged.
Regime change has been launched against a number of Latin American countries.
Any attempt to introduce reforms which departs from the neoliberal consensus is the object of "dirty tricks" including acts of
infiltration, smear campaigns, political assassinations, interference in national elections and covert operations to foment social
divisions. This process inevitably requires corruption and cooptation at the highest levels of government as well as within the corporate
and financial establishment. In some countries of the region it hinges on the criminalization of the state, the legitimacy of money
laundering and the protection of the drug trade.
The above text is an English summary of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky's Presentation, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua,
May 17, 2016. This presentation took place following the granting of a Doctor Honoris Causa in Humanities to Professor Chossudovsky
by the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN)
"... Like Victoria Nuland in Ukraine, she represents women politician who feel empowered by their weak and stupid leader to destroy countries. She should be tried for war crimes once she looses her diplomatic immunity. ..."
"... Walter, it's simple; might is right. You don't fuck with the Empire. But hubris... ..."
Guaido should be left free to make more failed coups to ridicule himself and loose the little credibility he has left.
Christya Freeland the Canadian Trump worshipper should shut up once for all. Like Victoria
Nuland in Ukraine, she represents women politician who feel empowered by their weak and
stupid leader to destroy countries. She should be tried for war crimes once she looses her
diplomatic immunity.
Make no mistake, Russia's move to start handing out passports to Donetsk and Luhansk inhabitants is intimately linked to events
in Venezuela. And the fate of Ukraine rests on whether the US undertakes direct action vs Caracas or not.
The moment Bolton justified
possible invasion by the duty to protect US citizens in Venezuela was also the moment Moscow made the final decision to create
similar pretext for the dismantling of the Ukraine.
Russians had already proven their ability to take quick advantage of American
moves against its allies by taking symmetrical action against vulnerable vassals of Washington. Kosovo was reciprocated by Abkhazia
and South Ossetia. Takeover of Kiev - by severing of Crimea and Donbass. Invasion of Venezuela will inevitably result in Ukraine
losing all of Black Sea coast and becoming completely unviable. And unlike US Special Forces, Russian troops will actually be
greeted with flowers and genuine popular support in Kherson and Odessa.
Your whole tirade was triggered by a reference to CrowdStrike.
Interesting observation -- and appears to be true.
needless defiant
The word choice is quite revealing here. His objection has nothing to do with truth. He
views you as " defying " the officially-endorsed narrative; committing the
unpardonable crime of unauthorized noticing .
All that the notorious "17 intelligence agencies" canard ever amounted to was the heads of
the 3 major inteligence agencies lining up and chanting "We believe Alperovitch!" in unison.
Kind of ironic that the entire "Russian hackers" trope was based on the unsupported claim of
an actual Russian hacker.
Regardless of how the Trump administration is working out, the simple fact that no US law
enforcement agency ever examined the DNC's servers -- and that the officially-promoted media
narrative skips over this fact, and minimizes the role of Alperovitch and CrowdStrike,
demonstrates the extent of the deception involved in that narrative.
"The firm's CTO and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is a senior fellow at the Atlantic
Council, a think tank with openly anti-Russian sentiments that is funded by Ukrainian
billionaire (((Victor Pinchuk))), who also happened to donate at least $10 million to the
Clinton Foundation."
CrowdStrike was pretty tight with Obama as well as Hillary.
"CrowdStrike Inc. today announced that Steven Chabinsky, CrowdStrike's general counsel and
chief risk officer, has been appointed by the President to the Commission on Enhancing
National Cybersecurity."
Crowdstrike has never made a profit, and does not disclose sales figures, but seems to
have little difficulty in raising venture capital, and somehow reached a (private) valuation
of $1B in 2017 -- and $3B a year later:
It's also interesting to note that the metadata for the Guccifer 2.0 files is not
consistent with a "hack" over the interwebz from Romania -- since it was transferred at 23
MB/s:
that's thumb drive or LAN -- an internal leak, not a "hack."
CrowdStrike's role in the Russia conspiracy theory hacking/ meddling/ colluding
allegations was minimized in favor of the even more authoritative-sounding "37 intelligence
agencies" claim, but a large part of their usual role seems to to serve as a sort of "SPLC"
for hacking attributions. Just as the SPLC provides the appearance of an "independent,"
"authoritative" source to designate so-called "hate groups" and "hate crimes," much of
CrowdStrike's role is not really to provide any sort of relevant technical expertise or
investigation, but to serve as an outside "expert" to provides the "correct" claims to form
the basis of a desired media narrative.
See also the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights," the "White Helmets," Rita Katz's "SITE
Intelligence," etc
Why did the DNC not allow the FBI to investigate the so-called" Russian hacked" emails?
Rather, they hire Crowd Strike did you know:
1)Obama Appoints CrowdStrike Officer To Admin Post Two Months Before June 2016 Report On
Russia Hacking DNC
2) CrowdStrike Co-Founder Is Fellow On Russia Hawk Group, Has Connections To George Soros,
Ukrainian Billionaire
3) DNC stayed that the FBI never asked to investigate the servers -- that is a lie.
4) CrowdStrike received $100 million in investments led by Google Capital (since re-branded
as CapitalG) in 2015. CapitalG is owned by Alphabet, and Eric Schmidt, Alphabet's chairman,
was a supporter of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. More than just supporting Clinton,
leaked emails from Wikileaks in November 2016 showed that in 2014 he wanted to have an active
role in the campaign.
-daily caller and dan bongino have been bringing these points up since 2016.
"... In May, the company, Crowdstrike, determined that the hack was the work of the Russians. As one unnamed intelligence official told BuzzFeed, "CrowdStrike is pretty good. There's no reason to believe that anything that they have concluded is not accurate ..."
"... Perhaps not. Yet Crowdstrike is hardly a disinterested party when it comes to Russia. Crowdstrike's founder and chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch , is also a senior fellow at the Washington think tank, The Atlantic Council, which has been at the forefront of escalating tensions with Russia. ..."
"... As I reported in The Nation in early January , the connection between Alperovitch and the Atlantic Council is highly relevant given that the Atlantic Council is funded in part by the State Department, NATO, the governments of Latvia and Lithuania, the Ukrainian World Congress, and the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk. In recent years, it has emerged as a leading voice calling for a new Cold War with Russia. ..."
"... But meanwhile the steady drumbeat of "blame Russia" is having an effect. According to a recent you.gov/Economist poll, 58 percent of Americans view Russia as "unfriendly/enemy" while also finding that 52 percent of Democrats believed Russia "tampered with vote tallies." ..."
Today something eerily similar to the pre-war debate over Iraq is taking place regarding the
allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election. Assurances from the
intelligence community and from anonymous Obama administration "senior officials" about the
existence of evidence is being treated as, well, actual evidence.
State
Department spokesman John Kirby told CNN that he is "100% certain" of the role that Russia
played in U.S. election. The administration's expressions of certainty are then uncritically
echoed by the mainstream media. Skeptics are likewise written off, slandered as " Kremlin
cheerleaders " or worse.
Unsurprisingly, The Washington Post is reviving its Bush-era role as principal publicist for
the government's case. Yet in its haste to do the government's bidding, the Post has published
two widely debunked stories relating to Russia (one on the scourge of Russian inspired "fake
news", the other on a non-existent Russian hack of a Vermont electric utility) onto which the
paper has had to append "editor's notes" to correct the original stories.
Yet, those misguided stories have not deterred the Post's opinion page from being equally
aggressive in its depiction of Russian malfeasance. In late December, the Post published an
op-ed by Rep. Adam Schiff and former Rep. Jane Harmon claiming "Russia's
theft and strategic leaking of emails and documents from the Democratic Party and other
officials present a challenge to the U.S. political system unlike anything we've
experienced."
On Dec. 30, the Post editorial board
chastised President-elect Trump for seeming to dismiss "a brazen and unprecedented attempt
by a hostile power to covertly sway the outcome of a U.S. presidential election." The Post
described Russia's actions as a "cyber-Pearl Harbor."
On Jan. 1, the neoconservative columnist Josh Rogin
told readers that the recent announcement of
sanctions against Russia "brought home a shocking realization that Russia is using hybrid
warfare in an aggressive attempt to disrupt and undermine our democracy."
Meanwhile, many of the same voices who were among the loudest cheerleaders for the war in
Iraq have also been reprising their Bush-era roles in vouching for the solidity of the
government's case.
Jonathan Chait, now a columnist for New York magazine, is clearly convinced by what the
government has thus far provided. "That Russia wanted Trump to win has been obvious for
months," writes Chait.
"Of course it all came from the Russians, I'm sure it's all there in the intel," Charles
Krauthammer told Fox News on Jan. 2. Krauthammer is certain.
And Andrew Sullivan is certain as to the motive. "Trump and Putin's bromance," Sullivan told MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Jan. 2, "has
one goal this year: to destroy the European Union and to undermine democracy in Western
Europe."
David Frum,
writing in The Atlantic , believes Trump "owes his office in considerable part to illegal
clandestine activities in his favor conducted by a hostile, foreign spy service."
Jacob Weisberg agrees, tweeting: "Russian covert action threw the election to Donald Trump.
It's that simple." Back in 2008, Weisberg
wrote that "the first thing I hope I've learned from this experience of being wrong about
Iraq is to be less trusting of expert opinion and received wisdom." So much for that.
Foreign Special Interests
Another, equally remarkable similarity to the period of 2002-3 is the role foreign lobbyists
have played in helping to whip up a war fever. As readers will no doubt recall, Ahmed Chalabi,
leader of the Iraqi National Congress, which served, in effect as an Iraqi government-in-exile,
worked hand in hand with the Washington lobbying firm Black, Kelly, Scruggs & Healey (BKSH)
to sell Bush's war on television and on the op-ed pages of major American newspapers.
Chalabi was also a trusted source of Judy Miller of the Times, which, in an apology to its
readers on May 26,
2004, wrote : "The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been
named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced
reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration
and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles." The pro-war lobbying of the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee has also been exhaustivelydocumented .
Though we do not know how widespread the practice has been as of yet, something similar is
taking place today. Articles calling for confrontation with Russia over its alleged "hybrid
war" with the West are
appearingwithincreasingregularity
. Perhaps the most egregious example of this newly popular genre appeared on Jan. 1 in
Politico
magazine. That essay, which claims, among many other things, that "we're in a war" with
Russia comes courtesy of one Molly McKew.
McKew is seemingly qualified to make such a pronouncement because she, according to her bio
on the Politico website, served as an "adviser to Georgian President Saakashvili's government
from 2009-2013, and to former Moldovan Prime Minister Filat in 2014-2015." Seems reasonable
enough. That is until one discovers that McKew is actually registered with the
Department of Justice as a lobbyist for two anti-Russian political parties, Georgia's UMN
and Moldova's PLDM.
Records show her work for the consulting firm Fianna Strategies frequently takes her to
Capitol Hill to lobby U.S. Senate and Congressional staffers, as well as prominent U.S.
journalists at The Washington Post and The New York Times, on behalf of her Georgian and
Moldovan clients.
"The truth," writes McKew, "is that fighting a new Cold War would be in America's interest.
Russia teaches us a very important lesson: losing an ideological war without a fight will ruin
you as a nation. The fight is the American way." Or, put another way: the truth is that
fighting a new Cold War would be in McKew's interest -- but perhaps not America's.
While you wouldn't know it from the media coverage (or from reading deeply disingenuous
pieces like McKew's) as things now stand, the case against Russia is far from certain. New
developments are emerging almost daily. One of the latest is a report from the
cyber-engineering company Wordfence, which concluded that "The IP
addresses that DHS [Department of Homeland Security] provided may have been used for an attack
by a state actor like Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with
Russia."
Indeed, according to Wordfence, "The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be
Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an
indicator of compromise for any website."
On Jan. 4,
BuzzFeed reported that, according to the DNC, the FBI never carried out a forensic
examination on the email servers that were allegedly hacked by the Russian government. "The
FBI," said DNC spokesman Eric Walker, "never requested access to the DNC's computer
servers."
What the agency did do was rely on the findings of a private-sector, third-party vendor that
was brought in by the DNC after the initial hack was discovered. In May, the company,
Crowdstrike, determined that the hack was the work of the Russians. As one unnamed intelligence
official told BuzzFeed, "CrowdStrike is pretty good. There's no reason to believe that anything
that they have concluded is not accurate. "
Perhaps not. Yet Crowdstrike is hardly a disinterested party when it comes to Russia.
Crowdstrike's founder and chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch , is also a senior fellow at the
Washington think tank, The Atlantic Council, which has been at the forefront of escalating
tensions with Russia.
As I
reported in The Nation in early January , the connection between Alperovitch and the
Atlantic Council is highly relevant given that the Atlantic Council is funded in part by the State
Department, NATO, the governments of Latvia and Lithuania, the Ukrainian World Congress, and
the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk. In recent years, it has emerged as a leading voice
calling for a new Cold War with Russia.
Time to Rethink the 'Group Think'
And given the rather thin nature of the declassified evidence provided by the Obama
administration, might it be time to consider an alternative theory of the case? William Binney,
a 36-year veteran of the National Security Agency and the man responsible for creating many of
its collection systems, thinks so. Binney believes that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked,
writing
that "it is puzzling why NSA cannot produce hard evidence implicating the Russian
government and WikiLeaks. Unless we are dealing with a leak from an insider, not a hack."
None of this is to say, of course, that Russia did not and could not have attempted to
influence the U.S. presidential election. The intelligence community may have
intercepted damning evidence of the Russian government's culpability. The government's
hesitation to provide the public with more convincing evidence may stem from an
understandable and wholly appropriate desire to protect the intelligence community's sources
and methods. But as it now stands the publicly available evidence is open to question.
But meanwhile the steady drumbeat of "blame Russia" is having an effect. According to a
recent you.gov/Economist
poll, 58 percent of Americans view Russia as "unfriendly/enemy" while also finding that 52
percent of Democrats believed Russia "tampered with vote tallies."
With Congress back in session, Armed Services Committee chairman John McCain is set to hold
a series of hearings focusing on Russian malfeasance, and the steady drip-drip-drip of
allegations regarding Trump and Putin is only serving to box in the new President when it comes
to pursuing a much-needed detente with Russia.
It also does not appear that a congressional inquiry will start from scratch and critically
examine the evidence. On Friday, two senators -- Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Sheldon
Whitehouse --
announced a Senate Judiciary subcommittee investigation into Russian interference in
elections in the U.S. and elsewhere. But they already seemed to have made up their minds about
the conclusion: "Our goal is simple," the senators said in a joint statement "To the fullest
extent possible we want to shine a light on Russian activities to undermine democracy."
So, before the next round of Cold War posturing commences, now might be the time to stop,
take a deep breath and ask: Could the rush into a new Cold War with Russia be as disastrous and
consequential -- if not more so -- as was the rush to war with Iraq nearly 15 years ago? We
may, unfortunately, find out.
James W Carden is a contributing writer for The Nation and editor of The American
Committee for East-West Accord's eastwestaccord.com. He previously served as an advisor on
Russia to the Special Representative for Global Inter-governmental Affairs at the US State
Department.
Don G. , February 5, 2017 at 14:29
Questioning whether the Russians hacked or didn’t hack is playing into the US
narrative to demonize Russia. (Putin)
It simple doesn’t matter as all nations hack as much as possible to enhance and protect
their national interests. Surely Russia has hacked against the US no more than a tenth of
what the US had done against Russia.
The narrative is nothing but a propaganda lie but it’s been accepted by the American
people and mostly because of the fight that goes on due to domestic politics, one major party
against the other.
There’s a very good reason to stop promoting the narrative because it only helps to
bring Americans onside with more efforts to demonize Putin and to keep all sides in the US
promoting their aggression worldwide. Americans are likely easily 90% prowar now and will
show little or no resistance to the coming war on Iran. <img alt=''
src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05d2bb98b641e9e9ab8f3dc738e31a0?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg'
srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05d2bb98b641e9e9ab8f3dc738e31a0?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg
2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
yugo , February 4, 2017 at 13:54
Hysteria has reached fever pitch. Russia’s fake news is apparently so beguiling that
it even threatens western democratic discourse. Combine this with its cyber weaponry and
Moscow, so we are told, may interfere in this year’s German elections to benefit the
hard-right. Such incessant fear mongering has already prompted calls for the censorship of
Russian propaganda. It won’t be long before a witch-hunt emerges, directed against
‘fellow travellers’, those who dare to doubt the Russian threat.
They insist the west made matters worse in Ukraine by not acknowledging that it was a
classic example of a young state that didn’t naturally command the allegiance of all
its peoples. Other examples are Georgia’s Abkhazians and South Ossetians,
Moldova’s Trans-Dniester Slavs and Azerbaijan’s Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians.
They also doubt the Russian threat to the Baltic states. What is amazing is Moscow’s
temperate response to Estonia and Latvia’s gross violation of international norms in
denying citizenship to those of its Russian minority who are not conversant in Estonian and
Latvian respectively. Nato and the EU turned a blind eye when membership was granted to these
two states.
Fellow travellers furthermore claim the west will keep on floundering in the Middle East
as long as it persists in treating Saudi Arabia as a valued ally, while viewing Iran as a
permanent enemy. We have for far too long ignored Saudi Arabia’s promotion of Wahhabism
and its playing of the destructive sectarian card against ‘apostate’ Shiites.
Take the merciless attacks on Shiite worshippers by Sunni jihadis of a Wahhabist persuasion.
It occurs with sickening regularity throughout the Middle East. The terrorists attacking
westerners are invariably Sunni jihadis, not Shiites. Worse still, Saudi Arabia together with
Nato member Turkey facilitated the emergence of Isis. We bizarrely gave priority to toppling
Syria’s secular regime.
The first loyalty of these fellow travellers is to their nation state rather than
unfettered globalism. No wonder the western elite disparage their national patriotism,
calling it populism. It was, after all, the Achilles Heel of Homo Sovieticus. The elite fear
the same fate awaits Homo Europaeus and globalist Homo Economicus.
Michael K Rohde , February 3, 2017 at 15:12
This is beginning to look exactly like Iraq 2 and why the same players that led us into
that fake war which is still not paid for because the initiators made sure and get themselves
a tax cut before they launched it are still being listened to makes it clear. Even with a
change in administrations and party our government continues in the same wrong headed
direction, to war with the enemies of Israel. When will it stop? When will we take back
control of our foreign policy and destiny. <img alt=''
src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cc900a84653501242923790946494dbc?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg'
srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cc900a84653501242923790946494dbc?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg
2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
Michael Hoefler , February 3, 2017 at 23:29
As Ray McGovern said several times (not quoting): that Israel is the elephant in the room.
Netayahu will not rest until he has all of the Arab states fighting among themselves. IMO he
thinks that that will guarantee Israel protection.
IMO – all that does is put Israel into a continuing worse situation. There will always
be someone stronger to come along to overcome them – someday – sometime. If they
made peace with those nations and worked with them, traded with them – they would be
much safer in the long run.
The mainstream media in th USA and, increasingly in the rest of the West are vehicles for
propaganda from various factions within the Imperial Deep State. All these outlets are good
for is to map the power relations between these factions at least this the case in the major
issues of the day.
This misbehavior going on right now. One factions close to Trump wants to go to war with
Iran because, of course there has to be war or the Deep State as a whole stuffers and the
people will begin to look at their shakles. The other faction wishes to go to a brinksmanship
sort of Cold War situation. The Trumpists believe that making friends with Russia and then
destroying Iranian power is the best approach to controlling the MENA region by creating a
loose alliance of KSA, Israel, Turkey and Russia in which a weak Iran would be forced to
enter the Empire and Russia in return would be given more control of Ukraine and Eastern
Europe. I suspect Trump may also want to undercut NATO and the EU. That is my guess. To put
it another way, Russia is strong and well led and Iran is not.
stan , February 3, 2017 at 14:17
You can read chapter 6 of Mein Kampf if you want to see how this war propaganda stuff
works. It is not group think or mistaken ideas. It is deliberate lies to scare you and a
carefully crafted false narrative to make it all seem reasonable. People cannot believe that
their leaders would tell such a big lie, and that’s why it works. The goal is murder
and conquest to get territory, natural resources, and control of business and commerce.
Controlling markets for drugs, gambling, and prostitution is for nickel and dime crooks.
Controlling markets for natural resources, banking, and consumer and industrial goods is
where the real money is. Think of governments as criminal business syndicates and you
aren’t far off. Remember, President Obama had a hit list, flew around plane loads of
secret cash to make illegal payoffs, and bragged about offing his opponent in the head and
dumping his body in the river.
Jeremy , February 4, 2017 at 11:33
Yes, Stan,well put! you will never see this sort of talk in the articles here, as the
consipiracy theorist label is always one to avoid, but I agree that when we think in terms of
a group of people trying to attain “security” the same way any other gangster
does, it becomes much less far fetched. George Carlin said, “It’s a big club, and
you ain’t in it!” Men and women of power and wealth will always do what they have
to in order to preserve that power and wealth for their children. There is really no
conspiracy needed, just a bunch of people at the top looking after themselves and their
families.
Tania Messina , February 3, 2017 at 14:13
Ah, yes, we’ve always needed a boogeyman to keep us all crazed with fear and the
neocons busy with their destruction of society. If there is a crazy out there today, it is
those neocons and their puppets who were so intent on destroying “seven countries in
five years” and not being able to achieve that diabolical end as so neatly planned.
And, now, they’re throwing temper tantrums, because, surprise of surprises! a non
career politician comes along who uses common sense for a change and dares to say, “Why
can’t we be friends with Russia?” With that comment many exhausted Americans
perked up and listened while the Dulles boys turned somersaults in their graves!
The arrogance and superiority of those who constantly blame Russia for their alleged
expansionist ambitions seem blinded to our own aggressions. Fifteen years in Iraq? We finally
have a president who talks of peace and we demonize him as the warmonger ready to press the
button, while I seem to remember that it was the other candidate who arrogantly referred to
Putin as Hitler!
It is articles like this one by James Carden that we should be teaching in our schools,
researching the facts and discussing in our classrooms so that hopefully a new generation
might grow up with intelligent exchange rather than the brainwash that has been strangling
our society for too many years.
Mark Thomason , February 3, 2017 at 13:04
This controversy is driven by Democratic denial of defeat, and infighting in which those
defeated seek to hang on to power inside the Democratic Party. It is the Hillary crowd. It
can be evidence free because it is driven by political calculation of private power needs,
not truth.
And the WMD fiasco is a perfect comparison, because the same people drove the same sort of
fact-free theme for private reasons, as Wolfowitz put it, the story around which varying
separate interests could be rallied.
"... Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Elijah Cummings and Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters executed a secret Memorandum of Understanding to "target" President Trump and subpoena all his financial and banking records, according to a letter sent to Cummings from ranking committee member Rep. Jim Jordan. ..."
"... Jordan emphatically objected to the secret MOUs and excoriated Democrats who "did not consult with Republican Members of the Committee or allow Members to consider and debate the terms of your MOU before executing the MOU with Chairwoman Waters. You did not disclose the MOU's existence to Members or the American people until after I raised the matter." ..."
"... Schiff, along with Brennan and Clapper are some of the people I expect will be seeing prison time soon ..."
Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Elijah Cummings and Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters
executed a secret Memorandum of Understanding to "target" President Trump and subpoena all his financial and banking records, according
to a letter sent to Cummings from ranking committee member Rep. Jim Jordan.
Further, Jordan's letter indicates that other MOUs have apparently been signed and agreed to with House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Ca, who has promised to continue investigations into the president despite findings
by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office that there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. Attorney General William
Barr released a summary of Mueller's 400 page report several weeks ago and the redacted version of the report is expected to be released
by the DOJ this Thursday.
On Monday, Jordan sent a memorandum explaining his objections to the partisan behavior of Cummings and "unprecedented subpoena
to Mazars USA LLP,"
as reported by SaraACarter.com.
"We'd describe (the MOUs) as an agreement to conspire and coordinate their efforts to attack and investigate POTUS," said a
congressional official with knowledge of the MOUs.
"This is not how committee's normally operate. Dems aren't interested in legislating. Only attacking POTUS."
Jordan emphatically objected to the secret MOUs and excoriated Democrats who "did not consult with Republican Members of the Committee
or allow Members to consider and debate the terms of your MOU before executing the MOU with Chairwoman Waters. You did not disclose
the MOU's existence to Members or the American people until after I raised the matter."
In the letter Jordan asks Cummings to "provide greater transparency around your secretive conduct."
Jordan also requested that Cummings answer specific questions about the MOUs.
"If you intend to continue to use the Committee's limited resources to attack President Trump for political gain, I hope that
you will at least be transparent about your actions," said Jordan at the end of his letter.
"Your ability to function as a fair and unbiased finder of fact is now at grave risk. The Members of the Committee - and, more
importantly, the American citizens we represent - deserve to know exactly how you are leading this Committee. I look forward to
your detailed answers to these questions."
Questions for Cummings
How many MOUs with committee chairpersons have you signed as Chairman since the beginning of the 116th Congress?
Would you provide the Committee with a detailed list of the other MOUs you have signed, including their dates, signatories,
and topics?
Why did you not publicly disclose that you had signed MOUs with committee chairpersons?
Will you publicly disclose all the MOUs you have signed as Chairman since the beginning of the 116th Congress?
Why did you choose not to consult with any Republican Members before signing these MOUs?
Have you signed any MOUs as Chairman with any entities outside of the House Representatives relating to the Committee's oversight
or legislative work?
To the extent your MOUs create duties for the Committee that conflict with the Rules of the House of Representatives or the
Rules of the Committee, which duties prevail?
The Rules of the Committee for the 116th Congress do not authorize the Chairman to bind the Committee through an MOU. Could
you explain the specific authority that allows you to bind the Committee through an MOU without first obtaining approval through
a vote of the Committee?
As I understand your MOU with Chairwoman Waters, you have committed to sharing Committee information with the Financial Services
Committee. This provision of your MOU may conflict with Rules of the House of Representatives and the Committee's whistleblower
protocol, which requires the Committee to keep some Committee information confidential. Will you still protect the confidentiality
of whistleblower information notwithstanding your apparent obligation to share it with the Financial Services Committee?
As I understand your MOU with Chairwoman Waters, you have agreed to consult with her before issuing a subpoena. Do you intend
to consult with Chairwoman Waters before or after you consult with me, as required by Committee Rules? If I object to your proposed
subpoena, do you intend to consult with Chairwoman Waters before or after the Committee votes, as you promised in the Committee's
organizing meeting?
As I understand your MOU with Chairwoman Waters, you have declined to include any provision protecting the Minority's rights
to documentary or testimonial information. Can you guarantee that Minority Members will have the same access to documentary or
testimonial information under this MOU as we do in every other Committee inquiry?
Schiff-for-brains and his other toady friends are only trying to overthrow the US government. Is this a big deal for democrat supporters? They seem to have unlimited funds.
Barr says Mueller didn't find an "Direct" coordination with "Russian Government officials."
That leaves all sorts of room for indirect (through wiki, through Kislyck, through the NRA...
etc.). This is wildly different than what you claim here - and your claim is not something
you know. I suppose it could be true, but you are believing the guy that covered up the Iran
Contra affair and got Oliver North off for his numerous, admitted crimes.
IF what you say is true, please explain -
1. Why did Trump, his family and his closest associates lie 100's of times about over 100
contacts with known assets of the GRU?
2. If Mueller "completely and totally exonerated" Trump, why are Trump's lawyers and
McConnell keeping the report from the public.
3. How is it possible that Barr thoroughly read and absorbed the report and it's evidence in
reportedly only 9 hours including the time it took him to draft his heavily hedged 4 page
memo?
4. Why did Mueller go out of his way to nail Manafort for lying about Russian contacts if it
was immaterial - he was going to jail for the rest of his life regardless?
5. Why do you discount the publicly available evidence that Trump obstructed justice? Is it
okay with you that Trump did it just because it was in the open?
6. Do you care that Russia clearly attempted to influence (and likely did) the 2016
election?
Leaked by someone with inside knowledge and thinks that justice has not been served...happens
all the time.
Exactly what is kurt think Trump is guilty of?
Books have written about Trump criminality, but for some strange reason, Democrats have
not been interested in pursuing those crimes. They were only interested in Hillary's
preposterous allegation that Trump colluded with Putin.
Perhaps because Trump's other crimes are similar to Democratic corruption...and he may
have the goods on folks like Schumer? Mutual assured destruction to pursue crimes that
committed over the past 50 years?
You have no idea what Mueller said. Only Barr's summary. Which is full of hedge language -
which indicates cover up. If it exonerates Trump, why is McConnell blocking the release and
back to "but her emails" and Steele Dossier?
Among kurt's questions, he carefully avoids the central question: Did Trump conspire with the
Russian government to subvert and American election and help Trump win? Hillary thought so.
kurt assured us repeatedly that Trump's guilt was a proven fact, a slam dunk prosecution.
Democrats and their media talked about it incessantly for three years, crowding out interest
in domestic corruption and other avenues of prosecution...and allowing Democrats flog that
issue and avoid developing a coherent message and a popular program to address major
problems.
They were all wrong about the central charge that Trump conspired with Putin to subvert
the election. Mueller did not find enough evidence to indict or prosecute. That was...repeat,
that was Mueller's charge. And he answered that central question, embarrassing and
humiliating Democrats and the media that flogged that fake news for three years.
Sure, Trump has not been exonerated on everything. Sure, investigations should continue,
focusing on those that have a high probability of finding corruption and
criminality...something that Democrats have avoided for years, despite books being written on
the subject.
The key question is: why have Democrats avoided investigating Trump on all those areas
that could yield prosecution for domestic corruption and criminality and instead focus almost
exclusively on a wild goose chase?
It's true. Democrats had had no subpoena power, but there is always the court of public
opinion. Books have been written about Trump's corruption, his sleazy and likely criminal
business behavior. Hillary refused to raise the issue much if at all. Pelosi and Schumer
avoided anything but Putin...probably because Trump has the goods on them. They needed to
fabricate a preposterous charge that wouldn't blow back against them.
Read the one and only footnote on Barr's "report." Then get back to me. It is doing all the
work and it is obviously a coverup. If you define collusion as only tacit agreement between
only government actors, then every spy that has ever been jailed or executed is not guilty.
Having disgraced themselves with full immersion in the barren Russia-gate "narrative," the
Resistance is now tripling down on Russia-gate's successor gambit: obstruction of justice where
there was no crime in the first place. What exactly was that bit of mischief Special Prosecutor
Robert Mueller inserted in his final report, saying that " while this report does not conclude
that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him?"
It's this simple: prosecutors are charged with finding crimes. If there is insufficient
evidence to bring a case, then that is the end of the matter. Prosecutors, special or
otherwise, are not authorized to offer hypothetical accounts where they can't bring a criminal
case. But Mueller produced a brief of arguments pro-and-con about obstruction for others to
decide upon. In doing that, he was out of order, and maliciously so.
Trump and Barr on Feb. 14, 2019. (Wikimedia Commons)
Of course, Attorney General William Barr took up the offer and declared the case closed, as
he properly should where the prosecutor could not conclude that a crime was committed. One
hopes that the AG also instructed Mueller and his staff to shut the f up vis-à-vis
further ex post facto "anonymous source" speculation in the news media. But, of course, the
Mueller staff -- which inexplicably included lawyers who worked for the Clinton Foundation and
the Democratic National Committee -- at once started insinuating to
New York Times reporters that the full report would contain an arsenal of bombshells
reigniting enough suspicion to fuel several congressional committee investigations.
The objective apparently is to keep President Donald Trump burdened, hobbled, and disabled
for the remainder of his term, and especially in preparation for the 2020 election against
whomever emerges from the crowd of lightweights and geriatric cases now roistering through the
primary states. It also leaves the door open for the Resistance to prosecute an impeachment
case, since that is a political matter, not a law enforcement action.
Setting up the AG
This blog is not associated with any court other than public opinion, and I am free to
hypothesize on the meaning of Mueller's curious gambit, so here goes: Barr, long before being
considered for his current job, published his opinion that there was no case for obstruction of
justice in the Russia-gate affair. By punting the decision to Barr, Mueller sets up the AG for
being accused of prejudice in the matter -- and, more to the point, has managed to generate a
new brushfire in the press.
Barr could see this coming from a thousand miles away. I suspect he's pissed off about being
set up like this. I suspect further that he knows this brushfire is intended to produce a
smokescreen to obscure the rash of grand jury referrals coming down in the weeks and months
ahead against the many government employees who concocted the Russia-gate scandal. Personally,
I think Mueller himself deserves to be in that roundup for destroying evidence (the Strzok /
Page cell phones) and for malicious prosecution against General Michael Flynn , among other
things.
The reason Mueller did not bring an obstruction-of-justice charge against Trump is that the
evidence didn't support it. He didn't have a case. In a trial -- say, after Trump was impeached
or left office -- the discovery process could bring to light evidence that might embarrass and
even incriminate Mueller and his staff, and cast further opprobrium on the federal justice
agencies. For instance: why did Mueller drag out his inquiry for two years when he must have
known by at least the summer of 2017 that the Steele dossier was a fraud perpetrated by the
Clinton campaign?
Now the propaganda crusade has been initiated to defame Barr. The idiots running the budding
new congressional inquiries are going to pile on him, with the help of the news media. Though
he is said to be an "old friend" of Robert Mueller's, I believe they have become adversaries,
perhaps even enemies. Mueller is not in a position of strength in this battle. He has now
officially exited the stage as his mandate expires, so he has no standing to oppose further
consequences in the aftermath of Russia-gate. What remains is a dastardly and seditious hoax as
yet un-adjudicated and an evidence trail a mile wide, and no amount of jumping up and down
crying "woo woo woo" by Democratic lawmakers Jerrold Nadler, Maxine Waters, and Adam Schiff is
going to derail that choo-choo train a'chuggin' down the tracks.
James Howard Kunstler is author of "The Geography of Nowhere," which he says he wrote
"Because I believe a lot of people share my feelings about the tragic landscape of highway
strips, parking lots, housing tracts, mega-malls, junked cities, and ravaged countryside that
makes up the everyday environment where most Americans live and work." He has written several
other works of nonfiction and fiction. Read more about him here . This article first appeared on his blog, ClusterfuckNation .
.
KiwiAntz , April 8, 2019 at 18:00
If at first you don't succeed, "try, try, try again? The Resistance, unlike Neo in the
Matrix, fails to take the red pill to wake up too real life, in the present & continues
to swallow the blue pill to stay in the dreamworld of fake realities & Hoax conspiracies?
So the Kabuki theatre must continue, the too big to fail lie of Russiagate can't be allowed
to die? The damage this fake conspiracy, collusion delusion is having on the US can't be
quantified? The fools who continue to promote this narrative are now tripling down in a state
of denial that defies belief! The Mainstream Media is now totally dead & buried, no one
believes their lies anymore & people are heading to alt media in droves! Politicians
& Politics, especially left wing, are objects of derision & contempt, & although
Trump may be innocent, the fact remains that he is a terrible President & a dangerous
idiot?? You only need to look at his staff with warmongering imbeciles like Pompeo, Bolton
& their kind who are leading America to War, in which their win ratio is zero? The
lunatic Russiagate narrative has served & achieved part of its goals & purposes? To
hamstrung Trump & paralyse his administration & get him impeached via a coup
d'état then to destroy & poison Russian detente,civility & relations? It
failed on one level to obtain Trumps removal but succeeded in destroying Russian relations,
the most dangerous gambit ever, to taut & ridicule a Nuclear Superpower? But that's the
actions of a dying US Empire in decline, arrogance, ignorance, hubris & self delusion,
all aptly supported by a corrupt propagandist fourth estate, the American Fakestream
Media?
JonnyJames , April 8, 2019 at 17:06
Once again, we see this is all a rather ridiculous charade to distract the public. As Bill
Binney & the VIPS pointed out on this website & others: if there was any evidence of
"Russian collusion" the NSA would have had it immediately. After two wasted years of
distractions & nonsense, of course there is NO evidence.
The irrational reactions of partisan hypocrites are truly bizarre, we need to have a
social psychologist explain the madness of crowd mentality here. What's more, so many people
STILL fail to acknowledge (or are paid not to) that there is NO evidence. They say wait and
see (We're still waiting for Saddam's WMD etc) Tragically humorous
You want REAL collusion and high crimes?: The Trump regime virtually takes orders verbatim
on foreign policy from Benjamin Nuttyahoo. However, Israeli diktats enjoy the overwhelming
support of both "parties" in Congress and the servile media cartel. Pointing out these
extremely obvious & highly problematic facts is not allowed. One cannot talk about
Israeli lobby groups not having to register as foreign agents. One cannot talk about
indisputable facts with a mountain of evidence in plain sight.
In the words of Rod Serling: "You have entered the Twilight Zone"
Jeff Harrison , April 8, 2019 at 13:20
I believe that the term prosecutor should officially be retired and the more accurate term
persecutor should be substituted in its place. The frequency of persecutorial misconduct at
all levels of the judicial system makes a mockery of the concept of justice.
JonnyJames , April 8, 2019 at 17:17
Yes indeed.
Justice and "the rule of law" is made a mockery of every day: Dick Cheney/Bush Jr.. Tony
Blair & other war criminals walk free. Instead of being in prison for life, they are
lavished with praise from media personalities & make big money.
After committing "the largest financial crimes in history, by orders of magnitude", (prof.
William K. Black) NOT ONE senior banker has been indicted, let alone prosecuted. Jamie Dimon,
for example, is in the media regularly and depicted as a brilliant & great man.
Congress & the Exec. routinely ignore & violate the law, including the US
constitution & Bill of Rights. At this point when any politician says the words
"democracy" & "the rule of law" I sneer & laugh with contempt
Skip Scott , April 8, 2019 at 12:55
It will be interesting to see if the DoJ really does follow up on the RussiaGate scam and
attempt to indict the people who created it. Would they really dare to prosecute members of
our so-called "intelligence" community? What about Schumer's "six ways from Sunday"?
mike k , April 8, 2019 at 15:26
Schumer is just a little Mafia toady.
JDC , April 8, 2019 at 12:38
The discovery process in any trial of Trump would have also perhaps brought to light that
Mueller's conclusion, as relayed by Barr's summary, that Russia hacked the DNC and delivered
the documents to Wikileaks has no basis in fact, given what Bill Binney and the other VIPS
have shown.
hetro , April 8, 2019 at 12:31
I think what needs clarifying here is the difference between "does not conclude the
President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him" and the more specific
"obstruction of justice" accusation. For me, at least, this is confusing. Trump may well have
committed a crime by ordering Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels, or in other ways similar to
the financial sleaze revealed with his associates–but is this not separate from
"obstruction of justice"? Further, it would seem to most ordinary mortals Mueller would be
embarrassed after more than two years to come up with . . . nothing? So he gives us not
guilty of "collusion" and hints at something else, taking the heat off himself (or attempting
to)?
Schiff is a typical witch hunter (or Cheka goon, if you wish ;-) , much like Mueller staff was. What is unclear why
theywant to unseat Trump with his complete falding to neocons and strong pro-Israel stance?
Notable quotes:
"... It was the DNC and Ukraine. They wanted HRC to win. No collusion was on President Trump's side. All the top players in the FBI and DOJ played games and lost. President Trump won and plays the game better than those on the DNC. Their game book has been showed to be stupid. ..."
"... Brennan thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. He spins lies like a hungry spider. Brennan, Clapper, Schiff, Swalwell, and some others need to go. ..."
Trump HATER Brennan - says: "U.S. PERSONS" - meaning Schiff, Comey, Obama, Strozk, His
Lover, The OBAMAS, - are all THOSE "U.S. PERSONS" who gave him the so-called "INTELLIGENCE" -
at WHAT POINT does "UN-VERIFIED INFO" become a TREASONOUS WEAPONIZED INSTRUMENT of an
ATTEMPTED COUP D'eta against the President Of The United States of America.
Seditious liar Schifty Adam Schiff was involved in criminal leaking of classified
information to Democrat propaganda machines CNN and MSNBC -- Should not just resign but held
accountable for his crimes and major role he played in the Coup attempt against the duly
elected US president
If Brennan didn't know, he admits to being incompetent. If he did know, he is complicit.
He accused someone of treason without evidence. Losing his security clearance is not justice.
He needs to pay a bigger price.
Gowdy is correct. Had there been something there, yes perhaps then people should see it.
When there results yield "not even probable cause", it probably shouldn't be released in it's
entirety.
It was the DNC and Ukraine. They wanted HRC to win. No collusion was on President Trump's
side. All the top players in the FBI and DOJ played games and lost. President Trump won and
plays the game better than those on the DNC. Their game book has been showed to be
stupid.
Adam Schiff claims there is clear evidence, yet never states what this evidence is. Yet it
is so clear that Muller, the FBI, the Senate investigation and the House spent two years and
never found it. Must be extremely transparent to the point of not existing period. I think
Schiff needs to not only step down, but he needs to see a psychitatrist.
"The end justifies the means" or complete absence of morality. Or "revolutionary morality". Schiff looks more and lore like a
Cheka goon preparing Moscow trials.
"Outrageous, it's the Adam Schiff problem. People abusing the access to classified data to
then go out in public and make allegations that didn't prove to be true. You look at a
decision to essentially investigate a political rival. Who made it?" James Freeman,
@WSJ
Donald J. Trump 12:21 PM - 31 Mar 2019
Everybody is asking how the phony and fraudulent investigation of the No Collusion, No
Obstruction Trump Campaign began. We need to know for future generations to understand. This
Hoax should never be allowed to happen to another President or Administration again!
Why they are sill waving a dead chicken ? Because they are crooks and can't prosecute Trump for his real misdeeds. Or investigate
influence of MI6 and Israeli lobby on the USA elections. Crooks. All of them.
Notable quotes:
"... So, pilgrims, American tradition is to be reversed. The Democrats will seek for confirmation bias of Trump's "crimes" because of their "progressive" hatred of his perhaps cynical leadership of a popular revolution against them and the idiot college kids. ..."
"House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who would eventually lead any impeachment proceedings, on Sunday
signaled a significant escalation into congressional inquiries into the President.
The New York Democrat plans on Monday to request documents from 60 people and entities close to Trump, including from the Department
of Justice, the White House and the Trump Organization. The document trawl will be used "to present the case to the American people
about obstruction of justice, about corruption and abuse of power, " Nadler said on ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday.
Nadler stuck to the House Democratic position that impeachment "is a long way down the road," apparently in order to avoid
Republican arguments that the decision has already been made to try to oust Trump. The document requests are not taking place
under the auspices of an official impeachment investigation."
Nadler could not be more clear. He and the other kangaroos in the Democrat herd (flock?) will search through every aspect of Trump's
life for the purpose of finding something that will cause a revulsion against Trump among the American people.
If they can find that,
their allies among the press and TeeVee agitprop apparatchiks will make judgments evident as to whether or not a bill of impeachment
would result in a conviction in the senate. This method is reminiscent of the attempt to impeach President Andrew Johnson. Remember
him? The Radical Republicans hated this Southern War Democrat simply because he was Southern without regard for his well demonstrated
hatred for the planter class in the greater South as opposed to his east Tennessee anti-slavery home.
So, pilgrims, American tradition
is to be reversed. The Democrats will seek for confirmation bias of Trump's "crimes" because of their "progressive" hatred of his
perhaps cynical leadership of a popular revolution against them and the idiot college kids.
Former House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) on how Republicans are
calling for Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to resign as chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee.
"... You are a law maker, not a prosecutor nor the attorney general. It's not up to you. In fact, we the people want you to resign! You do nothing productive for our Country. You are # FullOfSchiff ..."
"... If # fullofSchiff has additional evidence and did not provide it to SC, doesn't that constitute obstruction? ..."
Has anyone heard from slimy Adam #fullofschiff Schiff
today? I mean it must be embarrassing to have have spent the last 2 years as the leader of
the tinfoil hat brigade and have it all come crashing down so quick. I'm legitimately
concerned for his mental state.
You are a law maker, not a prosecutor nor the attorney general. It's not up to you. In
fact, we the people want you to resign! You do nothing productive for our Country. You are
#FullOfSchiff
KHaase 8:40 AM - 27 Mar 2019
If #fullofSchiff has additional evidence and did not provide it to SC, doesn't that
constitute obstruction?
Former GOP Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz said Republicans should target Democratic California
Rep. Adam Schiff's security clearance, following the release of the Mueller report.
He then pushed for Congressional Republicans to unite
and bring their demands directly to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi .
"I think he should lose his security clearance and I don't think he should be on the House
intelligence committee,"
Chaffetz continued. "I wish the Republicans would gather in force and demand that change.
Nancy Pelosi knows better. It is a privilege to sit on this committee but he's used the guise
of 'hey, I see classified information and nobody else does and I'm telling you I've seen it
first-hand.' He's the only person on the planet because he's making it up and he shouldn't have
a security clearance if you're going to act like that."
... ... ...
He also claimed President Donald Trump fully cooperated with the Russia probe and cleared
himself, but insisted on a new investigation to find out how the allegations began.
"[Trump's] had to sit back for the last two years, and think about it. All the Democrats
tried to do is say 'oh, he was going to take out Mueller. He was going to do this, he was going
to do that.' He didn't do anything. He waived privilege, he gave them tons of documents, access
to all the emails," Chaffetz said earlier in the interview.
"Donald Trump Jr. was in there for hours and hours testifying. I don't know that the
president could have done any more for openness and transparency through this investigation.
And it turned out exactly the way he said. He's in the clear. But now there has to be a review
of how this whole fiasco started."
"... "Your actions, both past, and present are incompatible with your duty of the chairman of this committee -- which alone, in the House of Representatives -- has the obligation and authority to provide effective oversight of the U.S. Intelligence community," ..."
"... And while Schiff, or as Donald Trump Jr calls him "FullOfSchiff" may plan to keep kicking a dead horse for a long time, the social media response was quick and was largely split along party lines: ..."
Democratic House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who made Donald Trump's now
debunked Russiagate "witch hunt" his one mission in life, furiously pushed back as all nine
Committee Republicans demanded his resignation, defending his past comments by lighting into
the president and his family and campaign over its contacts with Russia.
Calls from Republicans and president Trump for the Russiagate-obsessed Schiff to resign as
head of the House Intelligence Committee have been loud in the days following the release of
the four-page Mueller report summary. And on Thursday, the call was made right to the
Congressman's face in what
Mediate described was an "explosive" clash, and
The Hill dubbed a "striking display."
At the start of the House intel hearing on Thursday morning, Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) called
for Schiff to step down -- a call which he said was supported by all nine Republican members of
the committee.
"Your actions, both past, and present are incompatible with your duty of the chairman of
this committee -- which alone, in the House of Representatives -- has the obligation and
authority to provide effective oversight of the U.S. Intelligence community," Conaway said. "As
such we have no faith in your ability to discharge your duties in a manner consistent with your
Constitutional responsibility and urge your immediate resignation as chairman of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, this letter is signed by all nine members of the Republican side of the
committee, and I ask unanimous consent that it be entered into the record at today's hearing."
A visibly angry Schiff responded immediately after, at which point the "clash exploded" as the
Russiagate-obsessed Democrat aggressively pushed back defending his past comments by lighting
into the president and his family and campaign over its contacts with Russia.
"My colleagues may think it is OK the president's son was offered dirt as part of an effort
to help Trump," Schiff said in his statement.
"You might think it is OK. I don't," Schiff added, his voice rising as he went on. In their
letter, Republicans implied that Schiff was involved in or aware of leaks of committee
information that fueled speculation about collusion as the Daily Caller reported.
"Your repeated public statements, which implied knowledge of classified facts supporting
the collusion allegations, occurred at the same time anonymous leaks of alleged intelligence
and law enforcement information were appearing in the media," the letter reads.
"These leaks, often sources to current or former Administration or intelligence officials,
appeared to support the collusion allegations and were purported to be related to ongoing
investigations of President Trump and his associates."
The letter also notes that committee Republicans also found no evidence of collusion
involving the campaign. They released a report April 27, 2018, that laid out the results of the
investigation, however, Schiff has vowed to resume the investigation, with a focus on Trump's
financial dealings and whether Trump associates have worked under the influence of Russia.
"Despite these findings, you continue to proclaim in the media that there is 'significant
evidence of collusion,'" reads the letter.
And while Schiff, or as Donald Trump Jr calls him "FullOfSchiff" may plan to keep kicking a
dead horse for a long time, the social media response was quick and was largely split along
party lines:
Who's Your GG Daddie?
Schiff family
Jacob Schiff, the most famous family member.
Schiff family is a Jewish financial dynasty in the United States, who came to prominence
with the rise of Jacob Schiff. Their ancestors were bankers and rabbinical ideologues in
Frankfurt, tracing back to the 14th century. From his base in Wall Street, Schiff became the
leader of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, a Jewish investment bank and rivals of J.P. Morgan & Co
which primarily funded the railways and growth companies, such as Western Union and
Westinghouse. Jacob Schiff, a Zionist, was ultra-ethnocentric in worldview and worked
tirelessly to destroy Tsar Nicholas II and the Russian Empire. During the Russo-Japanese War
he loaned the Japanese, $200 million through Kuhn, Loeb & Co. He also funded the Russian
Revolution (1917) to the amount of $20 million.[1]
Why care anymore? I got real things to keep my mind occupied; not this government clown
car act. **** 'em all, they're worthless, useless parasites of the lowest order
I am loving every minute of this. Now the Mewling Reatards think the proof is in the
Mueller Report. Doubling down is just stupid. Whining about it is just lame.
"... "After reading several articles, it seemed clear that key difficulties for Russians communicating in English include: definite and indefinite articles, the use of presuppositions and correct usage of say/tell and said/told. Throughout 2017, I constructed a corpus of Guccifer 2.0's communications and analyzed the frequency of different types of mistakes. The results of this work corroborate Professor Connolly's assessment. ..."
"... Overall, it appears Guccifer 2.0 could communicate in English quite well but chose to use inconsistently broken English at times in order to give the impression that it wasn't his primary language. The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian. ..."
"... Access and motive . . .here are two who had both: Seth Rich and Imran Awan. That our fake news organizations have no interest in either, that should tell you something. ..."
"I didn't really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for
now." - exce
The State Department paused its investigation of the Secretary's emails so as not to
interfere with the Mueller investigation. Here we see Taibbi writes an exhaustive
condemnation of the Western press while leaving out the very crux of the story, the very
source of the stolen DNC emails was Clapper and Brennan pretending to be Guccifer 2.0.
Pitiful attempt at redemption there Matt. Seriously, go **** your self.
"After reading several articles, it seemed clear that key difficulties for Russians
communicating in English include: definite and indefinite articles, the use of
presuppositions and correct usage of say/tell and said/told. Throughout 2017, I constructed a corpus of Guccifer
2.0's communications and analyzed the frequency of different types of mistakes. The
results of this work
corroborate
Professor Connolly's assessment.
Overall, it appears Guccifer 2.0 could communicate in English quite well but chose to use
inconsistently broken English at times in order to give the impression that it wasn't his
primary language. The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the
typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.
To date, Connolly's language study has not drawn any significant objections or
criticism."
DNC emails were downloaded at 22.3Mbs, a speed which is not possible to achieve remotely, or even local. It is the exact
download speed of a thumb drive.
All russian "fingerprints" were embedded in error codes, which had to be affirmatively copied. They were not an accident.
And please remind me, who exactly was it that examined the DNC servers and pointed at Russia?
Access and motive . . .here are two who had both: Seth Rich and Imran Awan. That our fake news organizations have no
interest in either, that should tell you something.
"... Adam Schiff should really recuse himself from any further investigations from the House. He met with Glen Simpson in Aspen and needs to answer for that. But let's talk about Paul Manafort, longtime friend and partner of Podesta, knew Stefan Halper for years, was he the sacrificial lamb. ..."
Adam Schiff should really recuse himself from any further investigations from the House.
He met with Glen Simpson in Aspen and needs to answer for that. But let's talk about Paul
Manafort, longtime friend and partner of Podesta, knew Stefan Halper for years, was he the
sacrificial lamb.
Co-hen. Officers raided by the Mueller team (illegal), his tax record leaked to Stormy
Daniel's attorney Michael Avenetti, now being charged with the leak, and pleads guilty to
Campaign Fraud, even though he could NOT be charged with campaign fraud.
Andrew McCabe. Either this guy is the dumbest smart person in history or there's some
method behind his recent confessions for sedition, leaking classified information about his
Gang of Eight meetings, and believing that the 25th amendment coup would even work out
constitutionally...? He's going down in flames and this guy started the whole investigation
into trump for obstruction, even though firing Comey was Rosenstein's idea. More to come.
DECLASSIFICATION of all the FISA docs, emails and text for an illegal and politically
driven investigation, coup attempt, is coming before the wind from the Mueller probe hits the
edge of Barr's desk.
In conclusion, the House can start all the investigations they want, but it too late.
Everything we know about all these illicit uses of government powers to bring down a sitting
president is KNOWN by the investigators, who are now Trump allies. Everything they try at
this point moving forward is just more annoying to the public that wants the truth to come
out, and the releases about to happen will turn the table on the media once it becomes clear
they've been complicit in a modern day coup d'tat. In other words, shits about to hit the fan
for the deep state of nonsense the American public has been asked to buy with their
attention. AND, there one more surprise coming that will give it sand.
Traitors Justice.
joego1
Adam **** is protecting all of his A list Hollywood pedo buddies from what he knows is coming next. Adam is going to
Satan's parties I'm sure. Must be lots of videos used as blackmail available.
DaBard51
Election interference? There's the case of Seth Rich...
Amazing how so many people can give blessing to such immorality. They really have to realize it is a symptom of a damned
soul. Change please. I'm sure your children don't want you to go to hell.
The focus now will be on money laundering -- that will include multiple committees and dramatic public hearings, and could last
into 2020.
Notable quotes:
"... At least three committees are already involved: The House Intelligence Committee is taking the lead, coordinating with House Financial Services on money-laundering questions and with House Foreign Affairs on Russia. ..."
"... Adam Schitt, a real slimy, corrupt politician. Maxine Waters, another financial and political criminal. If you could get them to spill their guts you'd be amazed at all the transgressions they have committed during their careers (they'd go to prison for certain). These two should be shot off into space or something. Shouldn't be allowed to continue harrassing the POTUS. ..."
"... Since the Mueller probe is ending and no longer serves as a shield from having to answer questions concerning his own corruption, Adam Schiff had to get a new probe going so he'd have an excuse to conveniently remain silent on questions he'd rather not address. Schiff is the very one who should be investigated. ..."
"... I think the Dems have switched tactics; forget about impeaching Donnie's while he's in office when he could theoretically pardon himself, and instead focus on dragging out the investigation(s) until he has left office. ..."
"... When Donnie realizes this, he'll be EVEN MORE compliant with serving the neocons, the Deep State and The Swamp. ..."
Barely a day has passed since Richard Burr signaled that the Senate Intelligence Committee's
investigation into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia
had turned up nothing substantive - and certainly not a "contract signed in blood"
declaring
"hey Vlad, we're going to collude".
And already, more details are leaking out about the Democrats' plans to launch a wide
ranging investigation that not only will re-litigate the collusion narrative, but will also
reportedly focus on allegations of money laundering and other financial improprieties.
Mueller is just the beginning. House Democrats plan a vast probe of President Trump and
Russia -- with a heavy focus on money laundering -- that will include multiple committees and
dramatic public hearings, and could last into 2020.
The state of play: The aggressive plans were outlined yesterday by a Democratic member of
Congress at a roundtable for Washington reporters. The member said Congress plans interviews
with new witnesses, and may go back to earlier witnesses who "stonewalled" under the
Republican majority.
Why it matters: The reporters, many of them steeped in the special counsel's
investigation, came away realizing that House Dems don't plan to depend on Robert Mueller for
the last word on interference in the 2016 election.
Instead, Dems will use their new subpoena power to produce a voluminous exposé of
their own.
The investigation will involve multiple committees, and by all accounts be far more critical
than the House probe that ended last year.
At least three committees are already involved: The House Intelligence Committee is taking
the lead, coordinating with House Financial Services on money-laundering questions and with
House Foreign Affairs on Russia.
Democrats are considering ways to uncover what was said in a Trump private meeting with
Putin, "whether that's subpoenaing the notes or subpoenaing the interpreter or other
steps."
On the issue of Trump family finances, the president said he's "not in a position to draw
red lines."
"I am concerned that he may have drawn a red line that the Department of Justice may be
observing."
"If we didn't look at his business...we wouldn't know what we know now about his efforts
to pursue what may have been the most lucrative deal of his life, the Trump Tower in Moscow -
something the special counsel's office has said stood to earn the family hundreds of millions
of dollars."
"Now, most of his stuff isn't building anymore: It's licensing , and it doesn't make that
kind of money. So, this would have been huge."
"[T]he fact that the president says now: 'Well, it's not illegal and I might have lost the
election. Why should I miss out, basically, on all that money?' He may very well take the
same position now: 'I might not be re-elected, and so why shouldn't I...still pursue
it?'"
Of course, none of this should come as a surprise: Maxine Waters and Adam Schiff (who are
two prime candidates for the source of the latest round of leaks) have made no secret of their
plans to subpoena
Deutsche Bank to learn more about its lending relationship with the president. And as Dems
prepare to let the subpoeanas fly, we imagine we'll be learning more in the near future.
Adam Schitt, a real slimy, corrupt politician. Maxine Waters, another financial and
political criminal. If you could get them to spill their guts you'd be amazed at all the
transgressions they have committed during their careers (they'd go to prison for certain).
These two should be shot off into space or something. Shouldn't be allowed to continue
harrassing the POTUS.
Since the Mueller probe is ending and no longer serves as a shield from having to answer
questions concerning his own corruption, Adam Schiff had to get a new probe going so he'd
have an excuse to conveniently remain silent on questions he'd rather not address. Schiff is
the very one who should be investigated.
I think the Dems have switched tactics; forget about impeaching Donnie's while he's in
office when he could theoretically pardon himself, and instead focus on dragging out the
investigation(s) until he has left office.
When Donnie realizes this, he'll be EVEN MORE compliant with serving the neocons, the Deep
State and The Swamp.
I always doubted that Donnie ever intended to "drain the swamp," but I fear that he'll
become an even bigger neocon warmonger now that the Dems have him checkmate.
The results of the investigation don't matter, the Dems will simply pull more ******** out
of their collective Go-Green asses and start new investigations, all financed by the
taxpayers of course.
The real collusion of course is between Trump and Israel/AIPAC, but ssshhhhhhh, you're not
allowed to talk about that. That's a big """""secret.""""
The key question is how strong is Maduro support within Venezuela? When oil is in stake,
imperial powers usually take gloves off pretty quickly.
All this rhetoric of Eric Zuesse does not answer the key question: does Maduro movement
propose sustainable alternative to neoliberalism in Venezuela and has unwavering support of armed
forces and population in view of this externally driven aggression? Because if the model is
unsustainable (iether for internal or external reasons -- presence of neoliberal 3000 pound
guerilla on the continent) it will eventually be crushed. What is the plan and what Maduro is
trying to built? Left government in several other countries of LA were recently deposed by openly
neoliberal puppets: Argentina and Brazil are two recent examples.
"Progressive regimes" all run into problems in economics (which are given due to neocolonial
nature of the current World order) which in turn creates social problems and the precondition for
neoliberal coup d'état sponsored from Washington. So there is a Neoliberal Catch 22 for all countries who want to
excape dependence on the USA: neoliberals new order guarantee that economic condition of peripheral countries do not improve; that
creates social discontent that allows to propose population a neoliberal carrot -- elect a neoliberal leader and your standard of
living "soon" will be like in the USA. neoliberal coup d'état can now succeed. Further impoverishing follows but it is
too late -- the train has left the station.
While convention to to more extreme
version of neoliberalism does not solve the problems in economics (Argentina here is nice example
of "What happens next after neoliberals came back to power") and impoverishment of population is
given. But at the same time the civil war is prevented and the support of the USA guarantee a
certain period of political stability.
In other words this struggle is about alternatives to neoliberalism and anti-neoliberal
governments have a huge handicap in a form of the USA presence on the continent. It looks like
Canada is just another neoliberal puppet of the USA in this game/
Notable quotes:
"... Venezuelan soldiers have blocked the crossing ahead of a delivery arranged by opposition leader Juan Guaidó, who has declared himself interim president ..."
Today, we have been joined by our Lima Group partners, from Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Saint Lucia.
We have also been joined in our conversations with our partners from other countries, for
this Lima Group ministerial meeting. These include Ecuador, the European Union, France,
Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States."
She, along with U.S. President Donald Trump, had, all along, been the actual leaders of this
international diplomatic effort, to violate
the Venezuelan Constitution blatantly , so as to perpetrate the coup in Venezuela. Her active effort to replace Venezuela's Government began with her formation of the Lima
Group, nearly two years ago.
Canada's Ottawa Citizen headlined on 19 August 2017,
"Choosing Danger" , and their reporter Peter Hum interviewed Canada's Ambassador to
Venezuela, Ben Rowswell, who was then retiring from the post. Rowswell said that Venezuelans
who wanted an overthrow of their Government would continue to have the full support of Canada's
Government : "'I think that some of them were sort of anxious that it (the
embassy's support for human rights and democracy in Venezuela) might not
continue after I left,' Rowswell said. 'I don't think they have anything to worry
about because Minister (of Foreign Affairs Chrystia) Freeland has Venezuela way at the top
of her priority list.'"
Maybe it wasn't yet at the top of Trump's list, but it was at the top of hers. And she and
Trump together chose whom to
replace Venezuela's President, Nicholas Maduro, by: Juan Guaido . Guaido had secretly
courted other Latin American leaders for this, just as Freeland had already done, by means of
her secretly forming the Lima Group.
On 25 January 2019, the AP bannered "AP
Exclusive: Anti-Maduro coalition grew from secret talks" and reported that the man who now
claims to be Venezuela's legitimate President (though he had never even run for that post),
Juan Guaido, had secretly visited foreign countries in order to win their blessings for what he
was planning:
In mid-December, Guaido quietly traveled to Washington, Colombia and Brazil to
brief officials on the opposition's strategy of mass demonstrations to coincide with Maduro's
expected swearing-in for a second term on Jan. 10 in the face of widespread international
condemnation, according to exiled former Caracas Mayor Antonio Ledezma, an ally.
Playing a key role behind the scenes was Lima Group member Canada, whose Foreign Minister
Chrystia Freeland spoke to Guaido [9 January 2019] the night before Maduro's swearing-in
ceremony [on 10 January 2019] to offer her government's support should he confront the
socialist leader [Maduro], the Canadian official said. Also active was Colombia, which
shares a border with Venezuela and has received more than two million migrants fleeing economic
chaos, along with Peru and Brazil's new far-right President Jair Bolsonaro.
To leave Venezuela, he sneaked across the lawless border with Colombia, so as not to raise
suspicions among immigration officials who sometimes harass opposition figures at the airport
and bar them from traveling abroad, said a different anti-government leader, speaking on
condition of anonymity to discuss security arrangements.
During the last days in office of Canada's Ambassador to Venezuela Rowswell, U.S. President
Donald Trump went public with his overt threat to invade Venezuela. On 11 August 2017,
McClatchy's Miami Herald bannered "Trump
was making friends in Latin America -- before he raised Venezuela 'military option'" , and
Patricia Mazzei reported that "President Donald Trump's unexpected
suggestion Friday that he might rely on military force to deal with Venezuela's pressing
political crisis was an astonishing statement that strained not only credulity but also the
White House's hard-won new friendships in Latin America."
Even a spokesperson from the Atlantic Council (which is the main PR agency for NATO) was
quoted as saying that "U.S. diplomats, after weeks of carefully building the groundwork for
a collective international response, suddenly find their efforts completely undercut by a
ridiculously over the top and anachronistic assertion. It makes us look imperialistic and
old-time. This is not how the U.S. has behaved in decades!" However, Peru's Foreign
Minister, Ricardo Luna, was just as eager for a coup in Venezuela as were Trump and
Freeland.
On 26 October 2017,
Peru's Gestion TV reported that Luna was the co-chair of the meeting of the Lima Group in
Toronto, which Freeland chaired, and that (as translated into English here) "Luna added that
the objective of the meeting of the Group of Lima 'is to create a propitious situation' so that
the regime of Nicolás Maduro 'feels obligated to negotiate' not only an exit to the
crisis, 'but also an exit to his own regime'."
This gang was going to make Maduro an offer that he couldn't refuse. So, the Lima Group,
which was founded by Luna and by Freeland, was taking the initiative as much and as boldly as
Trump was, regardless of what NATO might think about it. The topic of that news-report, and its
headline, was "Peru proposes Grupo de Lima to involve the UN to face the Venezuelan
crisis." Four days later, Freeland and Luna met privately at the U.N., in New York, with
the Secretary General, Antonio Guterres.
Inner City
Press reported that"The title of the meeting is 'the situation in Venezuela and efforts
by regional organizations to resolve the crisis per Chapter VIII of the UN Charter' [see it
here ] and the briefer will be not USG [Under Secretary General] Jeffrey Feltman but his
Assistant, ASG [Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs] Miroslav Jenca."
Jeffrey Feltman was the person who, in the secretly recorded 27 January 2014
phone-conversation in which U.S. President Barack Obama's agent, Victoria Nuland -- planning
and overseeing the February 2014 coup that overthrew Ukraine's democratically elected President
-- instructed the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, that, after Ukraine's President is ousted,
Arseniy "Yats" Yatsenyuk was to be appointed as Ukraine's 'interim' leader as the new Prime
Minister, to replace the President. She also
said :
"I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning; he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry.
He's now gotten both Serry and Ban ki-Moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or
Tuesday. That would be great, I think, to help glue this thing, and to have the UN help glue
it, and, you know, fuck the EU."
So, the still Under Secretary General of the U.N, Mr. Feltman, is still America's fixer
there, who "glues" whatever the U.S. President orders the U.N. to do, and his Assistant was
filling in for him that day. Therefore, if Trump and Freeland turn out to be as successful as
Obama was, then the U.N. will "glue" the outcome. Chrystia Freeland happens also to be a friend
of Victoria Nuland, and a passionate supporter of her coup in Ukraine.
... ... ...
Of course, the man whom the U.S. and Canadian regimes and the Lima Group are trying to
install as Venezuela's President, Juan Guaido, had been well-groomed for that job, but not by
political and electoral experience, of which he has almost none, but by his foreign sponsors.
On 29 January 2019 the Gray Zone Project bannered
"The Making of Juan Guaidó: How the US Regime Change Laboratory Created Venezuela's Coup
Leader" , and their two star investigative journalists, Dan Cohen and Max Blumenthal,
opened: "Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's
elite regime change trainers. While posing as a champion of democracy, he has spent years at
the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization."
This report also noted that "The 'real work' began two years later, in 2007, when
Guaidó graduated from Andrés Bello Catholic University of Caracas. He moved to
Washington, DC to enroll in the Governance and Political Management Program at George
Washington University, under the tutelage of Venezuelan economist Luis Enrique Berrizbeitia,
one of the top Latin American neoliberal economists. Berrizbeitia is a former executive
director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) [and the IMF is a central part the operation
that's described in John Perkins's now-classic Confessions of an Economic Hit Man] who spent
more than a decade working in the Venezuelan energy sector, under the old oligarchic regime
that was ousted by Chávez."
Moreover, "Stratfor and CANVAS – key advisors of Guaidó and his
anti-government cadre – devised a shockingly cynical plan to drive a dagger through the
heart of the Bolivarian revolution. The scheme hinged on a 70% collapse of the country's
electrical system by as early as April 2010." Etc. This is how 'democracy' now functions.
It's not democracy -- it is fascism. The euphemisms for it are "neoliberalism" and
"neoconservatism."
Regardless of whether or not the Trump-Freeland-Luna program for Venezuela succeeds,
democracy and human rights won't be advanced by it; but, if it succeeds, the fortunes of
US-and-allied billionaires will be . It's part of their global
privatization program .
Sidebar: If you want to understand what was the historical
context where Inner City Press reported that
"The title of the meeting is 'the situation in Venezuela and efforts by regional
organizations to resolve the crisis per Chapter VIII of the UN Charter'" ; then Luk Van Langenhove has
summarized that context , by saying:
Few invocations of Chapter VIII's provisions were made during the cold war period. But
when the bipolar world system collapsed and spawned new global security threats, the
explosion of local and regional armed conflicts provoked a renewed interest in regional
organizations and their role in the maintenance of regional peace and security. The United
Nations was forced to acknowledge its inability to solely bear the responsibility for
providing peace and security worldwide."
So, "during the cold war period," this provision of the UN Charter remained virtually
inactive. Then, suddenly, after 1991, when the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw
Pact military alliance to counter America's NATO military alliance, all ended (with
no concessions being made on the American side ), America could no longer use 'communism'
as a 'justification' to invade or perpetrate coups against foreign governments that were
friendly toward or else allied with Russia.
So, now, this provision of the U.N.'s Charter became activated by the U.S. and its
allies, in order to be able to say that The West's coups and invasions aren't actually to
build-out the U.S. empire, but are instead for (in the terms of this part of the U.N.'s
Charter) "the maintenance of international peace and security" -- so as to 'authorize' coups
and international invasions by the U.S. and its vassal nations, such as are the members of
NATO.
This is what U.S. President G.H.W. Bush had in mind to rely upon, when he told the leaders
of the U.S. regime's vassal states, secretly at Camp David, on the night of 24 February 1990,
that the 'Cold War' would now continue secretly on the U.S.-allied side, against Russia and
against any nation's leaders (such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, and
Viktor Yanukovych) that aren't hostile toward Russia, by Bush's saying then to them, that no
compromise must ever be allowed "with Moscow," because
"To hell with that! We prevailed, they didn't."
In other words, whereas the U.N. had been set up by FDR to evolve ultimately into the global
democratic federation of nation-states -- a democratic world-government -- so as to become the
sole possessor of control over all strategic weaponry, and thus to become the democratic
republic of the entire world authorized to settle international disputes peacefully, the
subterranean Nazis and other fascists whom U.S. President Truman and the Bilderberg group
represented, were determined that the U.S. and its vassal nations would ultimately become the
dictatorship over all nations, the entire world. That's what Ukraine, and now Venezuela, and
many other U.S. coups and invasions, are -- and have been -- really about. It's about the
'peace' of the graveyard, NOT any democracy, anywhere at all.
That's their dream. They want to monopolize the corruption everywhere, not to end it,
anywhere. And that's why they distort and blatantly lie about
Venezuela's democratic constitution now , just as they did about Ukraine's
democratic constitution in February 2014. It's, essentially, a lawless international gang
of billionaire thugs. It is the international
Deep State . It consists of the under 2,000 people who are international billionaires in
the U.S. and secondarily in the U.S.-allied countries, and of those billionaires' millions of
hirees.
585 of those under-2,000 are Americans .
But the wealthiest person on the planet isn't even listed on any of the standard lists of
billionaires, and
he is the King of Saudi Arabia . That person is the U.S. aristocracy's #1 international
ally, because ever since the 1970s when gold no longer backed the U.S. dollar but instead oil
did, that person's decisions have enabled the U.S. dollar to continue as being the world's
reserve currency, no matter how big the U.S. economy's trade deficits are, and no matter how
high the U.S. Government's fiscal deficits are.
Below those billionaires (and trillionaire), and below their millions of hirees, are the
billions of serfs; and, below those, at the very bottom, are the approximately 40 million slaves , and the many
millions imprisoned -- virtually all of whom have extremely low (if any) net worth at all,
since slavery and imprisonment are, in the real world, only for the very poor, not at all for
the international gangsters, except for a very few exceptions (such as, perhaps, "El
Chapo").
The billionaires command, and the governments obey; that's 'democracy', and it's 'the rule
of law', today. Everything to the contrary is propaganda, such as that what Trump-Freeland-Luna
want for Venezuela is to decrease corruption and to increase democracy and human rights.
At least the more blatant fascist John Bolton was honest when
he said on January 28th : "It will make a big difference to the United States
economically if we could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities
in Venezuela." But he would have been lots more honest if he had acknowledged, instead,
that "It will make a big difference to the United States billionaires economically if we
could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities in
Venezuela."
This is all that the fascists ever really cared about. Mussolini called it "corporationism."
Now, decades in the wake of the Allies' supposed 'victory against fascism' -- against the Axis
powers -- in WW II, we all (at least the realists) are acknowledging that we clearly are
staring in the face the raw fact that fascism has finally won, or at least very nearly totally
won, in the world.
Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito, died; but their ideological followers today rule the world,
and FDR would be turning in his grave.
Unfortunately the Orange one is being wagged again by those who are most seriously plotting his demise and
over reach in Venezuela may be just as much part of the plan as it was in pushing him into launching an attack
on Syria. It is true that the global elites are at a loss what to do, as the fracturing of the global
oligarchies is proving Marx right . capitalist are just a band of warring brothers [brigands, robbers, pirates
– all!]. As there is no serious ideological threat to their hegemony at the moment they fight amongst
themselves with imperial designs.
The threat to the imperium is the chaos which ensues when the elite power struggles fracture their hegemony
and an uncontrollable uprising ensues. Who shapes that revolution will be central to this. Where it will come
from is not evident yet but let's hope it's a grass roots one!
Yes, they will never stop. Just think of this brand-new propaganda lie of Maduro allegedly preventing aid
shipment to come into Venezuela. See BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47143492 : "Venezuelan soldiers have blocked the crossing
ahead of a delivery arranged by opposition leader Juan Guaidó, who has declared himself
interim president".
Notice the word "ahead" in this sentence. This word
appears because there was never a "delivery" (truck) with aid shipment at the bridge!
The Venezuelan government ("Maduro") blocked the bridge only because of war-threatening Columbia and USA.
If you want to send aid shipment to Venezuela you can send as much as you want anytime. Of course you have to
respect the regulations of the custom (like in every other country!). But that's all!
Whets foul with this story?
Well, this aid "delivery" cannot have been collected in Colombia – and thus being taken away from the
people of Colombia, who are much poorer than the people of Venezuela. So it would have to come from other
country (USA, Europe, China, Japan). And then you would not land this aid shipment in Columbia (a harbour, an
airport), drive it, in hot-humid air, through half of Colombia to the border crossing bridge of Cúcuta. Then
cross the bridge and then drive it through half of Venezuela!
Instead aid shipments for Venezuela would be landed directly in Venezuela – in an Venezuelan harbour or
airport.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Eric Zuesse December 23, 2019 | History The Lies That Are Used for Denying the Legitimacy of Crimea's Breakaway Crimea's breakaway from Ukraine and rejoining Russia is treated in the US-and-allied world as being justification for the explosive re-emergence in 2014 of America's Cold War NATO alliance as being a restored war against Russia; and, so, whether or not that 'justification' is truthful is the paramount geopolitical issue in our era; and it will therefore be discussed and (via the links here) documented in this article.
Print this article See also
September 17, 2019 Crimea and Kashmir Viewed Through a Western Prism of Hypocrisy
Also by this author Eric Zuesse American writer and investigative historian
Hidden Evidence Regarding Ukrainegate
To the top
<img alt="Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us" src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191121180252-20191121-fractured-states-religious-leaders-large-169.jpg"> Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us Younger evangelicals, those under 45, have been slowly but steadily moving away from Trump during the past two years or so, unhappy about his example. A key topic that has driven them away is immigration. Loving your neighbor as yourself has always been a bedrock Christian value. And Trump's stance on immigrants (especially those of color) has upset the younger generation of evangelicals, with two-thirds of them saying in surveys that immigrants strengthen our country, bringing their work ethic and talents with them from Mexico or Central America or Syria. Climate change is another issue that has caught the imagination of younger evangelicals. "I can't love my neighbor if I'm not protecting the earth that sustains them and defending their rights to clean water, clean air, and a stable climate," Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, a national organizer for Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, told Grist . Needless to say, Trump's contempt on this subject grates badly on these young Christians. Perhaps naively, Americans have always looked to the presidency for exemplary moral behavior, and when there are obvious personal or moral failures, as with Nixon and Clinton, there is disappointment, even anger. But if you're a Christian -- and I lay claim to this for myself -- you understand that it's human to fail at perfect behavior. There is always forgiveness. And, as T.S. Eliot wrote, "Humility is endless."
Russiagate, Ukrainegate and impeachment aren't conspicuously economic issues. But they are, to a large extent, class issues. They are inside-the-beltway dramas about foreign policy arcana that are important to people who see their lots tied in one way or another to the established order. This includes, by degree, those of us who would like to make room for outside-the-beltway concerns like ending militarism, solving environmental crises, providing meaningful employment for all who want it and creating functioning healthcare and educational systems.
15,514
Aaron Maté Verified account @ aaronjmate Tweets Aaron Maté Verified account @ aaronjmate
Scary.
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This image shows Crowdstrike in their network. Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network. In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The network communication goes through a secondary source.
Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence. The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could be on the list.
Mr. Sketchy – ICIG Michael Atkinson
You May Like
<img src="https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11.png" alt="Adam Parkhomenko" width="355" height="454" srcset="https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11.png 355w, https://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/PARKHOMENKO-twitter.com-2018.08.14-04-34-11-235x300.png 235w" sizes="(max-width: 355px) 100vw, 355px" /> Before Clinton declared her candidacy, Parkhomenko started a PAC for Hillary Clinton with the goal of getting millions of people email lists so the support was ready for a Clinton run. After she declared her candidacy, Robby Mook, Hillary's campaign manager decided to sideline Parkhomenko and didn't take on his full staff as promised. He reduced Parkomenko to a quiet menial position when he was brought onboard.
Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
<img alt="Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us"
src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191121180252-20191121-fractured-states-religious-leaders-large-169.jpg">
Levi Mikula 
You May Like
This article incorporates
text from this source, which is in the 
by Cristina Laila
October 9, 2019 1164 Comments
20191031-ukrainegate.pdf
by Barbara Boyd, [email protected] - Be the first to be notified when we release
the next parts, text sc20 to (202)609-8371 - text stop to leave at anytime.
Part 2 is now available.
<img
src="https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/05242018-DUCF-ICIG-DNI.jpg" alt=""
width="850" height="407" data-portal-copyright="The Federalist" />
<img
src="https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/09242019-DCUG-ICIG-DNI.jpg" alt=""
width="850" height="407" data-portal-copyright="The Federalist" />
Unfortunately the Orange one is being wagged again by those who are most seriously plotting his demise and over reach in Venezuela may be just as much part of the plan as it was in pushing him into launching an attack on Syria. It is true that the global elites are at a loss what to do, as the fracturing of the global oligarchies is proving Marx right . capitalist are just a band of warring brothers [brigands, robbers, pirates – all!]. As there is no serious ideological threat to their hegemony at the moment they fight amongst themselves with imperial designs.
The threat to the imperium is the chaos which ensues when the elite power struggles fracture their hegemony and an uncontrollable uprising ensues. Who shapes that revolution will be central to this. Where it will come from is not evident yet but let's hope it's a grass roots one!