May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-) Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better
Brennan elections machinations
Brennan was the head of the Obama Task force to derail/depose Trump, created in early 2016
Spygate was an attempt of entrapment and the true criminal collision with British and Ukrainian intelligence
The findings of the
Mueller report– that there was no cooperation or collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign– seem to underscore this
broader point and suggest that the fictitious Trump-Russia connection was merely an attempt to entrap Trump with Russian ties
and for spying on Trump staffers because Trump political views clashed with those of the foreign policy and intelligence agencies
establishment hell-bent on continuation of Cold War 2 with Russia
It is
now known that President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan created a Trump Task
Force in early 2016. Rather than working against genuine foreign threats, this Task Force
played a critical role in creating and feeding the meme that Donald Trump was a tool of the
Russians and a puppet of President Vladimir Putin, a claim that still surfaces regularly to
this day. Working with James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, Brennan fabricated
the narrative that "Russia had interfered in the 2016 election." Brennan and Clapper promoted
that tale even though they knew very well that Russia and the United States have carried out a
broad array of covert actions against each other, including information operations, for the
past seventy years, but they pretended that what happened in 2016 was qualitatively and
substantively different even though the "evidence" produced to support that claim was and still
is weak to nonexistent.
Decades long "image" of CIA spies fall spectacularly apart. Apparently CIA it is not populated with the high IQ, highly educated
professionals any more. It looks like now it is dominated by average intelligence careerists who however cannot play on international stage. In case of Russiagate
the script is poor, directing mediocre, inconsistencies and deep holes in story negate logics.
Although the details remain complex, the structure underlying Spygate/Obamagate/Russiagate—the creation of the false narrative that candidate Donald
Trump colluded with Russia, and the spying on his presidential campaign—remains surprisingly close to a typical color revolution
scenario, which was run CIA already more then a dozen times:
CIA Director John Brennan, with the assistance from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and FBI director
James Comey created the "Trump Task force" which gathered
foreign intelligence and fed it throughout to media and Congress, creating fake documents like "17 intelligence
agencies memo" (which was created by handpicked by Brennan analysts from just three agency: CIA, NSA and FBI), which in turn
created the preconditions to appoint the Special Prosecutor (aka "insurance")
The FBI became the handler of Brennan’s intelligence and engaged in the more practical elements of
surveillance.
The Department of Justice facilitated investigations by the FBI and legal maneuverings, while providing a
crucial shield of nondisclosure.
The Department of State became a mechanism of information dissemination and leaks.
CrowdStrike converted ordinary leak into Russia hacking story, essentially conducting false flag operation to implicates
Russia.
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee provided funding, support, and
media collusion.
Obama himself and key Obama administration officials were complicit, and engaged in unmasking and intelligence gathering and
dissemination. It is possible that Obama led this Task force via Brennan.
CIA-controlled media was the most powerful subversive element of this color revolution. None of these events could have transpired without
the well organized and times set of leaks. Feeding the population with fake news. Stories were invented, facts were ignored, and
false narratives were promoted until they became dominant.
Let’s start with a simple premise: The candidacy of Trump presented both an opportunity and a threat. Initially not viewed with any real seriousness, Trump’s campaign was seen as an opportunistic wedge in the
election process. At the same time, and particularly as the viability of his candidacy increased, Trump was seen as
an existential threat to the neoliberal political system and military industrial complex which was interested in more
wars. It is unclear why Trump was viewed as a threat (he proved to be very malleable and very subservant to Israel). Also he was a NYC real estate development,
a part of local aristocracy so to speak. But that's fact -- both neoliberals and neocons, who dominated key US government agencies
(Judiciary and the State Department) as well as three main intelligence services wanted Trump out. May be became during election
campaign he promoted non-interventionist foreign policy and attacked neoliberal globalization.
The surprise victory of Trump and Hillary political fiasco was not welcomed by the U.S. neoliberal establishment. Probably
because he was a political outsider who held no traditional allegiances and can realve skeletons inthe closet. He was brash and boastful, he ignored political correctness.
Any while he was easily bought (that's what Adelson did), he is not easy to control.
Governing bodies in Britain and the European Union were also worried. Candidate Trump was openly challenging
neoliberal foreign policy, foreign wars, international treaties, monetary policy, regulations, and the power of special interests. He challenged Congress. He challenged the United
Nations and the European Union. He questioned everything.
Brennan played a crucial role in the creation of that "Trump Task Force" which in turn created the Russia-collusion narrative
and conducted the spying on the Trump campaign. He became the point
man in the operation to stop a potential Trump presidency. It remains unclear whether his role was self-appointed or
came by order from above. To embark on such a mission without direct presidential authority seems both a stretch of
the imagination.
Brennan collected some damaging for Trump unofficial foreign intelligence compiled by contacts, colleagues, and associates—primarily
from the UK, but also from other Five Eyes members, such as Australia. As well as from Ukraine and Baltic
countries.
Individuals in official positions in UK intelligence, such as Robert Hannigan — head of the UK Government
Communications Headquarters (GCHQ, Britain’s equivalent of the National Security Agency) — partnered with former UK
foreign intelligence members to spy on Trump close circle. Former MI6 head Sir Richard
Dearlove, former Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, and private UK intelligence firm
Hakluyt all played a role in creation of the Steele dossier.
In the summer of 2016, Hannigan traveled to Washington to
meet with Brennan regarding alleged communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. On Jan. 23, 2017—three
days after Trump’s inauguration—Hannigan
abruptly
announced his retirement. The Guardian openly
speculated that Hannigan’s resignation was directly related to the sharing of UK intelligence or spying of Trump.
One method used to help establish evidence of collusion was the employment of “spy traps.” Prominent among these
were ones set for Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. The intent was to provide or establish
connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. The content and context mattered little as long as a connection
could be established that could then be publicized. The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was another such attempt.
Western intelligence assets were used to initiate and establish these connections, particularly in the cases of
Papadopoulos and Page.
Ultimately, Brennan formed an
inter-agency task force comprising an estimated six agencies and/or government departments. The FBI, Treasury, and
DOJ handled the domestic inquiry into Trump and possible Russia connections. The CIA, Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency (NSA) handled foreign and intelligence aspects.
Brennan’s inter-agency task force is not to be confused with the July 2016 FBI counterintelligence investigation,
which started later at Brennan’s urging.
During this time, Brennan also employed the use of
reverse targeting, which relates to the targeting of a foreign individual with the intent of capturing data on a
US citizen. This effort was uncovered and
made public by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) in a March 2017
press conference:
“I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show the president-elect and his team were monitored and
disseminated out in intelligence-reporting channels. Details about persons associated with the incoming
administration, details with little apparent foreign-intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence
community reporting.
“From what I know right now, it looks like incidental collection. We don’t know exactly how that was picked up
but we’re trying to get to the bottom of it.”
As this foreign intelligence—unofficial in nature and outside of any traditional channels—was gathered, Brennan
began a process of feeding his gathered intelligence to the FBI. Repeated transfers of foreign intelligence from the
CIA director pushed the FBI toward the establishment of a formal counterintelligence investigation. Brennan
repeatedly noted this during a May 23, 2017,
congressional testimony:
“I made sure that anything that was involving US persons, including anything involving the individuals
involved in the Trump campaign, was shared with the [FBI].”
Brennan also admitted that his intelligence helped to establish the FBI investigation:
“I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials
and US persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the
Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine
whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred.”
This admission is important, as
no official intelligence was used to open the FBI’s investigation.
Once the FBI began its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016, Brennan shifted his focus. Through a
series of meetings in August and September 2016, Brennan informed the congressional Gang of Eight regarding
intelligence and information he had gathered. Notably, each Gang of Eight member was briefed separately, calling into
question whether each of the members received the same information. Efforts to
block the release of the transcripts from each meeting remain ongoing.
This final report was used to continue pushing the Russia-collusion narrative following the election of President
Donald Trump. Notably, Admiral Mike Rogers of the NSA publicly dissented from the findings of the ICA, assigning only
a moderate confidence level.
There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016
election, after all. But it was not orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely homegrown
affair conducted from the inner sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and
Langley----of the Imperial City.
Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In fact,
they were lifetime beltway insiders occupying the highest positions of power in the US
government.
Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:
John Brennan, CIA director;
Susan Rice, National Security Advisor;
Samantha Power, UN Ambassador;
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence;
James Comey, FBI director;
Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI director;
Sally Yates, deputy Attorney General,
Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG;
Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence;
Lisa Page, FBI lawyer;
and countless other lessor and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President
Obama himself.
To a person, the participants in this illicit cabal shared the core trait that made Obama
such a blight on the nation's well-being. To wit, he never held an honest job outside the halls
of government in his entire adult life; and as a careerist agent of the state and practitioner
of its purported goods works, he exuded a sanctimonious disdain for everyday citizens who make
their living along the capitalist highways and by-ways of America.
There was a serious of suspicious and well coordinated leaks of classified information that point
out to intelligence agencies Under the smoke screen of Russian influence Trump campaign official were spied upon. Whether the
pretext was Steele dossier or some other disinformation is immaterial.
Unprecedented rate of leaks about Trump and his associates is really disturbing, but is nothing
new. Intrusion of intelligence agencies into political process happened
before. One telling example is JFK assassination.
Interference in foreign election is also a proven fact: As early as 1948 CIA role "fixed" Italian elections.
So in way chickens just came home to roost.
War between CIA and Pentagon is well know due to events in Syria, where they sometimes found
themselves on the opposite sides of barricades. There is also always some level of inter-fighting
between different US intelligence agencies, for example NSA vs. CIA.
Connections between Bush clan and CIA are well documented. Strange biography of Barack Obama also
raises interesting questions. And Clintons also seems to be connected to the US intelligence one way
or the other due to their
Arkansas past. Amazing level confidence of Bill Clinton (and to a lesser extent Hillary
Clinton) that he/she is above the law is probably connected with this fact. The
might do have "Lord-protector" for their misdeeds.
In this sense anti-Russian campaign and accusations of Russia in interfering into the US election
(after the US interfered in Russian election of 2011-2012, trying to stage a color revolution in
this country) might be just a smoke screen to hide the US intelligence agencies interference
with the election process.
Paradoxically Pravda in old times did have real insights into
the US political system and for this reason was widely read
by specialists. Especially materials published by the
Institute of the USA and Canada -- a powerful Russian think
tank somewhat similar to the Council on Foreign Relations.
As for your remark I think for many people in the USA
Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.
JohnH remark is actually very apt and you should not
"misunderestimate" the level of understanding of the US
political system by Russians. They did learn a lot about
machinations of the neoliberal foreign policy, especially
about so called "color revolutions."
Hillary&Obama has had a
bloody nose when they tried to stage a "color revolution" in
2011-2012 in Russia (so called "white revolution). A typical
US citizen probably never heard about it or heard only about
"Pussy riot", Navalny and couple of other minor figures. At
the end poor ambassador Michael McFaul was recalled. NED was
expelled. Of course Russia is just a pale shadow of the USSR
power-wise, so Obama later put her on sanctions using MH17
incident as a pretext with no chances of retaliation.
They
also successfully implemented regime change in Ukraine --
blooding Putin nose in return.
But I actually disagree with JohnH. First of all Putin
does not need to interfere in a way like the USA did in
2011-2012.
It would be a waist of resources as both candidates are
probably equally bad for Russia (and it is the "deep state"
which actually dictate the US foreign policy, not POTUS.)
The US political system is already the can of worms and
the deterioration of neoliberal society this time created
almost revolutionary situation in Marxists terms, when Repug
elite was not able to control the nomination. Democratic
establishment still did OK and managed to squash the
rebellion, but here the level of degeneration demonstrated
itself in the selection of the candidate.
Taking into account the level of dysfunction of the US
political system, I am not so sure the Trump is preferable to
Hillary for Russians. I would say he is more unpredictable
and more dangerous. The main danger of Hillary is Syria war
escalation, but the same is true for Trump who can turn into
the second John McCain on a dime.
Also the difference between two should not be exaggerated.
Both are puppets of the forces the brought them to the
current level and in their POTUS role will need to be
subservient to the "deep state". Or at least to take into
account its existence and power. And that makes them more of
prisoners of the position they want so much.
Trump probably to lesser extent then Hillary, but he also
can't ignore the deep state. Both require the support of
Republican Congress for major legislative initiatives. And it
will be very hostile to Hillary. Which is a major advantage for
Russians, as this excludes the possibility of some very
stupid moves.
Again, IMHO in no way any of them will control the US
foreign policy. In this area the deep state is in charge
since Allen Dulles and those who try to deviate too much
might end as badly as JFK. I think Obama understood this very
well and did not try to rock the boat. And there are people
who will promptly explain this to Trump in a way that he
understands.
In other words, neither of them will escape the limit on
their power that "deep state" enforces. And that virtually
guarantee the continuity of the foreign policy, with just
slight tactical variations.
So why Russians should prefer one to another? You can
elect a dog as POTUS and the foreign policy of the USA will
be virtually the same as with Hillary or Trump.
In internal policy Trump looks more dangerous and more
willing to experiment, while Hillary is definitely a "status
quo" candidate. The last thing Russians needs is the US stock
market crush. So from the point of internal economic policy
Hillary is also preferable.
A lot of pundits stress the danger of war with Russia, and
that might be true as women in high political position try to
outdo men in hawkishness. But here Hillary jingoism probably
will be tightly controlled by the "deep state". Hillary
definitely tried to be "More Catholic then the Pope" in this
area while being the Secretary of State. That did not end
well for her and she might learn the lesson.
But if you think about the amount of "compromat" (Russian
term ;-) on Hillary and Bill that Russians may well already
collected, in "normal circumstances" she might be a preferable counterpart for Russians. As in "devil that we
know". Both Lavrov and Putin met Hillary. Medvedev was burned
by Hillary. Taking into account the level of greed Hillary
displayed during her career, I would be worried what Russians
have on her , as well as on Bill "transgressions" and
RICO-style actions of Clinton Foundation.
And taking into account the level of disgust amount the
government officials with Hillary (and this is not limited to
Secret Service) , new leaks are quite possible, which might
further complicate her position as POTUS.
In worst case, the first year (or two) leaks will continue.
Especially if damaging DNC leaks were the work of some
disgruntled person within the USA intelligence and not of
some foreign hacker group. That might be a plus for Russians as
such a constant distraction might limit her possibility to
make some stupid move in Syria. Or not.
As you know personal emails boxes for all major Web mail
providers are just one click away for NSA analysts. So
"Snowden II" hypothesis might have the right to exist.
Also it is quite probably that impeachment process for
Hillary will start soon after her election. In the House
Republicans have enough votes to try it. That also might be a
plus for s for both Russia and China. Trump is extremely
jingoistic as for Iran, and that might be another area were
Hillary is preferable to Russians and Chinese over Trump.
Also do not discount her health problems. She does have
some serious neurological disease, which eventually might
kill her. How fast she will deteriorate is not known but in a
year or two the current symptoms might become more
pronounced. If Bill have STD (and sometime he looks like a
person with HIV;
http://joeforamerica.com/2016/07/bill-clinton-aids/)
that
further complicates that picture (this is just a rumor, but
he really looks bad).
I think that all those factors make her an equal, or even
preferable candidate for such states as Russia and China.
The way Trump "lewd" tale surfaced (aka Steele dossier) also creates more questions about role on CIA in the elections. Same
about Trump surveillance authorized by Obama administration as well as possible unauthorized surveillance outsource to MI6, which
was serving as CIA sidekick.
The Hill reports that a man in Illinois has been charged after allegedly threatening to
shoot Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) and accusing the congressman of "backing the Russians."
Rodney Lee Davis
64-year-old Randall Tar of Rochester, Ill. was charged with communicating threats to injure
a person and threatening to assault, kidnap or murder a federal official, according to court
documents released this week (full release below).
Contacted at his home Thursday, Tarr said he saw a television ad in which Davis, a
Republican from Taylorville, claimed that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for meddling in
the 2016 U.S. elections , and it angered him enough to call.
Prosecutors say Tarr called Davis's district office last month and left a profanity-filled
voicemail, saying:
"I just saw you ... on the TV. You backing the Russians, boy?"
"Stupid son of a bitch, you're gonna go against our military and back the Russians?" he
allegedly added.
"I'm a sharpshooter. ... I'd like to shoot your f---ing head off you stupid
motherf---er."
The bigger story is the number of mentally unstable Americans. When you go driving next,
remember that about 20% of them are gorked on prescribed medications. The behavior you will
observe makes complete sense in that context.
It's surprisingly easy to get bogged down in the nonsense of the moment when this is what's
actually happening: the impeachment of the president, and a struggle over the power of the
presidency and of the Congress, over the integrity of elections in the United States, and over
the Constitution and the republic.
We're almost certainly heading for a party-line vote in the House with only a handful of
defections, and there's every reason to believe the Senate trial will yield similar results.
But there are some unanswered questions that could prove quite important in the long
term.
Will Trump, and will future presidents, be more restrained because even impeachment and
acquittal is still a sufficient punishment? Or will it backfire? Will Trump believe, if he is
not removed, that pressuring a foreign nation to help his re-election bid and then stiff-arming
Congress when they investigate it now has a seal of approval? We don't know. Nor do we really
know how the specifics of the Senate trial -- whether witnesses are called, what the final vote
is -- will matter.
Judge Marcus Alfonso Paralapalos of the conservative 51st District Court of Warrants, has
ordered the medical treatment files for Nancy Pelosi's alcoholism unsealed and available to the
general public. While technically a violation of about 11 laws, Judge Paralopolos stands by his
ruling, fully expecting it to be overturned:
"The public has a right to know if the Speaker of the House is undergoing treatment for
alcoholism and bloogie addiction. The 9th Circuit Court will certainly overrule this, but I
cannot in good conscience deny the motion to the plaintiff."
The plaintiff, Rudy Giuliani on behalf of the people of the United States, will now have to
find a way to convince a panel of liberals that it's in the country's best interests to see the
private treatment notes of one of our most powerful elected officials.
Let's face it. Even Trump had his doctor weigh in on his mental and physical well-being,
calling him the healthiest 78-year-old of all time. It's not like they're asking for her tax
returns. Nancy Pelosi should have to be seen and certified by a mental health professional. She
sits way too close to power not to.
This whole Schiff-Show is just bizarre. Why are the Dems doing this? In an election
year to boot? There is just zero chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office, and
the case against him is a total laughing stock anyway. All that's going to happen is that the
senators are going to start discussing L'affaire Biden openly and loudly, thereby
killing the Dem's current front-runner. Is that what Pelosi wants? Meanwhile, none of their
other three dozen or so candidates are going to get any media at all, once this impeachment
sucks all the oxygen right out of the room. Is that intentional?
Notable quotes:
"... Stating that he had not voted for Trump in 2016, GWU Law P rofessor Jonathan Turley who is a registered Democrat (as is yours truly) opened with a brilliant statement as he set the tone for an extraordinarily compelling testimony throughout the day, carefully explaining to the Democrats why they had not met a credible legal threshold for impeachment. ..."
"... Factually concise with rational, impartial explanations, Turley effectively disputed Democratic claims that an abuse of power stemming from a presumed effort to help one's own re-election is " inferred " and does not constitute proof of intent or direct knowledge of what was in the President's mind. ..."
"... What the Democrats fail to grasp is the double-standard that every politician makes decisions based on what is best for their reelection just as the Dems are hoping to benefit electorally in 2020 with the farcical impeachment. ..."
"... After his testimony, Mr. Turley tweeted. " Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with (death) threatening messages and demands that I be fired from GW. " ..."
"... For instance, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala) asked the defining question regarding the purpose of the hearing with "no fact witnesses " via a process that has been " insufficient, unprecedented and grossly inadequate ." Roby pointed out that the Dems had apparently not considered: that a constitutional law panel should come " only after specific charges have been made known and underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. How does anyone expect a panel of law professors to weigh in on legal grounds for impeachment prior to knowing what the grounds brought by this Committee are going to be ? ..."
"... Did any of those 31 notice when the Constitutional law experts were asked by Rep. Matt Gaetz " Can you identify one single material fact in the Schiff Report? – all four remained silent. ..."
"... As the Democratic party appears to have lost whatever is left of its sanity and integrity, the question remains why are the Democrats willing to sacrifice losing some of those 31 House seats in 2020? ..."
"... You recall Bill Maher's comment before a previous election. "The Republicans have shifted to the right and the Dems have shifted right into the insane asylum." ..."
"... It is always good to hear of committed political activsts demanding that their own party stick to fundamental principles of justice, adherence to the Constitution etc etc. There does come a point when you have to ask whether this is temporary insanity or metastatic terminal cancer. If it is the latter, America needs new political parties ..."
Despite an inadequate performance last week by Constitutional law experts before the House
Judiciary Committee, Chair Jerrold Nadler released a unilateral committee report on Saturday
entitled " Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment ." The Report came the day after
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press conference
in which she directed the formation of Articles of Impeachment.
As has become apparent to any objective observer; that is one who prefers facts over
fiction, the Democrats remain locked in an imaginary world struggling to maintain relevance, a
stature of standing that no longer exists.
Presumably with no Quid Pro Quo, no allegation of criminal conduct, no legally substantial
evidence or factual basis and no bipartisan support, in defiance of previous impeachment norms,
the Democrats are hell bent on making public jackasses out of themselves.
In a hearing with
Constitutional legal experts expected to score big legal points in support of impeachment,
the witnesses instead turned out to be smug, hyper partisan activists as they were consistently
unpersuasive and unimpressive .
All three displayed not a wit of objectivity or neutrality while touting their own personal
political agenda with a foreign policy ax to grind, leaving the unmistakable impression that
their testimonies were nothing short of conflated.
Condescending as if pontificating to a class of mediocre law students,
Professor Noah Feldman had suggested in 2017 that Presidential tweets could be grounds for
impeachment, indicative of the depth of his thinking as he repeatedly impressed himself with
his own rhetoric.
Professor Pamela Karlan opened with a shrillness that grew into a hyperbole spewing
divisiveness among the American people and went on to revisit the Russiagate and foreign
electoral influence myth ad nauseam. Those dim witted Democrats on the committee repeated the
mantra as if held in a spellbound trance whenever "Russiagate" was mentioned. There was no
mention of Israel interference in US elections. Testimony of
Professor Michael Gerhardt .
Stating that he had not voted for Trump in 2016, GWU Law P
rofessor Jonathan Turley who is a registered Democrat (as is yours truly) opened with a
brilliant statement as he set the tone for an extraordinarily compelling testimony
throughout the day, carefully explaining to the Democrats why they had not met a credible legal
threshold for impeachment.
Factually concise with rational, impartial explanations, Turley effectively disputed
Democratic claims that an abuse of power stemming from a presumed effort to help one's own
re-election is " inferred " and does not constitute proof of intent or direct knowledge of what
was in the President's mind.
However, it did not appear that any of the Democrats had the acute sensibility to understand
Turley's point as there is an edge of lunacy to the collective Democratic mind these days.
What the Democrats fail to grasp is the double-standard that every politician makes
decisions based on what is best for their reelection just as the Dems are hoping to benefit
electorally in 2020 with the farcical impeachment.
After his testimony, Mr. Turley tweeted. " Before I
finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with (death) threatening messages and
demands that I be fired from GW. "
While it was surprising that there was no Democratic Star on either the Intel or Judiciary
Committees who stepped forward to make a credible, cogent case for impeachment, it was somewhat
surprising that the Republicans had an energetic array of participating Members not limited to
Intel ranking member Devin Nunes (Calif), Judiciary ranking minority Rep. Doug Collins (NC),
Rep. Jim Jordan (Oh), Rep. John Ratcliffe (Texas) and Rep. Mark Gaetz (R-Fla) all of whom can
be expected to continue their Bulldog approach as the Committee begins preparing Articles of
Impeachment.
For instance, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala) asked the defining question regarding the purpose of
the hearing with "no fact witnesses " via a process that has been " insufficient,
unprecedented and grossly inadequate ." Roby pointed out that the Dems had apparently not
considered: that a constitutional law panel should come " only after specific charges have been
made known and underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. How does
anyone expect a panel of law professors to weigh in on legal grounds for impeachment prior to
knowing what the grounds brought by this Committee are going to be ?
At her news conference the day after the Judiciary committee hearing, Pelosi was asked by a
reporter " Do you
hate President Trump ?" Pelosi responded with a shaky false piety as if she knows the votes
are not there:
We don't hate anybody. Not anybody in the World. And as a Catholic, I resent your using
the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me. I don't hate anyone. I was raised in a way
that is full – a heart full of love and always pray for the president, And I still pray
for the president. I pray for the president all the time, So don't mess with me when it comes
to words like that.
It is a curiosity that with the 2020 election a scant twelve months away, the Democrats have
not made the case for the urgency of why impeachment needs to occur right now, immediately,
before the Christmas holidays when the Spirit of Good Cheer, Universal Love and Peace for all
Americans should take precedence over the Democrat's divisive animosity, pitting one American
against another.
In 2018, thirty-one new Democrats were elected to the House; predominately from districts
that voted for Trump in 2016 assuring a tough 2020 re-election campaign.
Let's assume that every one of those 31 newbies have been paying very close attention to the
Intel and Judiciary committee hearings with two questions in mind:
Is there sufficient legal evidence to convince my constituents to support Articles of
Impeachment and is this flawed impeachment campaign worth losing my seat in Congress?
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-0SC) has already indicated that he does
not intend to 'whip" the Dems in preparation for an Impeachment vote on the House floor and
that the Dems "expect to lose some votes."
Let's do the math: With 233 Dems and 197 Republicans, if 18 of the 31 House newbies do not
vote to impeach, the Democratic Motion to approve Articles of Impeachment will fail with a tie
of 215 votes. Whether the Dems lose 18 votes or less, the damage will be irreversible.
As the Democratic party appears to have lost whatever is left of its sanity and integrity,
the question remains why are the Democrats willing to sacrifice losing some of those 31 House
seats in 2020?
Seamus Padraig ,
This whole Schiff-Show is just bizarre. Why are the Dems doing this? In an election
year to boot? There is just zero chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office, and
the case against him is a total laughing stock anyway. All that's going to happen is that the
senators are going to start discussing L'affaire Biden openly and loudly, thereby
killing the Dem's current front-runner. Is that what Pelosi wants? Meanwhile, none of their
other three dozen or so candidates are going to get any media at all, once this impeachment
sucks all the oxygen right out of the room. Is that intentional?
All I can say is, you have to really dig all the way to the bottom of the tinfoil-cooler
to find an explanation for this one. Others it makes no sense whatsoever.
wardropper ,
This person has made herself ridiculous by refusing to impeach GWB in 2003, when she knew he
was lying about Iraq's weapons.
What has Trump done which is comparable to that death toll?
Proof enough that Washington has nothing more to say to human beings.
The place belongs in The Book of Revelation – and not in the optimistic part
George Cornell ,
So your argument consists essentially of name-calling to exercise your own demons. You make
Trump look good, like the other stark raving lunatics opining on this , many in the
Democratic Party. You have zero chance of unseating Trump by impeachment and by the looks of
things that might not be such a bad thing, he said, making the sign of the cross and mouthing
pagan incantations, begging forgiveness from the ether.
You recall Bill Maher's comment before a previous election. "The Republicans have shifted
to the right and the Dems have shifted right into the insane asylum."
Rhys Jaggar ,
Would Ms Parsons like to write an OpEd on the US Senate pushing forward false narratives that
Russia is 'a promoter of terrorism'?
The biggest promoter of terrorism workdwide since 1945 is the USA, be it through OSS, CIA,
or other outsourced channels of coup-promoting violence .
Is it not time a motion were voted upon in the UN on precisely that postulate?
wardropper ,
Unfortunately, as you know, the UN, like NATO, to all intents and purposes actually IS the
USA, and vetoes all criticism of itself. And if vetoing doesn't work, it just ignores the
criticism. Other recent farces at the UN show the US and Israel sitting alone while the rest
of the world condems them, and the condemnation is simply shrugged off.
Astonishing that educated adults put up with it, but there it is.
Rhys Jaggar ,
It is always good to hear of committed political activsts demanding that their own party
stick to fundamental principles of justice, adherence to the Constitution etc etc. There does come a point when you have to ask whether this is temporary insanity or
metastatic terminal cancer. If it is the latter, America needs new political parties
wardropper ,
This person has made herself ridiculous by refusing to impeach GWB in 2003, when she knew he
was lying about Iraq's weapons.
What has Trump done which is comparable to that death toll?
Proof enough that Washington has nothing more to say to human beings.
The place belongs in The Book of Revelation – and not in the optimistic part
The impeachment . The two articles of impeachment are so anemic as to invite ridicule.
1. "Abuse of power" by expressing concern over thievery by Ukrainians and Americans? This is
a charge? The Washington Post has been running a series of articles based on "leaked" US Afghan IG reports and interviews with people involved in that wretched place. These articles reveal
the massive scale of the thievery that lost America enormous amounts of money taken through
graft and bribery. Was it unreasonable for this president to solicit the Ukrainian president's
cooperation in trying to deal with a similar situation in that country. He mentioned Uncle Joe
Biden and his drug addled son? Well, why not? The younger of the two has IMO been used as the
family bag man for collecting protection money. Joe Biden himself looks to me to be a political
version of Jimmy Hoffa the mobbed up Teamsters boss of long ago, but, with less charm, "a
little for you, a lot for me," etc. He was potentially a rival for the 2020 election? He was
not then a candidate. Is every human or semi-human to be exempt from investigation and
prosecution because he MIGHT become a political rival? The Democrats know full well this would
be absurd.
2. "Obstructing congress" What we are seeing in the behavior of the Democratic majority in
the House and minority in the senate is an attempt to seize control of the federal government
using the constitutional powers to "advise and consent" on appointments and the ability to
impeach in the House.. They have not yet tried to impeach federal judges appointed by the other
party but IMO they will try that soon. In this article of impeachment they claim that the
president has obstructed their function by relying on the doctrine of Executive Privilege to
deny them access to his present and past staff. Trump did not invent this doctrine. It is a
well established feature of American law. Without it no president could conduct internal policy
discussions or confidential discussions with foreign leaders. The Democrats know full well that
the principal of Executive Privilege is often contested in the courts. That is what they should
have done this time, but instead they have chosen to charge the president for impeachment for
claiming Executive Privilege. They do not claim this is a violation of law. They merely stamp
their feet and scream that they are unhappy and want him gone.
This farce will end in a trial in the US Senate with the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presiding.
The Republicans control the senate and will not allow Trump to be deposed. The senate can
dismiss the charges by a simple majority vote and that is what Senator Lindsey Graham wants to
see happen. Trump does not want that. He wants to be tried for the purpose of turning the
tables on the Democrats.
I think he is correct in wanting that. If that occurs, witnesses must be subpoenaed and
examined in open court. The Bidens must be so called to demonstrate the reasonable nature of
Trump's concern over their behavior in Ukraine . pl
Just wondering. Suppose the Senate dismisses the Impeachment. Won't the Chief Justice have to
rule on the question of whether or not there is at least probable cause for the democrats'
determination that this is probable cause to Impeach?
Chief Justice could rule on a demurrer which would dismiss the case without a trial - failure
to present prima facie elements of the underlying charge. Therefore nothing of fact is
triable - case dismissed.
Which is probably why Democrats ditched the more specific treason, bribery and extortion
charges, leaving only the garbage can of "abuse of power" and "obstruction" behind. By what
standards of evidence are both those remaining elements - abuse of power and obstruction --
even tried, let alone judged?
Biden on camera bragging about a quid pro quo to fire a prosecutor examining corruption at
a company where Biden's son is on the board taking a fat paycheck with no experience or
expertise to have that position.
I agree that Trump should get his wish. He has endured a lot of false "reporting." And those
untruths need to be shown for what they are. I wonder if Mitch McConnell would be able to
arrange that despite Graham.
I know that Trump's personality attracts that sort of shocked response from some people.
Heck, I'm a Republican and was first also opposed to Trump because of his personality. But
I'm of the opinion that the Democrats and their fawning media characters have earned a lot of
the same sort negative responses and disgust on the part of the people because their
personalities are pretty off-putting also.
I'm still suffering from cognitive dissonance because Adam Schiff has somehow actually
remained in his elected position. I can't imagine a high school principal allowing someone
who does "parody" to continue as a student council candidate.
I do believe that Nancy Pelosi may be really sinking into dementia or alcoholism--just
on the basis of her inability to control her dentures. To have those two criticize the
character of Trump really seems strange. I feel that I'm watching a Dickens novel performed
on national news each day. I can't laugh, though, because this is happening in
reality.
Given the corruption on both sides of the Senate it is probable that no-one wants an in depth
trial during which unwanted facts might accidentally appear. Much better to whisk it through
without it touching the sides so to speak.
OK so Trump doesn't get the exoneration he wants but then nothing will explode in his
face. Its not a win win but then its not a lose either and it is unlikely to seriously affect
his chances next November. Plus as a quid pro quo he might have got his defence spending
increase and the trade bill through.
I'm trying to remember the site I read it on, maybe south front, where the point was made the
graft flows through these governments we give billions to, back through the various
institutes and global initiatives the US politicians set up. McCain and Clinton being the two
mentioned. So neither side wants it looked into too deeply.
A conversation between two heads of state is not and should not be conducted as though the
subject matter of the conversation is subject to the rules and assumptions of a court of
justice.
Graham has a vested interest in not having an extensive trial with many witnesses as it
may uncover his own culpability in the Ukraine corruption. And of course may drag in Saint
McCain too!
His and Mitch's argument to Trump likely would be, that with no trial they can guarantee
acquittal but with a trial they can't.
An article in the Duran indicates that and why Senate Republicans may buck Trump's wishes, as
they are as deep in Ukraine corruption as any of the Dems are. Lindsay, the late John M and
Sleep Joe are perhaps the most deeply planted ...
You mean that with the same investigative power the Obama administration had he has none
of the alleged evidence on senators you allude to? What a wonderful implication from a Cyprus
based media outlet founded in 2016 and run by the host of an RT political show. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-duran/
As of today Trump's approval rating is 43.9% and Congress's approval rating is 24%. I gather
that the House Democrats don't realize how unpopular they are and how many Americans support
"obstruction of Congress". Are they trying to turn Trump into a national hero?
In the legitimate focus on the impeachment, a stunning revelation in the Horowitz report has
been largely overlooked. In January 2017, the FBI conducted three interviews with the key
source to Christopher Steele for his dossier. He told interviewed on all three occasions that
the material he passed on to Steele was gossip and second and third-hand rumors with no
proof. He even said that the sexual allegations were actually a joke and he never meant for
them to be taken serious. The FBI in seeking the follow-on FISA warrant merely reported they
interviewed Steele's source and he was "cooperative and candid." No content reported.
In addition, Horowitz found email exchanges between FBI and CIA, in which the FBI inquired
if Carter Page was a CIA source. Three times the CIA responded "yes." But the FBI agent
preparing the affidavit for the FISA renewal lied and wrote "no" to the question of Page's
CIA work. That was the false statement Horowitz referred to.
These are serious crimes by FBI officials and they should not go unnoted in the MSM or
left to be ignored. I hope that Durham is carefully reading every word of the Horowitz report
for points of criminal misconduct to present to his Federal grand jury.
You can't fully discuss impeachment of Trump without going back to the first cause, and in
this case it was clearly criminal misconduct by Federal law enforcement.
that a bipartisan agreement exists that the Democrats can introduce the impeachment but
the majority Republicans will vote it out without trial.
An approach which seems plausible. But after nigh on four full years of a campaign against
initially a candidate and for the majority of the time the holder of the presidential office
involving lurid allegations might not a trial be helpful in restoring some public confidence
in the body politic? And in reducing the levels of vitriol.
Earlier today a person asked me what was going to happen in the impeachment trial, and I said
that the senate will decide that after the case gets to them. The rules of procedure and
rules of evidence (if any!) will be determined by the senate.
The U.S. Constitution says in Article 1, section 3 that--
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that
Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is
tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: and no Person shall be convicted without the
Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit, under the
United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law".
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Repub. Kentucky) appeared on the Sean
Hannity television show on FoxNews and said in essence that how a trial will proceed is up in
the air, as he explains at the 1 minute mark until 2 minutes and 17 seconds into the
video--
McConnell, as usual, carefully maintains his position, and says that everything he does
about an impeachment trial, "I am coordinating with White House counsel". And, "There will be
no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this to
the extent that we can".
What McConnell is obviously doing is protecting himself no matter what the political
effect of the content of the trial may be.
He says: "We all know how it's going to end. There is no chance the president is going to
be removed from office".
It is worse than that. Groups of current or former high level employees band together to
bid on large scale development contracts. They have local partners and the loot is
tremendous.
FOX 10 Phoenix
722K subscribers
The U.S. attorney who is conducting a wide-ranging investigation of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe released a rare
statement Monday saying he disagrees with conclusions of the so-called FISA report -- after DOJ Inspector General Michael
Horowitz found in that review that the probe's launch largely complied with DOJ and FBI policies. "Based on the evidence
collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree
with some of the report's conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened," U.S. Attorney John Durham said in
a statement. Horowitz released his report Monday saying his investigators found no intentional misconduct or political bias
surrounding efforts to launch that 2016 probe and to seek a highly controversial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) warrant to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in the early months of the investigation. Still, it
found that there were "significant concerns with how certain aspects of the investigation were conducted and supervised."
"I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the
report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff," Durham said. "However, our investigation is not limited to developing
information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information
from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S." As Horowitz has conducted his review of DOJ
actions during the Russia probe, Durham, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut, has also been conducting a wider inquiry into
alleged misconduct and alleged improper government surveillance on the Trump campaign during the 2016 presidential
election. Fox News reported in October that Durham's ongoing probe has transitioned into a full-fledged criminal
investigation. Meanwhile, Attorney General William Barr ripped the FBI's "intrusive" investigation after the release of
Horowitz's review, saying it was launched based on the "thinnest of suspicions." "The Inspector General's report now makes
clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that,
in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken," Barr said in a statement. Barr expressed frustration that the
FBI continued investigating the Trump campaign, even as "exculpatory" information came to the light.
The history of
FBI and DOJ lying and legal abuse is much older than Trump. Read Sidney Powell's LICENSED TO LIE. Been going on since
at least the Enron prosecutions. And judges are just as much to blame.
Thank God for:
Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Doug Collins, Jim Jordan, and Louie Gohmert to represent our country in this mess to shed light
on whats been going on. Drain the swamp in Washington!
It's insane to say there were "17 material omissions, miss-representations (lies) and
errors" - but no evidence of bias. This is like accidentally shooting someone 17 times.
Clapper and Brennan will be shaking in their boots after watching Barr's interview: done in
"bad faith" = SEDITION !!!! Deep State operatives...ie, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Stork, Lisa,
McCabe, should be held accountable. Obama should probably be impeached.
The hard fact is, that the top of the FBI knew, in advance, that the "dossier" was just bs
invented by Russian liars, for money, to be used as political lies for kilary's campaign. It
Wasn't evidence and Comey knew far in advance of crossfire hurricane. I can't see less than 20
years in comey's future. That same includes barak, brennan and clapper, who were all informed,
willing accomplices in this crime.
10:30
Whoever in FBI that intentionally misled the court using the Steele dossier knowing that the
dossier was "total rubbish" as Barr states, needs to be inditing immediately. Why we are
continuing to investigate instead of inditimg while continuing to investigate. Until these people
are held accountable I don't think our country will begin to heal and media and others apologize
to the country for the damage they have done.
7:49 -
"Comey refused to sign back up for his security clearance, and therefore couldn't be questioned
about classified matters." Well now, isn't that interesting. Haven't heard that one before.
In an exclusive interview, Attorney General William Barr spoke to NBC News' Pete Williams
about the findings on the Justice Department Inspector General's report on the Russia
investigation and his criticisms of the FBI.
I'm So glade we have a competent attorney General pushing back on the massive
disinformation narrative that comes from Giant News outlets of which are used to being
unchallenged, unchecked by today's "journalistic standards"
so this guy really asked Bahr"why not open an investigation even with little evidence?"
because is a violation of civil liberties to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens. You
need compelling evidence for something so huge
Horowitz should be instructed to edit or update his Report to discuss The Question of Bias
and Evidence of Bias. He has clearly misguided Americans with his choice of words and has
omitted important facts underpinning bias.
AG Barr is an outstanding role model, a man of integrity and wisdom, calm in a raging
political storm. I have full confidence he will make those who fabricated evidence and hid
exculpatory evidence finally face justice. AG Barr for President 2024!
Barr is a straight shooter and I love it. It sounds like we will get to the real truth
eventually through Durhams investigation I just hope it doesnt take another year to get to
the prosecutions.
So, I watched the interview... The video is called, "Full Interview: Barr Criticizes
Inspector General Report On The Russia Investigation." Not once did I hear him criticize the
I.G.'s report. In fact, A.G. Barr clarified that the I.G.'s report was limited in scope
because of the limitations put on the I.G. He said that the report was appropriate.
It's scary to see how powerful the corruption of the Democratic Party has grown. It
represents a serious threat to all our personal freedom. The Democratic Party has to be
stopped.
Ok after watching this interview its quite clear that Barr and Durham is going after these
criminals and people are going to jail. Maybe there is hope for US yet becuase this dane
consider US atm a banana republic. Spying on political candidates? Forging documents? You FBI
behaving like Stalins secret police. Lets see what happen.
Amazing for the AG to go in deep into enemy territory at the heart of the opposition media
to lay out a case for the criminal activities that undermined our country prior to and after
the 2016 election. The deep state is trembling at the prospect of being held accountable
after all the facts are laid out to the american people that these activities cannot be
brushed aside or swept under the carpet if we are to continue as a country.
The corrupt media is trying to act like they have not been involved in this treasonous
scam since the beginning working directly with the treasonous cabal. The media has been lying
and pushing fake news for 3 years calling Trump a Russia agent and called him treasonous. I
knew the whole time that they were lying there was evidence from day one that this was all
lies and if I can see that from the public then they can definitely see that from the inside
they are purposefully lying.
I dare anyone on here to research Barr's History back to his involvement in the
assignation of JFK, the cover up, defending Nixon, Epstein, and many other illegal and
immoral activities. After reviewing the evidence, I walked away believing that Barr is trying
to cover up his tracks so he does do jail time. No need to reply. Either take my dare or not.
God Bless America and ALL her people, Stephan
The public are sick of waiting . I find myself skipping through a half hour news show in 5
minutes flat looking for arrests ,whereas before I was rivited to every minute of the half
hour show but it goes on and on and at the there is Nothiing .The Democrats are the masters ,
it's obvious . If they break the law they get off scott free . If you are republican wave bye
bye , you will be in jail for years . America is not the free and fair country it is all
cracked up to be . It is corrupted by the democrats who have peoiple in high places that
thwart real justice.
Mifsud approached George! Who was Mifsud working for (western asset) and why did he
approach George? He’s the one who offered George dirt on Hill. Then invited him to meet
the fake “niece”, of Putin, in England! What about this information? Someone set
George up to make this happen outside the US, because of EO 12333. It had to happen outside
the US so they could go to the fisa court!
I dont trust Christopher Wrey. He keeps slow-walking all the FBI documents and
declassifications. He also fights judicial watch and judges that rule in their favor and
continue not giving over what is ordered! This last judge was ready to hold him in contempt
for refusing to cooperate with court ordered documents.
Why did the FBI continue to investigate Trump after January when the case collapsed? To
try and find a way to impeach Trump. Remember the Washington Post headlined article right
after the inauguration "The effort to impeach President Donald John Trump is already
underway." The FBI "insurance" policy was essential!
"... While the typical BubisAmericanus will have forgotten all the details by then, me thinks the hard core democrats, I mean nomal'ish people that usually vote blue, simply stay home. ..."
"... Was this whole impeachment thing completely designed for the dems to fall on their sword and put the Donald back in for another 4? Dunno. ..."
They want to do it by Christmas in the vain hope that this circus will all blow over by
November. I think not.
While the typical BubisAmericanus will have forgotten all the details by then, me thinks
the hard core democrats, I mean nomal'ish people that usually vote blue, simply stay
home.
Part of me, however, thinks back to something that Harry Truman said, "in politics there
are no accidents" .
Was this whole impeachment thing completely designed for the dems to fall on their sword
and put the Donald back in for another 4? Dunno.
The Republicans will have both houses when in 2024 the the tax take will barley cover
interest.
designed for the dems to fall on their sword and put the Donald back in for another 4?
Dunno.
Been thinking along the same lines. May be the last thing they want is to be "on line" in
2021. I even wonder if CNN and BSNBC, etc, are there to DRIVE the decent Democrat to the
Republicians.
"... And in the case of Carter Page, the FISA judges initially denied a warrant to surveil the former Trump aide until the agency padded the application with the wildly unverified Steele Report , lying about Steele's credibility, and then fabricating evidence to specifically say Page was not an "operational contact" for the CIA , when in fact he was - and had a "positive assessment." ..."
"... Let's not forget that FISA court judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself from overseeing the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn due to his personal friendship with former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok. ..."
"... And the only reason Contreras did so was because his friendship with Strzok was revealed in their anti-Trump text messages found by the Inspector General. ..."
The shadowy Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court) and the processes behind
obtaining a warrant from it has fallen under harsh scrutiny by lawmakers following the release
of the DOJ Inspector General's report which found that the FBI was able to easily mislead the
judges to surveil Trump adviser Carter Page.
"The goal is to make sure this doesn't happen again, so you tighten up the system right,"
said Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC), adding: "Quite frankly, I'm looking at
the FISA court itself. ... I'm looking for the court to tell the public, 'Hey, we're upset
about this too,' and, you know, take some corrective steps."
Graham said his committee will look into legislation to introduce more "checks and balances"
to the FISA process, according to
The Hill .
When asked if he thought there would be bipartisan support for FISA reform, Sen. Dick Durban
(D-IL) said "I hope so," adding "This was a real wake-up call that three different teams can
screw this up at the FBI."
The renewed interest comes after five hours of partisan barb trading during a Judiciary
hearing Wednesday with Horowitz that resulted in one clear bipartisan interest: overhauling
the FISA court.
"One of the only points I've heard with bipartisan agreement today is a renewed interest
in reforming the FISA process," said Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.). -
The Hill
Created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the FISA court is made up
of 11 judges who are chosen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court to serve seven-year
terms. They are responsible for approving warrant applications for intelligence gathering
purposes and national security operations, which - as The Hill notes, "more often than not,
they sign off."
And in the case of Carter Page, the FISA judges initially denied a warrant to surveil the
former Trump aide until the agency padded the application with the wildly unverified Steele
Report , lying about Steele's credibility, and then fabricating evidence to specifically say
Page was not
an "operational contact" for the CIA , when in fact he was - and had a "positive
assessment."
Last year the government filed 1,117 FISA warrant applications, including 1,081 for
electronic monitoring. The court signed off on 1,079 according to a DOJ report.
That said, reform may come slowly.
But the timeline for any legislative reforms is unclear. Congress already faces a
mid-March deadline to extend expiring surveillance authorities under the USA Freedom Act.
Durbin suggested the discussions could merge, while Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a longtime privacy advocate,
appeared skeptical that Republicans would ultimately get on board with broader changes to
surveillance powers.
"Why after YEARS of blocking bipartisan FISA reforms are senior Republicans suddenly
interested in it? There is no question that we need to improve transparency, accountability
and oversight of the FISA process," Wyden tweeted. -
The Hill
Still, the IG report appears to have 'enlightened' some GOP lawmakers who previously
resisted the notion of reining in FISA courts . Several GOP senators gave credit to their
libertarian-minded colleagues on the hill, who have pushed for surveillance reform after
accurately predicting the potential for abuse.
Those who have long-advocated for reform include GOP Sens. Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Ben Sasse
(Neb.), according to Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).
"I wish Mike Lee weren't sitting here two people from me right now, because as a national
security hawk I've argued with Mike Lee in the 4 1/2 or five years that I've been in the Senate
that stuff just like this couldn't possibly happen at the FBI and at the Department of
Justice," said Sasse during the Horowitz testimony, who added that the IG's findings marked a
"massive crisis of public trust" since we should know about FISA applications that aren ' t as
high-profile as Page's.
Horowitz reported a total of 17 "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the
applications to monitor Page , taking particular issue with applications to renew the FISA
warrant and chastising the FBI for a lack of satisfactory explanations for those
mistakes.
Horowitz stressed that he would not have submitted the follow-up applications as they were
drafted by the FBI . Kevin Clinesmith, an FBI lawyer, altered an email related to the warrant
renewal application, according to Horowitz's report.
" [The] applications made it appear as though the evidence supporting probable cause was
stronger than was actually the case ," Horowitz said. " We also found basic, fundamental and
serious errors during the completion of the FBl's factual accuracy reviews. "
Horowitz also found that there were errors that "represent serious performance failures by
the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications." -
The Hill
Let's not forget that FISA court judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself from overseeing the
case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn due to his personal friendship with
former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok.
No reputable legal authority would fear ensuring due process for an accused, unless it had no evidence of an actual crime
to justify prosecution...but DID have ulterior motives and nefarious purposes for doing so.
Let's be clear.
To date, not a single shred of actual evidence has ever been produced to prove Russian involvement or interference in the
2016 presidential election.
***.
Nada.
We have the opinion of domestic intelligence agencies, but we have no physical or direct evidence.
On the contrary, we have as much reason to believe some or all of them interfered in the Trump campaign, to orchestrate
and execute a foreign interference hoax against Trump, before and after his election.
Daily, and throughout this sick prog left congressional abuse of power, we have repeatedly heard claims of an "ongoing
war with Russia" in Ukraine.
Which war is this? Is this a continuation of the non-invasion of the Donbas in 2014? The specious and false claims of Russian troop concentrations, and tanks rolling, that even spy satellites didn't see? Are we still lying about this? If so, where are the media reports of Russian airstrikes, burning Ukrainian villages, or body bags?
In any "on-going" war with Russia, we would've been treated to near-constant news video of Russian armor all over eastern Ukraine. Have we? Perhaps this war they keep telling us about is like the Russian "invasion" of Crimea that didn't happen either.
We clearly remember the two Crimean-initiated referenda which put them back in their ancestral Russian
homelands, but none of that had anything to do with invading Russians, who already had a substantial military
presence in Crimea for decades.
No sir, Professor Turley.
There is no basis whatsoever for Trump's impeachment.
There is mounting evidence of a continued coup against this president, and the substantial number of Americans
who actually elected him.
We too are closely monitoring the actual situation...
As Tony Kevin reported (watch-v=dJiS3nFzsWg) at one small fundraiser
Bill Clinton made an interesting remark. He said that the USA should always have enemies. That's absolutely true, this this
is a way to unite such a society as we have in the USA. probably the only way. And Russia simply fits the
bill. Very convenient bogeyman.
Notable quotes:
"... The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium. ..."
One aspect of this report in the NYT is very troubling but not a great surprise to those who
pay attention to Asian affairs.
The reports that US military leaders had no idea of what to
do in Afghanistan and constantly lied to the public should rouse citizens in America to take
a different view of military leaders. That view must be to trust nothing coming from the
Pentagon or from spokespersons for the military. Included must be any and all secretaries of defence, and all branches of the military.
It is totally unacceptable that 1-2 trillion dollars and several thousand lives were spent
by America for some nebulous cause. This does not include many thousands of civilians.
During the Vietnam disaster, it became obvious that American military was lying to the
public and taking many causalities in an unwinnable war. Nothing was learned about Asia or
Asian culture because America entered Afghanistan without a real plan and no understanding of
the country or it's history.
The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up
all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and
America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in
Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which
has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium.
The USA "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine requires weakening and, if possible, partitioning Russia.
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin tells the audience that Skripals poisoning was a false flag operation. 7:00
He also point several weak points in Western politicians narrative about MH17
Notable quotes:
"... Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America ..."
"... Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it. ..."
"... The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans). ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause". ..."
"... Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic. ..."
"... "Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily
determined to undermine Russia.
A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign
to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff
when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on Russia," Kevin says in his conversation
with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating
a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy
Vogan.
Putin & the Russian citizenry play chess on this 3-dimensional world.! The Americas and their inane elites attempt checkers
on their flat Earth . Pity, some such as Noam Chomsky are admirable world citizens..! Pity again.! WE will miss men of this honest
calibre and down- to-earth intelligence. Bob Carr is of this cohort.
Eugenie Basile , December 10, 2019 at 03:36
The 'Russia did it' mantra is a gift for the powers in the Kremlin. It rallies most Russians behind their leaders because they
are proud of their country and don't accept the West's moral hypocrite grandstanding.
Just recently the WADA proclaimed sporting ban against Russia is a perfect example. It excludes all Russian athletes because
they happen to represent their country while U.S. athletes who have been caught cheating in the past are allowed to participate
.
It is very encouraging to know there are good people like Mr. Tony Kevin and Mr. Bob Carr alive and sharing their powerful
wisdom at this dangerous historical point on planet Earth. Mr. Kevin and Mr. Carr's immensely important and courageously honest
discussion should become – immediately, and for many years to come – required study in university classrooms and government halls
around this world.
Peace.
ElderD , December 9, 2019 at 15:03
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive state of affairs deserve the widest
possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed. Cold War patterns of thinking
about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer
we come to its revival. Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now
so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then,
it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of
nuclear deterrence doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is.
Lois Gagnon , December 9, 2019 at 17:30
I agree. Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are
unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed
oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events
including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations – of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase
Russophobia) sort – about Russian hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour Party's
source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally destroy the NHS and replace it with (of
course) US "health" insurance company profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity among many Tory party supporters among
the working and lower middle classes prevented them from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the
undermining, via installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds that would otherwise
have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money – a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally
conceived and constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how
either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the
neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters
are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile
the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military,
thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what I've read the man is the most diplomatic
and intelligent politician (not just political leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world
stage. None of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries. Unlike their western "world"
political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely
assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said
any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked well. We're trying to
do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that
doesn't.
SIPIRI tags US military spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the energy department or our veteran's
expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better
than we can sustain our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there was NEVER a surrender, intended in
any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships. For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live
and work in peace. (By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear as never before, a mad man throwing
a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence universally consulted), allowing the
light in for the mass of the viewing and listening public, it could change the world – both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus.
Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more.
(The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a nation which has been started by
killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive
campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country on earth capable of obliterating
the United States. Not even China has yet reached that capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian
citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election
interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a
very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all
of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international
conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
It would be amusing to watch. However, the end result is a lose-lose for The United States
no matter who wins.
Crook(D) v Crook(R) is the perception – much as it is with impeachment with Pelosi
playing the part of Biden – with Trump standing a good chance to win. As of right now,
the 2020 election is Democrats to lose. They are doing a great job of that so far and it is
not even 2020.
Centrist Democrats will be trying to court the same voters – suburban center-right
Republicans – that Trump will be angling to get. Should it be Biden that wins the
nomination.
If Sanders somehow is nominated and Trump refuses to engage in debats? Run a "Trump Tucks
Tail and Runs" campaign with a massive highlight of his policy failures. Trump excels in the
arena of personal attacks. Biden would lose. Sanders could keep it clean and focused on
policy, dropping nuke after nuke on Trump. With Biden? Given how Centrist Democrats and
Republicans are both guilty of cooperating on issues such as Syria, Libya, Wall Street,
torture, Iraq, etc?
Centrist Democrats have no powder or if they do? Their powder is all wet. It was amazing
the number of policy attacks and opportunities that Centrist Democrats had to use against
Trump in 2016 yet were too afraid to. Opting for personal attacks. I still remember that
ambush by Andersen Cooper and Hillary Clinton against Trump at the 2nd(?) debate discussing
the allegations against Trump regarding rape, etc.
Never mind that Hillary Clinton had Bill with his prior allegations of sexual abuse. That
was the lamest ambush I've ever seen. You could practically see Hillary Clinton's vein pop
out on her forehead when Trump responded. I thought she was going to have a stroke. That
ambush wasted approximately 25 minutes of debate time and achieved less than nothing.
As we've seen with the latest funding bill? Centrist Democrats gave Trump what he wanted.
So, what do Centrist Democrats have to run on?
In a rare interview on Fox News' "Hannity" Thursday night, Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) expressed certainty that President Donald Trump would stay in office
despite the fact that there has yet to be a vote on
impeachment .
"There's no chance the President's going to be removed from office," McConnell told
Hannity.
Further, McConnell said he expects all Republicans and even some Democrats to vote against
impeachment.
"This is a thoroughly political exercise. It's not like a courtroom experience, It's a
political exercise. They've been trying to do this for three years. They've finally screwed up
their courage to do it," McConnell said.
He continued,
" It looks to me like it may be backfiring on them particularly in swing districts that
the Speaker's party managed to win in order to get the majority. Most of the nervousness I
see on this issue with politicians since it's a political process is on the Democratic
side."
When the Impeachment gets finally voted on in the Senate, what will Sanders do? He will do
best by being true to his own self, regardless of what votes he loses whichever way he
votes.
But I hope that being true to himself involves voting NOT to remove. Because depending on
how bitter the Democratic Convention is, a Nominee Sanders may get few or zero Clintonite
Democratic votes by definition, regardless of what he does. Whereas if he votes TO remove, he
will lose any votes, or even respectful hearing, that he might have had otherwise among the
deplorables.
"... the Deep State is "deep" because it is supposed to be hidden far below ( "deep" below) surface appearances. The fact that people are now openly discussing it in and of itself constrains the actions of the Deep State. If this attention on the Deep State continues it could lead the public to demanding legal remedies, and you can safely bet the Deep State doesn't want that to happen. ..."
"... the Congress Critters are principally servants of the business elites (and Big Finance elites most of all) and that the Deep State is a tool used by those business elites to get their way, so why would those elites deliberately hamper their own servants and damage their own tools? ..."
"... damage control on these two points is precisely the reasoning behind the impeachment deal that our host discusses. ..."
"... First, the empire is ruled by an oligarchy, but the oligarchs all have differing bases of power and wealth. The most powerful of the oligarchs are, of course, the Big Finance power brokers... the bankers, basically. They make money with money. They need almost no fixed capital to maintain and feed their wealth. The finance oligarchs are not tied to any location and can easily move their wealth from place to place as their profit needs dictate. At the other extreme are oligarchs whose wealth is based upon real estate. These oligarchs cannot shift their wealth around to avoid local problems. In between are oligarchs whose wealth is based upon tangible fixed capital (factories, for example) who can move their wealth around somewhat, but such moves impact their profits. ..."
Hopefully readers can now clearly see that the bunny persona is disingenuous and is here primarily for spin management.
psychohistorian @36 , on the other hand, is quite legit and raises points that are worth discussing.
So we have to ask, cui bono?
Lets start answering that question by identifying who is not benefitting:
The American public economically...except the top X%
The Congress Critters that are being made to look corrupt
The Deep State of various branches of government
Many, but not all national and multi-national corporations
Point #1 is no big surprise. The elites (including Trump) firmly believe that what is good for them personally is good for
everyone. What is good for the lord of the land is good for his serfs, right? There is, however, a caveat to this that I want
to touch on later.
Points #2 and #3 are problematic. ...the credibility
of the Congress Critters is undeniably taking a severe hit. As well the Deep State is "deep" because it is supposed
to be hidden far below ( "deep" below) surface appearances. The fact that people are now openly discussing it in and
of itself constrains the actions of the Deep State. If this attention on the Deep State continues it could lead the public
to demanding legal remedies, and you can safely bet the Deep State doesn't want that to happen.
So points #2 and #3 are absolutely true, but they are problematic because they conflict with the narrative that the circus
we've been watching play out in D.C. since the 2016 elections is all intentional and choreographed by the elites. I don't think
anyone here would dispute that the Congress Critters are principally servants of the business elites (and Big Finance elites
most of all) and that the Deep State is a tool used by those business elites to get their way, so why would those elites deliberately
hamper their own servants and damage their own tools?
No, these two points by themselves expose the falsity of the notion that
what we are witnessing playing out in the imperial capital was the intended outcome of the 2016 elections. Furthermore, damage control on these two points is precisely the reasoning behind the impeachment deal that our host discusses.
Point #4 about who is not benefiting, "Many, but not all national and multi-national corporations" , is related to
the caveat that I mentioned above.
First, the empire is ruled by an oligarchy, but the oligarchs all have differing bases of power and wealth. The most powerful
of the oligarchs are, of course, the Big Finance power brokers... the bankers, basically. They make money with money. They
need almost no fixed capital to maintain and feed their wealth. The finance oligarchs are not tied to any location and can
easily move their wealth from place to place as their profit needs dictate. At the other extreme are oligarchs whose wealth
is based upon real estate. These oligarchs cannot shift their wealth around to avoid local problems. In between are oligarchs
whose wealth is based upon tangible fixed capital (factories, for example) who can move their wealth around somewhat, but such
moves impact their profits.
The reader should be able to see that not all oligarchs are created equal. While all of the oligarchs share the imperative
of maintaining the oligarchy itself and expanding the empire that it operates within, their interests begin to diverge outside
of those issues. In particular, finance oligarchs and real estate oligarchs have a natural antagonism. This antagonism also
exists between the finance oligarchs and the fixed-capital oligarchs. Current imperial policy strongly favors the finance oligarchs.
The other oligarchs are willing to accept that so long as the economy continues to grow in real terms, but that hasn't been
happening for years now within the empire. Because of this we are now seeing infighting among the oligarchs, with Trump being
on the side of the non-finance underdogs.
Does this mean that the reader should become a fan of Trump? Not if one is prone to latching onto powerful individuals as
saviors. If, on the other hand, personal emotional attachment can be kept at the level of rooting for one stranger in a drunken
bum fight over the other stranger then it should be perfectly acceptable. It doesn't hurt to cheer the oligarchs on when they
fight among themselves.
@ Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Dec 13 2019 13:14 utc | 56
The problem is that you don't got to change the rules when they don't fit you anymore. The USA has deprived the rest of
the world of "dignity" for 70 years. Now that China is being better than the USA at its own game, it's going to change the
game?
Unfortunately to the likes of Rubio, that's not how the real world works, because the real world is not a game.
The aggregate household debt balances in the U.S. increased to a record high of $13.95 trillion, or 73 percent of the country's
GDP, in the third quarter of 2019, said a recent report released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Mortgage balances accounted for 2/3 of the total household debt balances, followed by student loans that took 11 percent
of the share. Besides, auto loans and credit card balances also stood at a high level.
Each household in the U.S. carrying at least one form of debt owed an average of $144,100, said a report issued by America's
Debt Help Organization.
For comparison, the American manufacturing sector makes only 12% of its GDP. Manufacturing is so tiny in the USA that we
had recession in the sector this year and that didn't moved its GDP growth rate at all.
That's why the USA -- which has been failing in this trade war against China -- will ultimately fail in its Trumpian attempt
to revert to isolationism: the empire is now essentially a financial superpower. To maintain your status as a financial superpower,
you have to keep yourself economically open, otherwise the financial architecture that sustains the Dollar Standard will crumble
(since the USD is fiat money).
If your country wants to be the world's sole superpower in a capitalist world, it has to have two titles/belts: financial
and industrial superpower.
In 1946, the USA was both, hence it was the sole capitalist superpower. When Germany and mainly Japan threatened its title
as the sole industrial superpower in the 1970s, the USA maneuvered to curb their developments in the Plaza Accord of 1985,
which forced both nations to value their respective currencies in relation to the Dollar.
The maneuver was providential, but it worked. Germany and Japan would enter into recession in the early 1990s, to never
recover again. However, it came with a cost to the USA: it had to outsource its manufacturing sector to China and content itself
in being just to retain the financial champion belt, scattering the industrial champion belt around Asia, thus letting this
"title" vacant. It stayed "vacant" for 20 years, until China, thanks to its socialist doctrine, was able to free itself from
the commodity cycle and middle income traps to launch itself in the direction of gaining the industrial superpower status.
div> Some people seem to think that for an entity to be classified as an "empire" there needs to be a guy at the top
who likes to wear shiny metal hats. If such individuals cannot update their archaic definitions then perhaps it would be better
for the discussion if new terminology were introduced that does not contain baggage for those individuals. Maybe something like
"supranational wealth extraction gang" would help?
Posted by: William Gruff , Dec 13 2019 13:46 utc |
60
Some people seem to think that for an entity to be classified as an "empire" there needs to be a guy at the top who
likes to wear shiny metal hats. If such individuals cannot update their archaic definitions then perhaps it would be better
for the discussion if new terminology were introduced that does not contain baggage for those individuals. Maybe something
like "supranational wealth extraction gang" would help?
Posted by: William Gruff | Dec 13 2019 13:46 utc |
60
Excellent posting thus far. Just one thing to add to your analysis: the non-finance oligarchs are more dependent on the
finance oligarchs than the other way around.
b's posting says:
"The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is because a deal was made between
Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi.."
I can't see those two trusting each other on anything. And the Senate Majority Leader, McConnell, appeared on Fixed News
last night and insisted that he will defer to Trump's lawyers in all strategic matters, including whether or not to call witnesses.
Given that the House Democrats have threatened that if this impeachment doesn't work, they will impeach him again on some other
matter; plus Trump's insane craving for vindication; or for the need to produce juicy sound bites for the re-election campaign;
or simply to stretch out the process past the Iowa caucuses, it is likely that this impeachment will have a more or less full
process, saving the summary treatment for the predictable follow-on impeachments.
Who was it that said "Repeating the same mistake, over and over, and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity"?
This strikes me as a George Zimmerman style impeachment.
Zimmerman's prosecutor purposefully charged him with murder, a case doomed to fail, rather than manslaughter, where it was
likely to fail but would have been more damning in the failure -- i.e. more facts would have been brought in and a big mess
would have been created.
Pelosi purposefully charges Trump with a very narrow impeachment, which is doomed to fail in the Senate, rather than conducting
a months-long investigation that would dig up what Biden was really doing in Ukraine and who he got permission from to operate
there. The investigation wouldn't have made impeachment more likely to succeed, it would have just made a bigger mess.
interesting that trump's numbers have risen so spectacularly in the last couple of weeks with this impeachment thing in my
view because it puts him (falsely or not) squarely back into the "maverick" role that the Public is ravenous to see, with all
its anger and desire to strike back at "the government" which is not doing well by the way (60% country moving in the wrong
direction; 17% approval of congress)--so, to me, the question is: Can Donald resist playing his cowboy savior maverick role
and pretending to straighten things out or not. Will he "do a deal" because McConnell is so convincing to him and he can pass
up a wonderful opportunity to put the Dems on trial for their obvious bullshit in the past three years, including what impetus
will be (coming right up) from Durham? I tend to believe the Donald Ego will welcome a Big Fight in The Impeachment Corral
much as he once delighted in phony wrestling.
--Patriot Act renewed
--New NAFTA passed this week
--New massive Defense bill passes
--New Paid Parental Leave for Fed employees(Clinton and Obama ignored this)
--Maybe a budget or at least easy continuing resolutions.
--Jews now nationality??? not too sure, more like the usual Trump stuff like moving embassy.
This stuff all happened in the last week or so after nothing happened for years.
To me this proves that there really is no difference between Ds and Rs, both side made (are still making) money on the plundering
of Ukraine after the coup.
I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment trial will just be more free campaign
time on the TV for Trump.
Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty option for the establishment.
Posted by: Ed | Dec 12 2019 19:12 utc | 5
=====================
The imperialist foreign policy entails "bipartisan consensus", "interagency consensus" etc. Sometimes I think that establishment
Democrats are patriots [in their self-image] who prefer a political calamity over the betrayal of that consensus. Trump is
an incoherent idiot and he may be attacked in many ways. Should he be attacked for disastrous breach of international agreements,
starting with the crown jewel of Obama's tenure, multilateral agreement with Iran? Or for a mockery he made from negotiations
with North Korea? Or inflicting misery across the globe with "maximal sanctions" policies, pretty much against everybody*?
No, no and no.
As some of the incoherent statements of Trump were "friendly toward Russia" (while he continued Nuland-Boland policies),
THAT was selected as the main target. So we are going back to 2016. In 2018 Democrats switched gears for the duration of election
campaign focusing on health care, something that Trump monumentally botched, but the imperialist circus is back. Lamentably,
the "deplorables" are not impressed and the electorally wobbly Rustbelt may be lost again in 2020 because of this inanities,
but the consensus (bipartisan, inter-agency etc.) will be preserved. History will remember the selfless sacrifice of these
idiots.
=====
* I read an article in Russia, full of gleeful satisfaction, about Lithuanian dairy producers being hit by a round of Trumpian
sanctions, in spite of indefatigable efforts of Lithuanian government to be the most obedient (if often neglected) poodle of
USA.
[Rubio's] Defending against the global mercantilist aspirations of China is a very responsible course of action for a policymaker.
Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Dec 13 2019 13:14 utc | 56
I wonder if Rubio will stay on this topic for full 15 minutes. It is actually very much against GOP ideology, industrial
policy coordinated by the federal government -- is a 5-year plan (as Stalin practiced) next? Or will he revert to plan B, assuring
that American families live better than those in the Marxist hell that is Venezuela through sanctions, sabotage etc.? Plan
A, actually doing something about USAians having decent jobs, would make the likes of Rubio vomiting and defecating uncontrollably
as they couldn't digest it. So my bet is that he will stay with plan B.
Maybe I am dim, but I have read the transcript of the infamous phone call between Trump and Zelensky several times and I do
not understand how it is being interpreted as Trump trying to pressure the Ukrainian president to smear Biden. As I read the
transcript, the favour Trump asked was for Ukraine to look into Crowdstrike. It seems to me that asking about the Bidens was
almost an afterthought, not the main thrust of the conversation.
I'm not American, maybe I am missing something that is culturally obvious to Americans? Do Americans read the transcript
and see something I don't? Would it not be in the USA's interest to know if Crowdstrike was involved in the activities that
are said to have been an interference in the last election?
Not trying to derail the discussion here, but genuinely puzzled.
Posted by: Lorna MacKay | Dec 13 2019 19:50 utc | 69
"Do Americans read the transcript and see something I don't?"
Only the ones that are Trump-Deranged. Everyone else sees what you saw, standard operating procedure among all US elites
including of course all presidents and high officials. Both Obama and Sec. of State Hillary made dozens of calls exactly like
that.
I'll give it a 2-finger shot. The Credentialed 20%ers, along with their center-left-turned-right House masters are furiously
clutching their rosery bead (heres hatin on you and your pitiful brethren, Nancy!) .. while the Red Senators are all taking
turns hold Satan's pitchfork, hoping they don't get pricked .. or worse!, as the republican mope's support starts to melt away
like an iceberg at the equator !!
As an aside .. all one has to do is read the comments over at the Hedge, to see that many (but not all, by far ..) have, over
these past 3+ years, have gone through a phase-change, seeing the blatant bs .. from both legasy parties, without eyes wide
shut !
Both Trump and Zelensky were elected on platforms of peace with Russia. What was in that phone call that got Pelosi onboard
with impeachment, after years of taking it off the table?
I doubt very much that it was the claimed statement of Trump asking for help with a corruption investigation. (Which is perfectly
legal under a 1998 Treaty signed by Clinton).
Something got that CIA spy running to Adam Schiff, and something got Pelosi to move forward. Did Trump and Zelensky speak of
the Forbidden thing, making peace?
Biden was not the front runner until they needed him to be. You would be hard pressed to find an actual Biden supporter. They
are telling us this, because otherwise the ridiculous impeachment charge would not make sense. (Not that it makes a whole lot
of sense anyway).
In the Foreign Relations speech in which Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired, he also said that he was still in
touch with Ukrainian oligarchs, and he then would pass the word to Pence. Pence?
Don't be too surprised if the Senate votes to replace Trump with Pence.
Lorna MacKay at 69, when the media tells you something, it doesn't mean it is true. Of course, the transcript doesn't show
anything wrong. The only Americans who are culturally programmed to see anything there are the ones whose brains have been
turned to mush by TDS. (Trump Derangement Syndrome).
It's not you, it's us.
If I had money to put on the impeachment trial in the Senate, it would be on Donald NOT doing a deal to save various butts
and FOR going for the Dems' jugualar(s) and let the chips fall where they may on the Repug side.
I just cannot see him acting "statesmanlike" and forgoing seeking vindication after the provocations of the past three years.
Would you? I mean, even normal-size egos have a "Make my day" threshold. I reckon that Trump's threshold was the beginning
of the actual impeachment "hearing."
It seems to me that asking about the Bidens was almost an afterthought
This is what I have contended. Trump didn't need to mention Biden at all.
Did he do it innocently? Was it an ego-driven mistake?
Maybe.
But Trump has done other things that suggest that he did so as kayfabe . He engaged in a heated campaign with
Hillary and promised to have a special prosecutor investigate her if he was elected. But within days of being elected announced
that he would not do so (his first broken promise). Was the Hillary-Trump battle really as contentious as it appeared?
Trump invited Nancy Pelosi to a White House meeting days before the vote for Speaker of the House. This gave Pelosi a boost
at a time when Democrats were grumbling that she didn't deserve to be Speaker (she had worked closely with GW Bush Administration).
Result: Pelosi was elected Speaker.
Lastly, it's strange that Hilllary and Pelosi were adamantly against impeachment wrt Russiagate (the Mueller Report
cited possible obstruction of justice), saying that voters should decide in 2020 but approved impeachment for Ukrainegate where
the grounds for impeachment are arguably worse. Their refusal to allow impeachment after the Mueller Report was widely seen
(by progressives) as the establishment protecting Trump. Impeachment over Ukrainegate conveniently ended such speculation
.
Impeachment over Russiagate could have brought unwanted public scrutiny of CIA-MI6 and the Deep State. Instead, AG Wm Barr
will make sure things are 'sorted' in a way that safeguards the Deep State. Not surprisingly, he just announced that the FBI
acted in "bad faith" - a mild rebuke that almost guarantees that no one will be held accountable.
Some believe that the political disaster that Democrats reap from impeachment will be hung around the neck of the progressives
that clamored for impeachment in Spring 2019 (after the Mueller Report). IMO that 'hunch' is likely to prove accurate.
Whereas it is very likely that not just Hunter but Joe Biden can be brought down, it would come at the expense of a massive
draining of a bipartisan Congressional / Senatorial money laundering swamp, with millions, perhaps billions in US tax dollars
being recycled back into campaign contributions, etc. Many heads might roll, including several on the Republican side of
the Senate chamber.
Thank you and exactly that.
There has been brief mention of Biden shenanigans in China too but now studiously avoided. Perhaps the same boondoggle there
as well or maybe that is the country behind the threat from Biden to Lindsay Graham re going down big time.
Would it not be in the USA's interest to know if Crowdstrike was involved in the activities that are said to have been an
interference in the last election?
I fully agree with you. The Crowdstrike bust would give Trump the material needed to truly unravel the CIA (Brennan) and
FBI (Comey/Mueller)saboteurs. These pigs set out to smash Trump and his family, and Presidency. He will no doubt find a way
to extract revenge as he is known for that.
Pressing Zelensky on the Crowdstrike element is mighty good politics as it would likely disable the Democrat machinery for
many election cycles if the dogs of war are loosed on the DNC internal malevolence.
The Agreement to have limited charges (nothing related to Russiagate!) and no calling of witnesses (Bidens are safe) was
likely agreed in late Spring 2019 when the kayfabe was arranged.
Also, although there's been much hand-wringing about Joe Biden's electoral prospects, the kayfabe has helped Biden
as he now says that Trump focused on him because Trump fears him as a political opponent. This plays into the establishment's
main electoral ploy: electability!
In the Foreign Relations speech in which Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired, he also said that he was still
in touch with Ukrainian oligarchs, and he then would pass the word to Pence. Pence?
Don't be too surprised if the Senate votes to replace Trump with Pence.
Fascinating proposition. The Senate calls no witnesses and votes for impeachment? Unlikely, but I wont dismiss either that
or a drawn out trial and votes for impeachment - or not. Strange theatre this stuff.
One thing for sure - if the Senate votes to impeach all hell will break out in the Repugnant party. The USA political serenity
has been totally disturbed by Trump's election (or should I say Hillary Clinton's capitulation and not campaign in three key
states).
If Trump gets re-elected, if Big Tech continues to evade accountability, if imperial
adventures continue abroad, if migrant farmworkers cannot feed their families, you can trace
it back to this Tuesday, and the actions a House Speaker took while nobody was paying
attention .
-- David Dayen, The American Prospect (emphasis added)
As the Impeachment Drama lumbers to a 2020 conclusion, morphing into its variant selves and
sucking life from every other story the media most folks attend to are inclined to tell,
unwatched things are happening in its shadow.
Nancy Pelosi has used end-of-year urgency and the impeachment distraction to pass four
pieces of major legislation, three of which will become law, all on the same day.
NAFTA 2.0 is one of them. Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, agreed under pressure to
approve Pelosi's House version of NAFTA 2.0, rebranded "USMCA," or United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement, for obvious reasons. This is a deal he should never have made, yet he made it.
Consider who Trumka is -- a bridge between the neoliberal mainstream of the Democratic Party
and the (presumably further left) labor movement that supports and sustains it. In other words,
he's the person who blesses neoliberal policies as "progressive" (thus retaining mainstream
Democratic Party approval) while modifying those policies in the margins to be less terrible
(thus retaining the approval of progressives, who want to think of him as opposed to
neoliberalist policies).
He's the person, in other words, who makes the labor movement look less like a puppy of the
Democratic Party establishment to progressives, while keeping the labor movement (and himself)
firmly in the Party establishment tent. The drama of "Will Trumka approve USMCA?" we recently
witnessed exemplified this role.
To anyone with two cells in their brain, it was obvious as soon as the question was asked
that he would approve USMCA. The stage was set; his arrival on it announced; the spotlight was
ready and bright. Would he really walk onto this stage at this late date and say no to Party
leaders? Of course not.
Would he have been able to stay in his lofty perch if he had? His job was to bless the cake
after it had been baked, not to unbake it.
What pressure was Trumka under? First, obviously, from the Democratic Party and its
billionaire donors, to give them what they and the Republicans -- and Donald
Trump -- all wanted, a neoliberal-lite trade deal that could become in Nancy Pelosi's words "a
template for future trade agreements a good template."
Second, Trumka was under pressure from his union base itself (so say some, including David
Dayen in the piece linked below), many of whom are Trump supporters, to give President Trump a
signature first-term victory, just in time for the start of his second-term campaign.
Do I believe this latter explanation? No, but I believe Trumka believes it. And if indeed it
is true that Trumka has to serve Trump, at least in part, in order to serve his own base, it's
further evidence of the careerism of his actions, in contrast to behavior from actual
labor-movement principles.
Here's Dayen on this sordid tale (emphasis added):
Pelosi got
AFL-CIO president Rich Trumka to sign off on the U.S.–Mexico-Canada Agreement
(USMCA), handing Trump a political victory on one of his signature issues. Predictably, White
House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham immediately gushed, calling USMCA "the biggest and
best trade agreement in the history of the world."
It's, um, not that. Economically, USMCA is a nothingburger; even
the most rose-colored analysis with doubtful assumptions built in shows GDP growth of
only 0.06 percent per year. There's one good provision: the elimination of the investor-state
dispute settlement (ISDS) provision that allowed corporations to sue governments in secret
tribunals over trade violations. There's one bad provision: the
extension of legal immunity for tech platforms over user-generated content, put into a
trade deal for the first time. This will make the immunity shield, codified in Section 230 of
the Communications Decency Act, much harder to alter in the future. Pelosi has called this
deal a "template" for future agreements, though trade reformers have called it a bare minimum
floor.
Pelosi
tried to remove the immunity shield , but abandoned the request. She did succeed in
removing a provision for Big Pharma that extended exclusivity periods for biologics. The
Sierra Club has termed the deal an "
environmental failure " that will not have binding standards on clean air and water or
climate goals. But the threshold question on the USMCA was always going to be labor
enforcement: would the labor laws imposed on Mexico hold, improving their lot while giving
U.S. manufacturing workers a chance to compete? There was also the open question of why the
U.S. would reward Mexico with a trade deal update when trade unionists in the country
continue to be kidnapped and killed.
In his statement, Trumka lauds the labor enforcement, noting provisions that make it
easier to prove violations (including violence against workers), rules of evidence for
disputes, and inspections of Mexican facilities, a key win. But I've been told that the
AFL-CIO did not see the details of the text before signing off, which is unforgivable ,
especially on trade where details matter. There was
no vote by union leaders , just a briefing from the AFL-CIO.
At least one union, the Machinists, remains opposed , and
others were noncommittal until they see text. The Economic Policy Institute, which is
strongly tied to labor, called the agreement " weak tea at
best ," a tiny advance on the status quo that will not reverse decades of outsourcing of
U.S. jobs.
Meanwhile, back at the Trump re-election ranch:
While the economics are negligible (and potentially harmful on tech policy), on the
politics
activists are losing their mind at the prospect of a Trump signing ceremony, with labor
by his side, on a deal that he will construe as keeping promises to Midwest voters . "Any
corporate Democrat who pushed to get this agreement passed that thinks Donald Trump is going
to share the credit for those improvements is dangerously gullible," said Yvette Simpson, CEO
of Democracy for America, in a statement. Only a small handful of Democratic centrists were
pushing for a USMCA vote, based mostly on the idea that they had to "do something" to show
that they could get things done in Congress. Now they've got it, and they'll have to live
with the consequences.
I guess helping re-elect the "
most dangerous president ever " pales in comparison to passing bipartisan-approved
neoliberal trade deals.
One of Richard Trumka's jobs, if he wants to stay employed, is to make sure neoliberal Party
leaders like Nancy Pelosi are happy and well served while simultaneously keeping progressives
thinking that Big Labor is still in their corner even on issues the donor class most cares
about.
"... Ciaramella notably contacted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's (D-CA) office before filing his complaint , on a form which was altered to allow for second-hand information, after going to a Democratic operative attorney who will neither confirm nor deny his status as the whistleblower. ..."
NY Post Editorial Board Names Eric Ciaramella As Whistleblower by Tyler Durden Fri, 12/13/2019 - 10:30 0
SHARES
The
New York Post Editorial Board has named CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella as the whistleblower at
the heart of the Trump impeachment saga, confirming an October 30 report by
RealClearInvestigation 's Paul Sperry which has been widely cited in subsequent
reports.
Whistleblower lawyers refuse to confirm or deny Ciaramella is their man. His identity is
apparently the worst-kept secret of the Washington press corps . In a sign of how farcical
this has become, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said his name as part of a series of names
during a live hearing Wednesday night aired on television. He never called him the
whistleblower, just said he was someone Republicans thought should testify, yet Democrats
angrily denounced the "outing." If you don't know the man's name, how do you know the man's
name? -
New York Post
Ciaramella, a registered Democrat, is a CIA analyst who specializes in Russia and Ukraine,
and ran the Ukraine desk at the National Security Council (NSC) in 2016. He previously worked
for then-NSC adviser Susan Rice, as well as Joe Biden when the former VP was the Obama
administration's point-man for Ukraine. He also worked for former CIA Director John Brennan,
and was reportedly a highly valued employee according to
RedState ' s Elizabeth Vaughn. He also became former National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster's personal aide in June 2017, was
called out as a leaker by journalist Mike Cernovich that same month.
He also worked with Alexandra Chalupa , a Ukrainian-American lawyer and Democratic operative
involved in allegations that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 US election by releasing the so-called
'Black Ledger' that contained Paul Manafort's name.
In 2017, former White House chief strategist
Steve Bannon wanted Ciaramella kicked off the National Security Council over concerns about
leaks.
Earlier this year, Ciaramella ignited the Democratic impeachment efforts against President
Trump when, using second-hand information, he anonymously complained that Trump abused his
office when he asked Ukraine to investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his
son Hunter, as well as claims related to pro-Clinton election interference and DNC hacking in
2016.
Ciaramella notably contacted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's (D-CA)
office before filing his complaint , on a form which was altered to allow for second-hand
information, after going to a Democratic operative attorney who will neither confirm nor deny
his status as the whistleblower.
Steve Bannon was only on the National Security Council for two months, and was removed in
early April 2017 at the direction of the President. So the story about Bannon valiantly
trying to save the day is probably more of his resume padding.
Why did so many people -- from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to
state department and National Security Council officials -- feel the need to lie about how
the war in Afghanistan was going?
This is because it's easy cash cow for the old boys club by sending working class kids
to be killed in a far off land.
The pentagon with the full cooperation of MSM will sell it as we are defending our ways of
life by fighting a country 10,000 kms away. This show the poor literacy, poor analytical
thinking of US population constantly brain washed by MSM, holy men, clergy, other neo con
organisations like National rifle club etc.
I never knew USA dropped 2.7 millions tons of bombs and now so many left unexploded and
its same in Vietnam, Cambodia as neutral,
but i met so many injured kids etc from the bombs,.
the total MADNESS OF USA IS NAZI SM AT ITS BEST,.NO SHAME OR COMPASSION FOR THE
VICTIMS.
I cannot comprehend the money it cost USA,. AN ALSO PROFITS FOR SOME,.
With the exceptions of two attacks on American soil-Pearl Harbor and 911- the American people
and for the most part their legislative representatives in Congress- will always remain
cluless what the United States Government does overseas.
This country runs on its own drum beats. The ordinary man on the street needs to take care
of his economic needs. The Big Boys always take care of themselves. That includes the
military establishment, that is always entitled to an absurd amounts of monies, fueled by an
empire building machinery, pushed by the elites that control the fate of economic might, and
political orchestra that feeds its ego and prestige.
Time and again, our American sociopaths in power have a strangle hold on us, regardless of
the destruction and animosity they heap on distant peoples and lands the world over in the
name of national security and the democratic spiel, as they like to tell us ....
Richard Nixon, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson- Vietnam and the South East Asian countries of
Laos , Cambodia, are an example .
Years later, the establishment manufactures blatant cover-ups with lies upon lies to accuse
on record, as general Powell eloquently presented at the United Nations: That Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction and needs to be held accountable.And now, this report on
Afghanistan with all this pathological violence.
Is it reasonable to conclude that our democracy and its pathological actors in government
and big business will always purchase it by demagoguery and self vested interest, because the
ordinary man whose vote should count will never have the ultimate say when it comes to war
and destruction!
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- In testimony before Congress this week, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander
Vindman, an Army officer with more than 20 years of service, told lawmakers that he had heard
the president try to pressure Ukraine's president to unearth dirt on a political rival. In
response, the president's allies have decided to make an issue of Vindman's birthplace. They
say his infanthood in Kiev -- he left at age 3 -- reveals something about his character and his
allegiances. They are right, but in exactly the wrong way.
Here, you should pardon the expression, are some facts and a little bit of history. When
Vindman was born on June 6, 1975, Ukraine was enveloped in the Soviet Union. At birth, Vindman
would have been added temporarily to his parents' internal passports, a document that all
Soviet citizens were required to carry starting at 16, mostly to make sure they were not
residing somewhere without official permission.
That passport contained the infamous "fifth line" or "pyati punkt," in Russian, which had
been created under Josef Stalin and listed the holder's "nationality." Vindman was born in
Ukraine, but that line would not have said "Ukrainian" unless his parents had chosen to defy
the law. It would have said "Jew."
In the Soviet Union, Jews were considered separate and apart from other nationalities,
especially in two of the republics, Russia and Ukraine, where the local party enforcers were
particularly happy to do the Kremlin's dirty work. You could be born in Minsk or Pinsk, or Omsk
or Tomsk, or even Alexandrovsk or Petropavlovsk, and if you were born to Jewish parents, your
passport was likely stamped "Jew."
When I first learned this, upon arriving in Moscow in May 1983 as a reporter for the
Associated Press, I was outraged. I saw it like the Nazi's yellow star. I couldn't imagine how
Jewish people could stand it.
Until one day, I put that question to Naum Meiman, a Jewish mathematician who was part of
Andrei Sakharov's circle of dissidents. The answer was simple and humbling.
He didn't want "Russian," or any other so-called Soviet nationality, in his passport.
Russians didn't consider him Russian, officially or otherwise, and he didn't want the label.
"I'm a Jew who is forced to live in Russia, not a Russian," he said more than once.
I am certainly not speaking for Vindman, whom I do not know, but I have never met a Jew who
fled the Soviet Union and felt any kind of loyalty to the country -- one where Jews were
spurned from birth and then imprisoned within the state's borders until it decided to allow
them to leave. In those days, the Soviet Union revoked émigré's citizenships, in
what was supposed to be a final act of deep humiliation, but was invariably a badge of
pride.
"Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside
the White House, apparently against the president's interest," Fox News host Laura Ingraham
told viewers Monday.
The circumstances of Vindman's birth argue for a different interpretation. They show him to
be part of a tradition of 20th century Eastern European Jews who suffered under tyrannies of
the left and the right. These people fled the first chance they had to a country that would
accept them as fellow citizens, one where they would not be constantly questioned about their
loyalties. For many decades, that country was the United States.
To contact the author of this story: Andrew Rosenthal at andyrosenthal269@gmail.com
Retired Brigadier General Peter Zwack spoke to "Nightline" ahead of Vindman's testifying
before the House Intelligence Committee during a public impeachment hearing of President
Trump.
Former democrat
21 days ago Mr Vindman looks more like a doorman, than a Army Officer in that uniform !
Larry
21 days ago
What's that "thing" on his ring finger (appears wooden)? Is that from his partner "Husband"?
In my US Army years, soldiers were dishonorable discharged from this "Criminal Offense" !
A retired Army officer who worked with
Democrat "star witness" Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Grafenwoher, Germany, claims
Vindman "really talked up" President Barack Obama and ridiculed America and Americans in
front of Russian military officers.
In an eye-opening thread on Twitter last week, retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman
said that he "verbally reprimanded" Vindman after he heard some of his derisive remarks for
himself. " Do not let the uniform fool you," Hickman wrote. "He is a political activist in
uniform."
Hickman's former boss at the Joint Multinational Simulation Center in Grafenwoehr has
since gone on the record to corroborate his story.
Hickman, 52, says he's a disabled wounded warrior who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and
who received numerous medals, including the Purple Heart.
The retired officer said that Vindman, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Ukraine, made
fun of the United States to the point that it made other soldiers "uncomfortable." For
example, Hickman told American Greatness that he heard Vindman call Americans
"rednecks" -- a word that needed to be translated for the Russians. He said they all had a
big laugh at America's expense.
Vindman, who serves on the National Security Council (NSC), appeared last week before the
House Intelligence Committee and testified
that he'd had "concerns" about the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman's testimony rested on his negative opinions of the
call, rather than any new facts about the call.
Vindman's former boss, NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison, threw cold
water on Vindman's claims
in his own testimony later in the week, saying he didn't have concerns that "anything
illegal was discussed" in the phone call. Morrison also testified that Ukrainian officials
were not even aware that military funding had been delayed by the Trump Administration until
late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call.
"Completely Beyond Reproach"
Hickman said he decided to come forward because Vindman "disobeyed a direct order from
the commander-in-chief, his boss," made his testimony "about his foreign policy opinions
versus facts," and "wore his Army service uniform to make a political statement" against the
president.
"Then right on cue, the mainstream media began calling him a war hero with a purple
heart, and completely beyond reproach," Hickman wrote in a statement to American Greatness
and another journalist. "Knowing his political bias, backed by his somewhat radical
left-leaning ideology, it was my obligation, indeed my duty, to come forward with this
information. I couldn't go to the same mainstream media to put it out, nor could I go to the
Army, as they're backing Vindman, so I took to Twitter, a source for getting the truth out,"
he added.
According to Hickman, Vindman was the Defense Department attaché at the Russian
embassy in Germany when he met him in 2013. He told American Greatness that he also met
Vindman's twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman while he was stationed in Germany.
"I know LTC Alex Vindman from a Combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision [13] in
Grafenwoher," Hickman wrote on Twitter. "He worked with the Russian Embassy and I was
assigned to the JMTC (Joint Multinational Training Command), within USAREUR (US Army Europe).
He worked coordination w/the Russian 15th Peacekeeping Brigade, and I was in charge of all
Simulations planning, as well as assisting the USAREUR Lead Planner as the Senior Military
Planner."
Like his twin, Eugene Vindman has forged a career in White House civil service. In fact,
The Wall Street Journal reported
that it's possible Eugene Vindman might also be called to testify. Alexander Vindman
has stated that Eugene Vindman, also called Yevgeny Vindman, "witnessed (the) decision to move Trump-Zelensky call's
transcript to a top secret server," The Journal reported of the president's call to the president of Ukraine.
Vindman's twin brother lists his title as attorney at the White House on his Facebook page. Born Yevgeny Vindman, he
goes by Eugene Vindman on social media.
The twin's Facebook page explains that he is an attorney at The White House and a former Attorney at Judge Advocate
General's Corps, United States Army. He also says that he is a former Senior Trial Counsel at U.S. Army and former Major at
United States Army.
According to JTA
, Eugene Vindman is a lawyer on the national security council.
CNN called
Eugene Vindman "the chief ethics counsel at NSC."
His Facebook page also provides the following biographical details about Eugene:
Studied Law School at University of Georgia
Studied General Administration at Central Michigan University
Studied at UGA School of Law
Studied History at SUNY Binghamton
Went to Franklin D.Roosevelt High School
Lives in Washington, District of Columbia
From Brooklyn, New York
2. Eugene Vindman Was a Campaign Strategist for a Democratic Congressional Candidate
The Vindman brothers.
Eugene Vindman's Facebook page also describes him as a "former Campaign Strategist at Bobby Saxon for Congress (GA
District 10)."
Saxon ran as a Democrat. According to an article in
The Red & Black
, Saxon was running for public office for the first time and called himself a "regular guy."
The 2008 article describes him as saying, "I'm 46-years-old, and I've never run for an office. Most of all, I'm a
frustrated American who's mad that politicians have no clue what it's like to be one of us. We need regular people with
common sense in Washington D.C."
Like Eugene Vindman, Saxon had an Army background. "I'm a major in the Georgia Army National Guard," he explained.
3. Eugene Vindman Was Involved in Efforts to Find Roadside Bombers in Iraq
A 2010 NPR article
on the U.S. connecting dots to find roadside bombers quoted Eugene Vindman. "Maj. Eugene Vindman, a
JAG officer, or judge advocate general" said that a "network analysis course put him and other military lawyers in a better
position to carry out oversight responsibilities in Iraq," the article stated.
"[You could] maybe do a little bit of analysis on your own or ask some intelligent questions of the targeteers," Eugene
Vindman said to NPR, "to make sure that the target they've identified is not a guy that might have made a wrong phone call
to a bad guy but actually has enough links to that bad guy through other activities to actually be a bad guy and therefore
be a legal military target."
Alexander Vindman is also similarly invested in American government work. "Since 2008, I have been a Foreign Area
Officer specializing in Eurasia," he wrote. "In this role, I have served in the United States' embassies in Kiev, Ukraine
and Moscow, Russia. In Washington D.C., I was a politico-military affairs officer for Russia for the Chairman of Joint
Chiefs where I authored the principle strategy for managing competition with Russia. In July 2018, I was asked to serve at
the National Security Council."
... ... ...
There is another Vindman brother. He's older than the twins and his name is Leonid Simon Vindman.
Leonid Simon Vindman is the "Founder and Managing Partner, Tungsten Capital Advisors" and "has approximately thirty
years of experience in the financial markets,"
his company
website states.
"During the past twenty five years, he has been focusing predominantly on Central Eastern Europe, Russia and Central
Asia where he completed some of the biggest investment and advisory transactions in the region," according to the website.
"He also completed transactions in the Middle East, and traveled extensively in Asia and Africa."
The page continues: "Prior to founding Tungsten he was a Managing Director responsible for investment banking
origination and client coverage activities for Russia and CIS region at UniCredit Group – the largest international bank in
Central and Eastern Europe at that time. Previously he worked as a Vice President Investment Banking at JPMorgan Chase,
Principal Banker at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the EBRD), Senior Associate at Bankers Trust and
Manager at Central Europe Trust."
Leonid Vindman "received his Bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College and an MBA from the University of Chicago Booth
Graduate School of Business," his company website says.
The company's founding and managing partner Maria Starkova-Vindman is described as "an art historian and art advisor"
who previously "worked at the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow as an assistant keeper and curator, and taught on the
Courtauld MA course on global contemporary art."
Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman admitted that he had been offered to serve as minister of defense for
Ukraine.
Vindman, 44, explained
during his impeachment testimony that he had been offered the position three times but
declined the position because of his loyalty to the United States. The lieutenant colonel was
born in Ukraine, but his family immigrated to the U.S. when he was a toddler.
Vindman claimed he did not know why he was offered the high ranking position of defense
minister.
"Every single time, I dismissed it. Upon returning, I notified my chain of command and the
appropriate counterintelligence folks about the offer," said Vindman, later adding, "I think it
would be a great honor, and frankly, I'm aware of service members that have left service to
help nurture the developing democracies in that part of the world."
He declined the offer and told Congress, "I'm an American. I came here when I was a toddler,
and I immediately dismissed these offers. I did not entertain them."
Vindman added that he found the offer "rather comical," saying, "I was being asked to
consider whether I would want to be the minister of defense, I did not leave the door open at
all. But it is pretty funny for a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, which really is
not that senior, to be offered that illustrious of a position."
He explained that he had no follow-up questions about the position with his chain of
command. Vindman said he was not concerned about a "perception of a conflict of interest"
following his offer because he only valued the opinion of his American colleagues.
"Frankly, if they were concerned with me being able to continue my duties, they would have
brought that to my attention," said Vindman.
Vindman is the top Ukraine specialist on the National Security Council. He testified that he
raised concerns about President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky,
calling it "improper."
'Pushing a coup': Fellow soldiers slam Vindman for
testifying in uniform by Russ Read | November 08, 2019 03:49
PM
Print
this article S ome of
Alexander Vindman's fellow soldiers have blasted him for testifying in uniform during the
House impeachment hearings, accusing him of politicizing the military by stating personal
opinions that were highly critical of President Trump.
Vindman, 44, the National Security Council's
Ukraine director , was thrust into the political spotlight when he testified before
Congress on Oct. 29 as one of the few people who listened in on a
July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
His
appearance in uniform has been a point of contention. Military members detailed to the NSC
typically wear suits but Vindman gave his testimony in uniform, and was lauded for having been
awarded a Purple Heart for being wounded in Iraq, and a Combat Infantryman's Badge.
"This is a bad look for him to be in uniform," an active duty military officer stationed at
the Pentagon told the Washington Examiner. "He makes it look like the Army is behind
this. Like the Army is pushing a coup."
Another officer was concerned that Vindman's testimony veered too much into personal
assessment. "I don't care what he thinks, he's entitled to his opinion," the officer said. "But
it's an opinion and he should give it without the uniform."
A third officer said that Vindman's weight indicated he would be unlikely to pass the Combat
Fitness Test even though he had achieved a Ranger tab earlier in his career.
Matt Zeller, an Afghanistan veteran and fellow at the American Security Project, defended
Vindman. "I think he's a patriot, and how he's been treated is an abomination," Zeller told the
Washington Examiner . "All he is is a public servant doing his duty."
Vindman might have been required to wear his uniform, Zeller said, although where Army
regulations come down on the issue is unclear. The Army's Training and Doctrine Command did not
respond to questions from the Washington Examiner .
H.R. McMaster, who was an active duty lieutenant general in the Army during his tenure as
national security adviser, did not normally wear his uniform at the White House.
Military personnel such as Vindman detailed to the NSC operate within a unique system.
Unlike other troops who report to military commanders, military NSC staffers fall under
directors within the NSC itself. As a Ukraine expert, Vindman reports to civilian Andrew Peek,
who replaced Tim Morrison as the NSC's senior director for European and Russian affairs after
Morrison announced his departure last Wednesday, one day before he testified before the House
impeachment proceeding.
Military detailees generally are assigned to a unit within the Department of Defense for
administrative issues such as leave and pay. Performance reports, however, are handled by the
individual's boss on the NSC.
Most NSC staffers are drawn from the military and various other government agencies. They
generally are recruited via word-of-mouth, another change from typical government agencies that
are notorious for their long application processes.
The Reagan administration's NSC included Lt. Gen. Colin Powell and Lt. Col. Oliver North, .
Powell was national security adviser from 1987 to 1989 and went on to become chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State . North was on the NSC from 1981 to 1986 and
testified in uniform during the Iran-Contra hearings.
Vindman returned to work after his testimony and is expected to stay on at the NSC until his appointment ends next summer.
Just as was true when the Mueller investigation closed
without a single American being charged with criminally conspiring with Russia
over the 2016 election, Wednesday's issuance of the long-waited report from the
Department of Justice's Inspector General reveals that years of major claims and narratives
from the U.S. media were utter
frauds .
Before evaluating the media component of this scandal, the FBI's gross abuse of its power
– its serial deceit – is so grave and manifest that it requires little effort to
demonstrate it. In sum, the IG Report documents multiple instances in which the FBI – in
order to convince a FISA court to allow it spy on former Trump campaign operative Carter Page
during the 2016 election – manipulated documents, concealed crucial exonerating evidence,
and touted what it knew were unreliable if not outright false claims.
If you don't consider FBI lying, concealment of evidence, and manipulation of documents in
order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign to be a major scandal,
what is? But none of this is aberrational: the FBI still has its headquarters in a building
named after J. Edgar Hoover – who constantly blackmailed elected officials with dossiers
and tried to blackmail Martin Luther King into killing himself – because that's what
these security state agencies are. They are out-of-control, virtually unlimited police state
factions that lie, abuse their spying and law enforcement powers, and subvert democracy and
civic and political freedoms as a matter of course.
In this case, no rational person should allow standard partisan bickering to distort or hide
this severe FBI corruption. The IG Report leaves no doubt about it. It's brimming with proof of
FBI subterfuge and deceit, all in service of persuading a FISA court of something that was not
true: that U.S. citizen and former Trump campaign official Carter Page was an agent of the
Russian government and therefore needed to have his communications surveilled.
Rudy Giuliani Can Barely Contain Himself Over His Ukraine Findings by Tyler Durden Fri, 12/13/2019 -
17:05 0 SHARES
Rudy Giuliani is grinning like the Cheshire cat. His standard smile.
For the past several weeks, the personal attorney to President Trump has been in Ukraine,
interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence to shed light on what the Bidens were up to
during the Obama years, and get to the bottom of claims that Kiev interfered in the 2016 US
election in favor of Hillary Clinton. He has enlisted the help of former Ukrainian diplomat,
Andriy Telizhenko, to gather information from politicians and ask them to participate in a
documentary series in partnership with One America News Network (OANN) - which will make the
case for investigating the Bidens as well as Burisma Holdings - the natural gas firm which
employed the son of a sitting US Vice President in a case which reeks of textbook
corruption.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/zi2UWTO2DyY
According to the
Journal , Giuliani will present findings from his self-described "secret assignment" in a
20-page report .
Trump and Giuliani say then-Vice President Biden engaged in corruption when he called for
the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had investigated a Ukrainian gas company where
Hunter Biden served on the board. The Bidens deny wrongdoing, and ousting the prosecutor was
a goal at the time of the U.S. and several European countries . -
Wall Street Journal
( Note the Wall Street Journal's use of a straw man when they write: "The allegations of
Ukrainian election interference are at odds with findings by the U.S. intelligence community
that Russia was behind the election interference ."
Apparently the three journalists who collaborated on the article didn't get the memo that
two countries can meddle at the same time, nor did any of them read the January, 2017 Politico
article: Ukrainian
efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - which outlines how Ukrainian government officials
conspired with a DNC operative to hurt the Trump campaign during the 2016 election - a move
which led to the disruptive ouster of campaign chairman Paul Manafort).
Telizhenko, the former diplomat, tells the Journal that the plan for the series was
conceived during the impeachment hearings as a way for Giuliani to tell his side of the story.
The former Ukrainian diplomat flew to Washington on November 20 to film with Giuliani, while in
early December he accompanied America's Mayor on the Kiev trip - stopping in Budapest, Vienna
and Rome.
Rudy comes home
Upon his return to New York on Saturday, Giuliani says he took a call from President Trump
while his plane was still taxiing down the runway, according to the
Wall Street Journal .
" What did you get? " Trump asked. " More than you can imagine ," answered the former New
York mayor who gained notoriety in the 1980s for taking down the mob as a
then-federal prosecutor.
According to the 77-year-old Giuliani, Trump instructed him to brief Attorney General
William Barr and GOP lawmakers on his findings. Soon after, the president then told reporters
at the White House, " I hear he has found plenty ."
Rudy has been working on this project for a while. In late January, he conducted phone
interviews with former Ukrainian prosecutors Viktor Shokin and Yiury Lutsenko. On the call
was George Boyle -
Giuliani's Chief Operating Officer and Director of Investigations. Boyle started as a NYPD beat
cop in 1987, and was promoted to detective - eventually joining the Special Victims Squad. In
short, the ever-grinning Giuliani has some serious professionals working on this.
" When he believes he's right, he loves taking on fights ," said longtime Giuliani friend,
Tony Carbonetti.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
That said, Giuliani's efforts have not gone off without a hitch. In October, two associates
- Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, both of whom assisted with his Ukraine investigation, were
related in October on campaign-finance charges. Both men have pleaded not guilty, while
Giuliani denies wrongdoing and says they did not lobby him. Parnas, notably, was also on the
January call with Shokin and Lutsenko as a translator.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/tc4nQD6eiW4
In pressing ahead on Ukraine, Mr. Giuliani has replaced the translation skills of Messrs.
Parnas and Fruman with an app he downloaded that allows him to read Russian documents by
holding his phone over them . But on his recent trip, he said, "despite whatever else you can
say, I missed them." -
Wall Street Journal
Trump opponents insist Giuliani is conducting shadow foreign policy and orchestrated the
ouster of former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch - who Ukraine's new president
Volodomyr Zelensky complained on a now-famous July 25 phone call accused of not recognizing his
authority.
In the impeachment hearings, witnesses accused Mr. Giuliani of conducting a shadow foreign
policy and orchestrating the ouster of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. He was described as
"problematic" and "disruptive" and, in testimony that cited former national security adviser
John Bolton, likened to a "hand grenade that's going to blow everybody up." Mr. Giuliani has
said he kept the State Department apprised of his efforts and that he was working at the
president's behest. -
Wall Street Journal
" Just having fun while Dems and friends try to destroy my brilliant career ," Giuliani
wrote in a text message while conducting his investigation overseas.
Never forget... Giuliani was up to his neck in the treasonous happenings on 9/11. For
that, he can NEVER be forgiven... no matter how much dirt he digs up in this inane Ukranian
circus.
Three j ournalists also wrote a WSJ piece October 22, '19; one author same as
December 13 piece. ( Identify a narrative?)
Excerpts:
" Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani have repeatedly promoted an unsubstantiated theory that Ukraine
was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee before the 2016 election, and
that a related computer server is now located there. That theory is sharply at odds with the
findings of a special counsel investigation and a 2017 U.S. intelligence community report
that found Russia was responsible for the hack and leak of Democratic emails as part of a
broader operation intended to aid Mr. Trump."... ...
... ... " Mr. Giuliani, who didn't respond to a request for comment, had for months
pressed for Ukraine to investigate issues related to the 2016 election as well as Mr. Biden,
a potential 2020 rival of Mr. Trump. As vice president under President Obama, Mr. Biden led
an anti-corruption drive in Ukraine at the same time as his son received $50,000 a month for
sitting on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, an arrangement Mr. Trump has called corrupt.
Mr. Biden and his son have denied any wrongdoing, and no evidence of wrongdoing has been
presented. "
Former Attorney General Eric Holder, the first AG in history to be held in both
criminal and civil contempt by Congress for failing to turn over ' Fast and
Furious ' documents, says that current Attorney General William Barr is "nakedly partisan"
and unfit for office.
In a Wednesday night op-ed in the
Washington Post , Holder - who previously described himself as President Obama's
'wing-man,' wrote that Barr is employing "the tactics of an unscrupulous criminal defense
lawyer" by vilifying critics of President Trump.
Holder slammed Barr's recent comments at a Federalist Society event, in which the AG
"delivered an ode to essentially unbridled executive power" by "dismissing the authority of the
legislative and judicial branches."
When, in the same speech, Barr accused "the other side" of "the systematic shredding of
norms and the undermining of the rule of law," he exposed himself as a partisan actor, not an
impartial law enforcement official. Even more troubling -- and telling -- was a later (and
little-noticed) section of his remarks, in which Barr made the outlandish suggestion that
Congress cannot entrust anyone but the president himself to execute the law. -Eric Holder
"It undermines the need for understanding between law enforcement and certain communities
and flies in the face of everything the Justice Department stands for," wrote Holder, adding "I
and many other Justice veterans were hopeful that he would serve as a responsible steward of
the department and a protector of the rule of law."
So - Eric Holder thinks Barr should be an "impartial law enforcement official," and not a
"partisan actor," yet described himself in a
2013 interview as President Obama's "wing-man."
In 2012, 'scandal-free' Obama claimed executive privilege over Fast and Furious documents
"gunwalking" operation sought by House investigators investigating the death of Border Patrol
agent Brian Terry at the hands of foreign nationals who used a weapon obtained through illegal
straw purchases orchestrated by Obama's ATF.
Holder blasted the contempt votes as "politically motivated" and "misguided."
As a result of his stupidity, Attorney General Eric Holder's actions killed US Boarder and
Mexican police . Holder should have been charged with homicide for the murders of the US
Boarder Gaurds.
Holder is another protection card to play, yesterday it was Bill Clinton. They are
reaching desperation, bottom of the barrel, and soon all will be naked and exposed. Easy to
lose sight of the damage to our nation wrought by this one party that puts it's survival and
needs above us all.
This deal confirms the hypothesis that the DNC is fighting a "war on two fronts":
one against Trump and another against the socialist faction of its own party.
Notable quotes:
"... Professor Turley correctly points out that there are several other serious issues over which Trump could (and should) probably be impeached. So why did House Speaker Pelosi allow only such a narrow and weak impeachment resolution? The text of the impeachment resolution is currently in the Judiciary Committee where it will be discussed today. The language may still get sharpened a bit but there will be no additions to its core. ..."
"... The Senate could interrupt the campaigning of several sitting Senators who run in the primaries to stand as the Democratic presidential candidate. It could call Joe and Hunter Biden and the 'whistleblower' as witnesses. It could dig deeper into Russia-gate. The risk for the Democrats during this process would be enormous. ..."
"... The piece goes on to say that the Republicans allegedly fear that they may not have the votes to call witnesses. That is of course nonsense. The Republicans have 53 Senate seats and the Democrats have 47. And digging into the sleaze of Joe Biden would surely bring additional voter support and not risk any Senate seats. ..."
"... The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is because a deal was made between Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi. The deal prevented an extensive impeachment inquiry and trial that could have hurt both sides with uncertain outcome. ..."
"... That a deal was made explains why Pelosi has chosen impeachment and not censure even as polls were showing opposition to impeachment. It explains why she allowed only a narrow resolution based on weak evidence. It explains why the House agreed to Trump's ginormous defense budget in the same week that it produced an impeachment resolution against him. It also guarantees that there would be no deeper digging by Democrats against Trump. It guarantees the he will under no circumstances be found guilty and impeached. ..."
"... Both sides can live with the results of this narrow process. The Democrats demonstrate to their core constituency that they are willing to take on Trump. The Republicans show that they stand with their president and against the lame accusations. ..."
"... my hunch is that he is in on the deal. The narrowness of the impeachment resolution prevents that some other dirty deals by him might come to light. It makes another real impeachment process more unlikely. It guarantees his political survival. ..."
"... So, after indulging her caucus, Pelosi has thus cut a deal to make sure it ends quickly. I think the double-dealing is harming her health, both physical and mental. ..."
"... I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment trial will just be more free campaign time on the TV for Trump. Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty option for the establishment. ..."
"... The "political circus" is ongoing like some crazed Broadway production for 3+ years already and destined for more. That genuine articles of impeachment that ought to gain a conviction weren't employed is glaringly obvious to those few patriots that are watching. But the Congressional insanity continues as noted in my other comments made today. ..."
"... The average Republican in the Senate still does not like DJT. The average Republican in the Senate does not like where the DJT-phenomenon is leading the country (into the light) and therefore prefers a course of action to not only minimize the gain that POTUS could incur as a result of a full-blown impeachment, but also minimizes the damage to Democrats and their constituents that are still littered with true-believers suffering from massive TDS. ..."
"... he Repub decision for an expedited impeachment benefits everyone, including Biden, except Trump! ..."
"... Biden is still the front-runner (to my great surprise). A show in the senate could sink him, and then someone else would be nominated. Someone stronger, perhaps. Thus, tactically it might make sense to let Biden get the nomination, and then attack him with full force... ..."
"... If Biden was disposable, the impeachment would go on in its full or there would be simply a censure. The reason the DNC is going so far to save Joe Biden is because centrism is in survival mode. ..."
"... Yep, and not just centrism, but the whole neo-liberal philosophy. Not to worry though, big organised $ will win the day. ..."
"... ...another reason might be that a lot of politicians from both parties are so corrupt that going after Biden could open a flood of scandals. ..."
"... I'm sure when Biden said "Lindsey [Graham] is about to go down in a way that I think he's going to regret his whole life" he meant something. They're all in the same boat. ..."
The Impeachment Deal Between The House And The Senate
Two weeks ago we analyzed the consequences of an impeachment process of President Donal
Trump. We found that the Democrats would lose by impeaching him and would therefore
likely censure him instead . We were wrong. A week later Pelosi announced
to proceed with impeachment.
Only today did I understand where I was wrong and what had since happened. Let me walk you
through it.
The earlier conclusion was based on this table of possible outcomes of an impeachment
resolution:
If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp, which
seems likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she proceed?
If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
If the House votes for censure, Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue will
be over.
If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
Should the House vote for impeachment the Senate is likely to go the second path.
Looking at the choices it is quite curious why Pelosi took that decision and there has been
so far no in-depth explanation for it.
The rather short
House Resolution (also
here ) Pelosi let pass has only two articles of impeachment of Trump. The issues over which
he is supposed to be impeached for are
very limited :
Democratic leaders say Trump put his political interests above those of the nation when he
asked Ukraine to investigate his rivals, including Democrat Joe Biden, and then withheld $400
million in military aid as the U.S. ally faced an aggressive Russia.
They say he then obstructed Congress by stonewalling the House investigation.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky himself said that he did not know that Trump withheld
the $400 million for Ukraine when he had the phone call with the president in which Trump asked
him to dig into the Burisma/Biden affair. The request itself is legitimate as Biden has lots of
dirt in Ukraine. But there was no quid-quo-pro and no bribery, at least not in the phone call
the CIA 'whistleblower' and some of the witnesses complained about. Where then is the evidence
that Trump abused his power?
The obstruction of Congress accusation is equally weak. Trump had rejected the House
subpoenas to his staff because he wanted a judicial review of their legality. They might indeed
infringe on certain presidential privileges. The court process would take several months but
the Democrats simply do not want to wait that long. So who is really obstructing the legal
process in this?
Law professor Jonathan Turley, who is not a Trump fan and had testified in front of the
House Judiciary Committee, finds both points the Democrats make extremely week :
For three years, the same Democratic leadership told the public that a variety of criminal
and impeachable acts were proven in the Mueller investigation. None of those crimes are now
part of this impeachment.
Why? Because it would have been too easy an impeachment? Hardly.
Instead, the House will go forward on the only two plausible grounds that I outlined in my
testimony - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Unlike the other claims, the problem
is not with the legal basis for such impeachable offences but the evidentiary record.
This record remains both incomplete and conflicted. The Democrats have insisted on
impeaching by Christmas rather than build a record to support such charges.
...
This is now the fastest investigation with the thinnest record supporting the narrowest
impeachment in modern history.
...
The Democrats just gave Trump the best Christmas gift he could hope for under these two
circumstances ...
Professor Turley correctly points out that there are several other serious issues over which
Trump could (and should) probably be impeached. So why did House Speaker Pelosi allow only such a narrow and weak impeachment
resolution? The text of the impeachment resolution is currently in the Judiciary Committee where it will
be discussed today. The language may still get sharpened a bit
but there will be no additions to its core.
The House will then vote on it within the next week. The Senate will launch the impeachment
trial in January.
Which brings me back to the possible outcomes table:
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
The Senate could interrupt the campaigning of several sitting Senators who run in the
primaries to stand as the Democratic presidential candidate. It could call Joe and Hunter Biden
and the 'whistleblower' as witnesses. It could dig deeper into Russia-gate. The risk for the
Democrats during this process would be enormous.
But Pelosi still took that way and allowed for only a very weak impeachment resolutions. That led me to assume that a deal was made that allowed Pelosi to go that way. But there was
no sign that such a deal was made. Only today do we get the confirmation, as open as we will ever get it, that a deal has
indeed been made.
Senate Republicans are coalescing around a strategy of holding a short impeachment trial
early next year that would include no witnesses , a plan that could clash with President
Trump's desire to stage a public defense of his actions toward Ukraine that would include
testimony the White House believes would damage its political rivals.
Several GOP senators on Wednesday said it would be better to limit the trial and quickly
vote to acquit Trump, rather than engage in what could become a political circus.
"I would say I don't think the appetite is real high for turning this into a prolonged
spectacle," Senate Majority Whip John Thune (S.D.), the chamber's second-ranking
Republican, told The Washington Post on Wednesday when asked whether Trump will get the
witnesses he wants in an impeachment trial.
...
Most notably, a quick, clean trial is broadly perceived to be the preference of Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) , who wants to minimize political distractions in an
election year during which Republicans will be working to protect their slim majority in the
chamber.
The piece goes on to say that the Republicans allegedly fear that they may not have the
votes to call witnesses. That is of course nonsense. The Republicans have 53 Senate seats and
the Democrats have 47. And digging into the sleaze of Joe Biden would surely bring additional
voter support and not risk any Senate seats.
The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is
because a deal was made between Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi. The deal prevented an extensive impeachment inquiry and trial that could have hurt both
sides with uncertain outcome.
The narrowness and weakness of the impeachment resolution that can not hurt the president
was in exchange for a no-fuzz process in the Senate that will not dig into Biden and will not
hurt the Democrats during next year's election.
That a deal was made explains why Pelosi has chosen impeachment and not censure even as
polls were showing opposition to impeachment. It explains why she allowed only a narrow
resolution based on weak evidence. It explains why the House agreed to Trump's ginormous
defense budget in the same week that it produced an impeachment resolution against him. It also
guarantees that there would be no deeper digging by Democrats against Trump. It guarantees the
he will under no circumstances be found guilty and impeached.
Both sides can live with the results of this narrow process. The Democrats demonstrate to
their core constituency that they are willing to take on Trump. The Republicans show that they
stand with their president and against the lame accusations.
Trump will loudly claim that he does not like that the Senate will shut down the issue as
soon as possible. He will twitter that the Senate must tear into Biden and other Democrats. He
will play deeply disappointed when it does not do that.
But my hunch is that he is in on the deal. The narrowness of the impeachment resolution
prevents that some other dirty deals by him might come to light. It makes another real
impeachment process more unlikely. It guarantees his political survival.
The question left is if there were additional elements in this deal. What could those be
about?
(This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our
work .)
Posted by b on December 12, 2019 at 18:44 UTC |
Permalink
Don't forget Sanders.
Pelosi pulling back from any impeachment attempt would only serve to underscore the
pusillanimity of the Democratic leadership.
If the Democrats *must* do an impeachment but would be hurt by a Republican Senate hit back,
this deal makes perfect sense.
Clearly Trump doesn't care about doling out money to corrupt countries. If he did, he would
be stopping aid to Israel where Netanyahu has actually been indicted on multiple counts of
corruption.
So, after indulging her caucus, Pelosi has thus cut a deal to make sure it ends quickly. I
think the double-dealing is harming her health, both physical and mental.
Dems will be able to paint swing state republicans that have been trying to distance
themselves from Trump as Trump lackeys for their 2020 reelection bids. Saying these GOP
senators are perfectly fine with inviting foreign interference into elections.
To me this proves that there really is no difference between Ds and Rs, both side made (are
still making) money on the plundering of Ukraine after the coup.
I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment
trial will just be more free campaign time on the TV for Trump. Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty
option for the establishment.
Not sure. McConnell may actually prefer working against a Dem prez than working for a Pub.
Especially a Pub loose cannon like Trump. To date, McConnell has a better record in
obstructing Dem execut8ve plans than passing GOP proposals.
Bernard makes a lot of sense today. The swamp is on the verge of eating its own and
neither Pelosi or McConnell desire that.
Pelosi remains alive only through the deal she made with the Devil decades ago which she
continues to honor daily.
This quote from the cited WaPost article is too funny:
"Several GOP senators on Wednesday said it would be better to limit the trial and quickly
vote to acquit Trump, rather than engage in what could become a political circus ."
[my emphasis]
The "political circus" is ongoing like some crazed Broadway production for 3+ years
already and destined for more. That genuine articles of impeachment that ought to gain a
conviction weren't employed is glaringly obvious to those few patriots that are watching. But
the Congressional insanity continues as noted in my other comments made today.
Someone wrote that this is the season of pantomime, and to that I must agree. Fantasies
and falsehoods peddled as realities all for the purpose of further enriching the few while
the many rejoice in their collective gullibility. Please, add another shot of brandy to my
eggnog!
B, you are right that deals have been made, but you are wrong to think Trump is in on it.
He may go along with it, but that does not mean he is arguing from a point of
weakness.
Here is the fact:
The average Republican in the Senate still does not like DJT. The average Republican in
the Senate does not like where the DJT-phenomenon is leading the country (into the light) and
therefore prefers a course of action to not only minimize the gain that POTUS could incur as
a result of a full-blown impeachment, but also minimizes the damage to Democrats and their
constituents that are still littered with true-believers suffering from massive TDS.
If they look weak towards POTUS, the Dems will have signaled their acknowledgment that
this whole affair is in fact a distraction.
Therefore, you can see that the Repub decision for an expedited impeachment benefits
everyone, including Biden, except Trump!
It can be inferred that the Repubs are still dreaming of DJT's eventual dethronement and a
return to the standard operating procedure of the pre-DJT era.
Biden is still the front-runner (to my great surprise). A show in the senate could sink him,
and then someone else would be nominated. Someone stronger, perhaps. Thus, tactically it
might make sense to let Biden get the nomination, and then attack him with full force...
Who knows. They have consultants to tell them how to play the game.
This deal confirms my long-held hypothesis that the DNC is fighting a "war on two fronts":
one against Trump and another against the socialist faction of its own party.
If Biden was disposable, the impeachment would go on in its full or there would be simply
a censure. The reason the DNC is going so far to save Joe Biden is because centrism is in
survival mode.
...another reason might be that a lot of politicians from both parties are so corrupt that
going after Biden could open a flood of scandals.
I'm sure when Biden said "Lindsey [Graham] is about to go down in a way that I think he's
going to regret his whole life" he meant something. They're all in the same boat.
"... The Washington Examiner first reported Friday that lawyers for the Free Beacon -- a conservative outlet based in the nation's capital -- funded the project from fall 2015 to spring 2016, when it pulled its funding as Trump looked set to clinch the nomination. ..."
"... Washington Free Beacon ..."
"... After the Democrats took over funding of the operation in mid-2016, Fusion GPS would hire former British spy Christopher Steele and would lead to the production of the so-called "Trump dossier," filled with salacious but unconfirmed claims about how Trump was compromised by the Russians. ..."
"... The Free Beacon noted in its statement that it had "no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele." ..."
"... The Free Beacon is funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire and major GOP donor Paul Singer. The New York Times reports that Singer initially supported Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) for the Republican nomination, but later spearheaded a campaign to deny Trump the nomination even after Rubio dropped out of the race. ..."
"... While supporting Republican establishment favorites such as Rubio and 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Singer was a major backer of Common Core and was the founder of a super-PAC that has the express purpose of turning the GOP pro-gay marriage. ..."
"... Kristol is also the founder of the Weekly Standard, which like the Free Beacon has a neoconservative foreign policy outlook. The Free Beacon was co-founded by two former Weekly Standard writers, chairman Michael Goldfarb and editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti. ..."
The Washington Free Beacon, funded by GOP mega-donor Paul Singer, was the original funder of
Fusion GPS' research project that attempted to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump -- a
project that would later be funded by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's
campaign.
The Washington Examiner first
reported Friday that lawyers for the Free Beacon -- a conservative outlet based in the
nation's capital -- funded the project from fall 2015 to spring 2016, when it pulled its
funding as Trump looked set to clinch the nomination.
Lawyers for the Free Beacon informed the House Intelligence Committee of its role in the
funding on Friday. The outlet issued a statement
standing by its decision to fund the project:
Since its launch in February of 2012, the Washington Free Beacon has retained
third party firms to conduct research on many individuals and institutions of interest to us
and our readers. In that capacity, during the 2016 election cycle we retained Fusion GPS to
provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary, just as we
retained other firms to assist in our research into Hillary Clinton.
After the Democrats took over funding of the operation in mid-2016, Fusion GPS would
hire former British spy Christopher Steele and would lead to the production of the so-called
"Trump dossier," filled with salacious but unconfirmed claims about how Trump was compromised
by the Russians.
Fusion has come under scrutiny for its
alleged ties to Russia, including the fact that many of the claims
originate from Kremlin sources -- meaning that the information came from inside the Russian
government.
The Free Beacon noted in its statement that it had "no knowledge of or connection to the
Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or
provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele."
"The Washington Free Beacon has issued a statement asserting that it had no involvement with
Christopher Steele or the dossier he compiled from Russian sources," Jack Langer, spokesman for
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told Breitbart News. "The Beacon has
agreed to cooperate with the House Intelligence Committee to help the Committee verify this
assertion."
Yet, the revelation is likely to fuel questions about the role the so-called "Never Trump"
movement played in an effort that would eventually inflict damage on President Trump, and that
was possibly part of a Russian misinformation scheme.
The Free Beacon is funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire and major
GOP donor Paul Singer. The New York Times reports
that Singer initially supported Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) for the Republican nomination, but
later spearheaded a campaign to deny Trump the nomination even after Rubio dropped out of the
race.
While supporting Republican establishment favorites such as Rubio and 2012 presidential
candidate Mitt Romney, Singer was a major
backer of Common Core and was the
founder of a super-PAC that has the express purpose of turning the GOP pro-gay
marriage.
The Examiner reports that the Free Beacon was originally part of the 501(c)(4)
tax-exempt organization -- the Center for American Freedom -- but in 2014 became a for-profit
organization. The Center's original board of directors includes William Kristol, a prominent
"Never Trump" activist.
Kristol is also the founder of the Weekly Standard, which like the Free Beacon has a
neoconservative foreign policy outlook. The Free Beacon was co-founded by two former Weekly
Standard writers, chairman Michael Goldfarb and editor-in-chief Matthew Continetti.
***Update***
"The Washington Free Beacon has issued a statement asserting that it had no involvement with
Christopher Steele or the dossier he compiled from Russian sources," Jack Langer, spokesman for
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told Breitbart News. "The Beacon has
agreed to cooperate with the House Intelligence Committee to help the Committee verify this
assertion."
TrumpAlways •
2 years ago • edited I smell McCain. Anyone else smell McCain with a little bit of
Bush in there...
Now that we know Carter Page was working for the CIA as an informant in 2016, is it
reasonable to speculate that Page was planted in the Trump campaign by the CIA?
And behind Brennan we can can see the Nobel Peace Price winner.
Notable quotes:
"... A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the current director of the CIA. ..."
"... One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign. ..."
"... The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with. ..."
"... The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors. ..."
"... That the dossier was mere dreck was quite obvious to any sober person who read it when it was first published ..."
"... That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level", face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. ..."
"... (This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our work .) ..."
"... Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan, Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new McCarthyism. ..."
"... "Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted." ..."
"... ... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate ... ..."
"... It's Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice (to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an inevitability as the US elite had assumed. ..."
"... Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone? Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public (meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story). ..."
"... Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier. Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others. ..."
"... physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns. ..."
"... So Horowitz was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice. ..."
When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the relevant powers
launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump.
The ultimate aim of the cabal is to kick him out of office and have a reliable
replacement, like the Vice-President elect Pence, take over. Should that not be possible
it is hoped that the delegitimization will make it impossible for Trump to change major
policy trajectories especially in foreign policy. A main issue here is the reorientation of
the U.S. military complex and its NATO proxies from the war of terror towards a direct
confrontation with main powers like Russia and China.
...
A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the
current director of the CIA.
One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged
Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign.
Horowitz finds that the FBI was within the law when it opened the investigation but that the
FBI's applications to the FISA court, which decides if the FBI can spy on someone's
communications, were based on lies and utterly flawed.
Your host unfortunately lacked the time so far to read more than the executive summary. But
others have pointed out some essential findings.
If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz
constitutes a "clearing" of the FBI, never clear me of anything. ...
Much of the press is concentrating on Horowitz's conclusion that there was no evidence of
"political bias or improper motivation" in the FBI's probe of Donald Trump's Russia contacts,
an investigation Horowitz says the bureau had "authorized purpose" to conduct.
...
However, Horowitz describes at great length an FBI whose "serious" procedural problems and
omissions of "significant information" in pursuit of surveillance authority all fell in the
direction of expanding the unprecedented investigation of a presidential candidate (later, a
president).
...
There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless
headlines were wrong. Some key points:
The so-called "Steele dossier" was, actually, crucial to the FBI's decision to seek secret
surveillance of Page. ...
...
The "Steele dossier" was "Internet rumor," and corroboration for the pee tape story was
"zero." ...
Appendix 1 identifies the total violations by the FBI of the so-called Woods Procedures, the
process by which the bureau verifies information and assures the FISA court its evidence is
true.
The Appendix identifies a total of 51 Woods procedure violations from the FISA application
the FBI submitted to the court authorizing surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter
Page starting in October 2016.
A whopping nine of those violations fell into the category called: "Supporting document
shows that the factual assertion is inaccurate."
For those who don't speak IG parlance, it means the FBI made nine false assertions to the
FISA court. In short, what the bureau said was contradicted by the evidence in its official
file.
The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not
mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and
on everyone they communicated with.
The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had
talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later
'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were
no more than unconfirmed rumors.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous compatriot that two anonymous
sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claimed to have heard somewhere
that something happened in the Kremlin.
They assert that Trump was supported and directed by Putin himself five years ago while
even a year ago no one would have bet a penny on Trump gaining any political significant
position or even the presidency.
It is now claimed that the FBI is exculpated because the Horowitz report did not find
"political bias or improper motivation". But that omits the fact that at least four high
ranking people in the FBI and Justice Department who were involved in the case were found to be
politically
biased and were removed from their positions.
It also omits that the scope of Horowitz's investigation was limited to the Justice
Department. He was not able to investigate the CIA and its former director John Brennan who was
alleging Russia-Trump connections months before the FBI investigation started:
Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe,
Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into
domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately
false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.
The current CIA director Gina Haspel was CIA station chief in London during that time and
while several of the entrapment attempts of Trump campaign staff by the FBI investigation
happened. Horowitz spoke with neither of them.
The current Horowitz Report, read alongside his previous report on how the FBI played inside
the 2016 election vis-a-vis Clinton, should leave no doubt that the Bureau tried to influence
the election of a president and then delegitimize him when he won. It wasn't the Russians; it
was us.
That is correct, but the whole conspiracy was even deeper. It was not the FBI which
initiated the case.
My hunch is still that the FBI investigation was a case of parallel construction which is often
used to build a legitimate case after a suspicion was found by illegitimate means. In this case
it was John Brennan who in early 2016 contacted the head of the British GCHQ electronic
interception service and asked him to spy on the Trump campaign. GHCQ then claimed that
something was found that was deemed
suspicious :
That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief
John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level",
face-to-face between the two agency chiefs.
The FBI was tipped off on the issue and on July 31 2016 started an investigation to
construct a parallel legal case. It send out British and U.S. agents to entrap Trump campaign
members. It used the obviously fake Steele dossier to gain FISA court judgments that allowed it
to spy on the campaign. Downing Street
was informed throughout the whole affair. A day after Trump's inauguration the UK's then
Prime Minister Theresa May
fired GHCQ chief Robert Hannigan.
One still open question is to what extend then President Barack Obama was involved in the
affair.
There is another ongoing investigation by U.S. Prosecutor John Durham. That investigation is
not limited to the Justice Department but will involve all agencies and domestic as well as
foreign sources. Durham has the legal rights to declassify whatever is needed and he can indict
persons should he find that they committed a crime. His report will hopefully go much deeper
than the already horrendous stuff Horowitz delivered.
(This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our
work .)
Posted by b on December 11, 2019 at 16:16 UTC |
Permalink
Anyone taking bets on Durham/Barr making indictments in this mess? My guess is a whole lot of
horse trading is going on behind the scenes now, as in, "I'll trade you a censure for all
potential indictments going down the memory hole."
Typical dog and pony show which will change nothing relating to interventionist foreign
policy and the new cold war with Russia. Too many saw benefits from the corruption in Ukraine
to dig deep there; the Bidens were just the most blatant, Lindsey Graham and others from both
parties were involved so don't expect much from the Senate hearings. The bipartisan major
goals are a fait accompli; universal acceptance that Russia worked to undermine our elections
(and to destroy our "Democracy") and are thus an enemy we must fight, and it's universally
accepted by all that we MUST provide Ukraine with Javelin missiles and other lethal aid to
fight "Russian Aggression" (with little mention that even Obama balked at that reckless
option). All of these proceedings are great distractions, but the weapons of war will not be
diminished.
Unfortuneately, few will question the findings of these investigations or consider the
possibility that the investigations themselves are misdirection/cover-up.
IMO the Lavrov-Pompeo
presser is notable mostly for Lavrov's discussion of Russiagate (about 6 minutes in).
Lavrov tells us that the Russian's repeatedly sought to clarify their noninterference by
publishing correspondence - which the Trump Administration didn't respond to. And he actual
mentions McCarthyism!
Wait, wot?
Yeah, during the worst of the Russiagate accusations, Trump wouldn't do things that
would've helped to prove that Russiagate was a farce!!
So, during the election, Trump called on Putin to publish Hillary's emails (the very act
of making such a request is likely illegal because at the time it was known that her emails
contained highly classified info) but he wouldn't accept Russia's publication of
exculpatory info about Russiagate?!?!
This would cause cognitive dissonance galore in an Americans that hear it - so one can
be sure that it will not be reported.
Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan,
Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new
McCarthyism.
Meanwhile in bizarroland (aka USA), Barr says Russiagate is a fantasy based on FBI "bad
faith" - yet Pompeo still presses on with the "Russia meddled" bullshit.
thanks b... i like your example in the comment - ''those who thought otherwise should
question their judgment''.. good example!
i am a bit concerned like @ 2 casey, that most of this is going to go down the memory hole
and there will be that made in america stamp on it - ''no accountability''... i wish i was
wrong, but getting worked up at the idea anyone is going to be held accountable for any
actions of the usa, or the insiders playing the usa, is clearly a fools game at this point..
all i mostly see is the needed collapse and waiting for that to happen..
Thanks for that, there are definitely cracks in the armor and we should promote that
narrative as you do in your link. Tulsi Gabbard has also expanded the awareness, hopefully
she will make the upcoming debates despite strong efforts to silence her. I'll try more to
focus on the positive!
@ 6 jr.. there is a press release on all what was said
here for anyone interested..
lavrov quote and etc. etc.. "We suggested to our colleagues that in order to dispel all
suspicions that are baseless, let us publish this closed-channel correspondence starting from
October 2016 till November 2017 so it would all become very clear to many people. However,
regrettably, this administration refused to do so. But I'd like to repeat once again we are
prepared to do that, and to publish the correspondence that took place through that channel
would clear many matters up, I believe. Nevertheless, we hope that the turbulence that
appeared out of thin air will die down, just like in 1950s McCarthyism came to naught, and
there'll be an opportunity to go back to a more constructive cooperation."
I continue to believe that the FBI and Horowitz perjured themselves
in the FISA report. To correct a mistake in a previous post I made, I
believe they lied when the claimed the Steele Dossier was not a
predicate for opening crossfire hurricane. How can the Steele dossier
not be instrumental in the opening of the investigation when bruce ohr's
wife nellie ohr was working at fusion gps when bruce ohr met with
steele
to discuss the dirty dossier.
In other words, the FBI
was concocting Operation Crossfire Hurricane prior to the time they had
any knowledge of the phony Papadopoulus predicate that the russians were proferring
the clinton emails to the trump campaign.
The FISA report claim that Operation Crossfire
Hurricane was predicated solely on the Papadopolous allegations is therefore a lie. There
was, in fact, no real predicate for Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The predications
cited were all fictions and inventions fabricated in a conspiracy between MI6(the FFC or
friendly foreign country cited in the Horowitz report), the
DOJ and the FBI. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was a massive Psyop from its inception.
What major publications have picked up this info from the State Dept PR? Which of them are
questioning why Trump didn't agree to let the Russians publish the exonerating information?
And how many of those are linking this strange fact to other strange facts and thus raising
troubling questions about the 2016 election?
<> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not just that Trump refused to publish exculpatory material. Anyone that's been
reading my comments (and/or my blog) knows that Trump also:
- hired Manafort - whose work for pro-Russian candidates in Ukraine had drawn the ire of
CIA - despite Manafort's having no recent experience with US elections;
- helped Pelosi to be elected Speaker of the House by inviting her to attend a White
House meeting about his border wall (along with Chuck Schumer) prior to the House vote to
elect a Speaker.
- initiated Ukrainegate by talking with Ukraine's President about investigating an
announced candidate - he didn't have to do this(!) he could've let subordinates work
behind the scenes .
And then there's a set of suspicious activity that is difficult to explain, such as: ...
- Kissinger's having called for MAGA in August 2014 (Trump announced his campaign 10
months later and he was the ONLY MAGA candidate and the ONLY populist in the Republican
primary) ;
- London as a nexus for the US 2016 campaign (Cambridge Analytica; GPS Fusion;
Halper, etc.) ;
- Hillary's making mistakes in the 2016 campaign that no seasoned politician would
make;
- the settling of scores via entrapments of Flynn, Manafort, and Wikileaks/Assange
(painted as a hostile intelligence agency and Russian agent).
All of these and more support the conclusion that CIA-MI6 elected MAGA Trump and initiated
Russiagate.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous asserted compatriot what two
anonymous sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claim to have heard
somewhere that something happened in the Kremlin. <-- Perhaps it is too much to add that
the entire conversation happen in a pub, like an eyewitness account of a trout caught by an
angler that was larger than a tiger shark [the trout was so large, not the angler].
I am a great fan of Dmitri Orlov and have just read a large portion of his linked
post.
What I do not see Orlov doing is taking into account--in his takedown of "scientific"
models---evidence of global warming/change such as *actual* observations of *actual, current*
phenomena that are being measured today, such as the condition of the world's coral reefs;
the rate of melting of permafrost and release of methane gas; the melting of Greenland (and
other) glaciers and release of fresh water into the oceans; acidification of oceans; and
quite a lot of evidence for sea level rise, such as saltwater intrusion into freshwater
swamps, aquifers, etc.
More can be gleaned by the manner in which BigLie Media spin the investigation's results. At
The Hill , Jonathon Turley makes that clear in the first paragraph:
"The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz
greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many
people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude
one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its
investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump."
The further he goes the worse it gets for the Ds. And he's 100% correct about the biases
present in reporting about the Report.
Remarks made by Lavrov at the presser were likely done prior to anyone from Russia's
delegation having digested any of the Report. What I found important was the following
revelation by Lavrov:
"Let me remind you that at the time of the first statements on this topic, which was on
the eve of the 2016 US presidential election, we used the communications channel that linked
back then Moscow and the Obama administration in Washington to ask our US partners on
numerous occasions whether these allegations that emerged in October 2016 and persisted until
Donald Trump's inauguration could be addressed. The reply never came. There was no
response whatsoever to all our proposals when we said: look, if you suspect us, let's sit
down and talk, just put your facts on the table. All this continued after President Trump's
inauguration and the appointment of a new administration. We proposed releasing the
correspondence through this closed communications channel for the period from October 2016
until January 2017 in order to dispel all this groundless suspicion. This would have
clarified the situation for many. Unfortunately, this time it was the current administration
that refused to do so. Let me reiterate that we are ready to disclose to the public the
exchanges we had through this channel . I think that this would set many things straight.
Nevertheless we expect the turbulence that appeared out of thin air to calm down little by
little, just as McCarthyism waned in the 1950s, so that we can place our cooperation on a
more constructive footing." [My Emphasis]
Lavrov on Mueller Report: "It contains no confirmation of any collusion." End of story.
But we do have all this compiled evidence within our communications we're ready to publish is
the USA
agrees.
The Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) organization has yet to publish anything
about the report. However, Matt Taibbi often writes for that outlet, so his reporting at
Rolling Stone ought to be seen as a proxy FAIR report.
Now that we know Carter Page was working for the CIA as an informant in 2016, is it
reasonable to speculate that Page was planted in the Trump campaign by the CIA?
The Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Micheal Horowitz's report on the move to
delegitimize the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is clear proof of the massive rot
that lies at the heart of the US' political system. If this matter is whitewashed over by the
MSM, then one more step will have been taken to a violent and bloody revolution in the US of
A.
By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked
"Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the
Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in
relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There
might be a motive hidden there.
Thank you for posting Lavrov's words. Between those words and the IG report the kabuki
farce is revealed. Why was Trump ignoring the Russian offer you might ask. Because it suited
him to have this nonsense dominate the news cycle, you might conclude. Trump and Comey and
Brennan deserve each other.
just like 9-11... this is an inside job... does anyone really think the truth is going to
come to light in any of it?? i'm still with @ 2 caseys view...
Thanks for your reply! Yes, agreed, and I'd add Obama and Clinton.
Lavrov also held another presser at the conclusion of his visit that provides additional
info not covered in the first. The following is one I thought important:
"Question: The day before, US Congress agreed on a draft military budget, which includes
possible sanctions against Nord Stream-2 and Turkish Stream. Have you covered this topic? The
Congress sounds very determined. How seriously will the new restrictions affect the
completion of our projects?
"Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our
relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I
mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you
that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted."
I must emphatically agree with Lavrov's opinion and was very pleased he answered
forthrightly. What seems quite clear is the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by
Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate, with bipartisan Congressional backing.
That she lost didn't stop the anti-Russian wheel from being turned. So, logic tells us to
discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've written here why I think
that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the
planet and its people regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance made
reality by that policy goal. That a supermajority in Congress remain deluded is clearly a
huge problem, and those continuing to vote for the War Budget need to be removed.
b posted, in part;"When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the
relevant powers launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump."
It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO.
Are you aware of any means by which a member of congress or of a congressional committee can
be impeached or otherwise censured for the misconduct of official duties? That would at least
be Schiff...
Posted by: Paul Damascene | Dec 11 2019 21:24 utc |
32
@ 31 john.. i didn't know i had to read the orlov article to say what i did to you!! your
post @11 never make any internet link to orlov... what am i missing? does this mean i can
only speak with you after i have read another orlov article? lol...
"It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO."--ben @28
Ah, but that would be legitimate deligitimization, like attacking his actual policies.
Those are rocks that would break the Democrats' own windows as well as Trump's.
1. Senate Foreign Relations Comm passed Turkey sanctions bill
2. Pentagon Chief warned Turkey moving away NATO
3. U.S. lawmakers introduce legislation to curb Turkey's nuclear weapon obtainment"
Finally, the pretense of being nice to Turkey has come to an end. It will now intensify
its looking East, and pursue its national interests. IMO, the Eastern Med's energy issues
will now become a major headache.
karlof @ 29: The head Dems know their pushing the " Russia did it"meme is weak, but the
PTB
insist on it, to keep the MIC funds flowing.
The "no-brainer" charges should be; "Obstruction" and "Emoluments" violations. Charges the
public can grasp.
What happens if you, or any average person, ignores a summons to appear? They are
arrested.
Funneling govt. funds for personal gain is a violation of law, if you are POTUS.
These are violations average Americans can grasp, not the current circus of he said, she
said, going on in D.C. lately.
Guess my point is, this hearings are built to fail, because most of our so-called
leaders
like things the way they are. The rape of the workings classes will continue.
Yes. The impeachment process is the same as for Trump. Censuring is much easier but doubt
it will occur as too many are deserving. We're seeing the reason Congressional elections are
held every two years--vote 'em out if they're no good!
... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for
Clinton to escalate ...
I don't agree that the baton would be passed to Clinton. The Deep State uses the two-party
system as a device. It's not tied to partisan concerns. If the Deep State and the
establishment really wanted Clinton elected, they would've made that happen. Few expected
Trump to win and few would've been outraged if he had lost. Yet he won. Against all odds. Furthermore, Clinton wasn't the MAGA candidate as called for by Kissinger - Trump was. And
he was from the beginning of his candidacy.
Russiagate was based on suspicions of a populist that was compromised by Russia.
Hillary has too much baggage to play populist or nationalist - including Bill's involvement
with Epstein.
Also, you're forgetting the set ups of Manafort, Flynn, and Wikileaks/Assange - which were
important parts of Russiagate and also a convenient way of settling scores. These set-ups
required the Russiagate-tainted candidate (Trump) to win.
And Trump's beating Hillary makes him the classic come-from-behind hero - giving Trump a
certain legitimacy that an establishment candidate wouldn't have. That's important when
contemplating taking the country to war in the near future.
It's strange to me that people can think that Hillary was the 'chosen candidate', and be
OK with that but find a possible selection of a different candidate (Trump, as it turns out)
to be outrageous and inconceivable.
=
... with bipartisan Congressional backing . That she lost didn't stop the
anti-Russian wheel from being turned.
Since the Deep State and the Establishment desired an effort to restore the Empire, they
would turn to whomever could most effectively accomplish that task.
Once again: It didn't have to be Hillary that was selected. In fact, for many reasons
(that I've previously expressed) Hillary would have been a poor choice.
=
So, logic tells us to discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've
written here why I think that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full
Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people ...
FSD is US Mil policy, not a political goal. It states that US Mil will strive to have
superiority in weapons and capability in every sphere of combat.
Politically, FSD is just one of several means to an end. IMO that end is the maintenance
and expansion of the Anglo-Zionist Empire (aka New World Order).
Also, your dominance theory doesn't answer the question of WHY NOW? (more on that
below)
... regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance ...
Firstly, US Deep State believes that it is possible. And I personally don't buy the notion
that Russia and China are fated to prevail. If that were obvious, then the moa bar would have
no patrons.
Secondly (and again), WHY NOW? The Sino-Russo Alliance was long in the making. Why did USA
suddenly take note?
It's
Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger
calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing
immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice
(to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an
inevitability as the US elite had assumed.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I've written many times of Kissinger's Op-Ed and of indications that the Deep State
selected MAGA Trump to be President while also initiating a new McCarthyism. Why is it STILL
so difficult to believe a theory that makes so much sense?
Yes, the status quo is very generous to the Current Oligarchy and its tools, but not so
for the vast public majority which is clamoring for change. IMO, much can be learned from the
UK election tomorrow, of which there's been very little discussion here despite its
importance. I suggest following the very important developments from the past few days at
Criag Murray's Twitter and
at
his website , the linked article being a scoop of sorts.
Also harder to follow but important as well are ballot initiatives within the states.
This site
has current listing . I just looked over those for California where there are a few good
ones, but the threshold for signatures is getting higher, close to one million are now needed
in CA.
Lavrov's comments about the offers to open up normally closed communications really only
highlight two obvious issues:
The previous US Administration had no interest in shutting off the oxygen to the "Trump =
Moscow's Man" campaign; and
The current US Administration cannot afford to be perceived as receiving help in this matter
from the country he is alleged to be beholden to for his election.
With only 9% approval, it ought to be easy to toss out most Congresscritters, excepting
that part of the Senate not up for reelection.
You'd think so, but somehow the numbers pretty much reverse when these same people
consider their own rep, and the incumbency reelection rate is shockingly high (haven't
looked recently but IIRC it has hovered around 90% for decades). Apparently it is amazingly
easy to convince the masses that their guy is the one good apple in the bunch.
Jon Schwartz
reminds me why I don't stop and peruse magazine stands anymore. Seeing the words and this
picture would've sparked lots of unpleasant language:
"The best part of Michelle Obama explaining she shares the same values as George W. Bush
is she was being interviewed on network TV by Bush's daughter. There's nothing more American
than our ruling class making us watch them discuss how great they all are."
And the escalation wasn't rigged for Clinton to initiate--yeah, sure, whatever the rabbit
says.
Until there is some comparison of how the FISA court usually works, none of this chatter
means a thing. Violations of Woods procedures and assertions not supported by documents are
SOP. The FISA court is always a joke.
Delgeitimizing Trump, reversing the election, all simple-minded drviel, as only nitwits
see Trump as anything but the loser.
Skripal knows something that US-UK either 1) don't want the Russians to know OR 2) don't
want ANYONE to know.
What could that be? 1) That Steele dossier is bullshit? We know that. 2) That Steele
dossier was meant to be bullshit ? Well, that raises a whole host of questions,
doesn't it?
Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone?
Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past
working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public
(meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story).
Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written
articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier.
Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others.
The Afghanistan report outlines a *massive fraud*. $14 billion/month, 90% of the world's
opium, no "progress", oh, and lying to Congress for two decades.
physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the
weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the
bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the
UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns.
Fox News, now: Biden blames staff, says nobody 'warned' him son's Ukraine job could raise
conflict. In a TV comedy Seinfeld, one of the main characters, George, is a compulsive liar with a
knack of getting in trouble. Sometimes he has a job. Final scene of one of those jobs:
Boss: "You have been seen after hours making sex with the cleaning lady on the top of your
desk."
George (after a measured look at his boss): "If I was only told that this kind of things
is being frown upon..." [and she had cleaned the desk both before AND after!]
I have theory about why Horowitz did not bias in the FBI. The
definition of bias is to harbor a deeply negative feeling that
clouds one's judgement about a person or subject. However, the
conspirators' judgement was not clouded in this case. Their
negative feelings focused their intent to destroy the object of
their feeling. The precise term for this is malice.
So Horowitz
was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might
have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice.
Re Really?? | Dec 11 2019 18:31 utc | 14 and AshenLight | Dec 11 2019 19:36 utc | 19
I agree with you. Orlov is a brilliant, insightful analyst, who is also very funny. But he
is off the mark with his dismissal of global warming and also with his endorsement of nuclear
power. The immense amounts of waste from uranium mining all the way to hundreds of thousands
of tons of high-level waste in spent fuel pools pose a huge threat to current and future
generations . . . like the next 3000 generations of humans (and all other forms of life) that
will have to deal with this. Mankind has never built anything that has lasted a fraction of
the 100,000 years required for the isolation of high-level wastes from the biosphere. Take a
look at Into
Eternity which is a great documentary on the disposal of nuclear waste in Finland.
Orlov's analysis is superficial, unfortunately, in these areas.
"... The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with. ..."
"... The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors. ..."
The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not
mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and
on everyone they communicated with.
The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had
talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later
'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were
no more than unconfirmed rumors.
By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked
"Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the
Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in
relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There
might be a motive hidden there.
As early as
August 2018 , there had been speculation that the Skripals were being held at USAF
Fairford airbase, based on audiovisual evidence in the background garden scene where the
interview took place. Helmer's sources (they requested anonymity) spotted a chicken coop in
the background which they say is a crow ladder trap. This is one indication that the garden
scene was located near a runway. Background noises included the roar of jet engines.
If Helmer's information is correct, then we can now understand why the British government
never gave Russian embassy staff access to the Skripals: London was in no position to do so,
the Skripals were on US territory.
One implication of this new information is that the Skripals may no longer be in Britain
and may now be living in North America somewhere with new identities. Should something happen
to them (or have happened to them already), they will not be missed by their new neighbours.
The Skripals will never be allowed to return to Russia and Sergei Skripal will never see or
be allowed to communicate with his elderly mother again.
It really does look as if Sergei Skripal may have had something to do with that Orbis
dossier after all, even if as a minor source or as a reference rather than the primary source
of disinformation about Donald Trump's past activities in Moscow. What other work has Skripal
done for his American masters?
It looks as if Sergei Skripal may not be the primary source of the disinformation in
Christopher Steele's dossier. Perhaps the person who is the primary source
is not a Russian at all.
JR | Dec 11 2019 19:41 utc | 20 brings up a revisiting of the Litvinenko polonium poisoning.
It is worth mentioning that a tiny but crucial and virtually never mentioned detail of the
official inquiry (considered the last word on the matter) is that those conducting the
official inquiry were never allowed access to the autopsy report -- which should have been
(which would have been, in any honest effort at inquiry) the bedrock starting point. The
report has right along been sequestered by Scotland Yard in the interests of... you guessed
it: national security. Go figure...
It strikes me that the best explanation of the attack on the Skripals is not that he was
responsible for the Steele Dossier in any way, but that he could easily prove that it was a
fantasy. And was planning to do so.
He knew better, though, than to say so in the UK which suggests that he was on his way
home with his daughter when MI6 caught up with him and poisoned them both.
Steele, Pablo Miller and Skripal were old partners in crime.
I'm wondering whether the mistake Sergei made was not to leave the house -- probably worth
lotsa rubles -- behind and just go. On the other hand he was almost certainly under constant
surveillance.
@50 The Official Report to which you refer was also very careful to enter extensive
caveats regarding its conclusions for which there was almost no real evidence.
It seems important to note that Mr. Lavrov refers to administrations in his
comments, not presidents per se. As there are many staff in presidential
administrations, it seems entirely possible that 1) the requests from the Russians never
reached Obama or Trump personally, and 2) either or both presidents were therefore not even
aware of the requests. In the case of Trump, that would be consistent with the fact that many
members of his administration have been revealed to have operated contrary to his wishes.
@Jen #42
The Skripals residing on US territory would definitely indicate that the US has been the
senior partner in the "Skripal operation". This seems to be part of a general pattern.
@Jackrabbit #48
For the Steele dossier to be intentional bullshit (meaning its creator(s) knew it was
false when they created it) doesn't seem all that surprising. Intelligence agencies promote
disinformation all the time. That in no way means that Trump is in on the game.
Both Putin and Lavrov have stated that they talked directly with Obama and Trump about the
issues involved with their relations, so there's no excuses or obfuscation possible is this
case.
If the allegations against the president are all completely false, then his supporters can
continue to back him with a clear conscience, because anything and everything negative they
hear about the president must be false. The consistency of that message is more important than
the actual details, which frequently end up contradicting complex explanations for the
president's innocence that are often incongruous with each other, such as the
insistence that Robert Mueller's investigation was a "total exoneration" of the president,
but also " total bullshit ."
"... Yes, something happened, but it was because Ukraine did it and not us ..."
"... David Hale, an undersecretary in Trump's own State Department, expressed that concern at a Senate hearing on Tuesday. When asked about the national-security ramifications of the rhetoric, Hale said pointedly, "It does not serve our interests." ..."
This new front opened
when Representative Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, repeatedly
insisted during last month's impeachment hearings that Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 election against Trump. That drew
a stern rebuke from one witness asked to testify, the former Trump National Security Council adviser Fiona Hill, who
warned that congressional Republicans were spreading "a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by
the Russian security services themselves."
But Hill's words have not stopped Republicans from reprising those arguments. In late November, Senator John Kennedy
of Louisiana claimed during a television interview that Ukraine, not Russia, might have hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computers in 2016. After
retreating from that claim
, he went on
Meet the Press
on Sunday
and equated public criticism of Trump by some Ukrainian officials with
Russia's systematic interference campaign in 2016.
The Senate Intelligence
Committee, during its investigation of 2016 election meddling,
found no evidence of Ukrainian interference
. But when asked about Kennedy's comments this week, Senator Richard Burr
of North Carolina, the committee's chairman, came closer to endorsing rather than repudiating them.
"Every elected
official in the Ukraine was for Hillary Clinton,"
Burr told NBC
. "Is that very different than the Russians being for Donald Trump?" Burr went on to liken Russia's
massive intelligence and hacking campaign to occasional public comments by Ukrainian officials critical of Trump. "The
president can say that they meddled because they had a preference, the elected officials,"
Burr said
. Other Republican senators, including John Barrasso of Wyoming, offered similar arguments this week.
The report released on
Monday by House Republicans likewise blurred the difference. "Publicly available -- and irrefutable -- evidence shows how
senior Ukrainian government officials sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in opposition to President
Trump's candidacy," the report insisted.
Tucker Carlson took these arguments to new heights
on his show Monday night, not only minimizing Russian involvement
in 2016 but questioning why the U.S. was opposing its incursion into Ukraine at all. "I think we should probably take
the side of Russia if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine," Carlson insisted.
Republican
foreign-policy experts are still worried about the attempts by GOP leaders to defend Trump by disparaging Ukraine.
"For starters, you end up validating the Kremlin line which they have been peddling since 2016:
Yes, something
happened, but it was because Ukraine did it and not us
," says Richard Fontaine, who runs the nonpartisan Center for
a New American Security and was the top foreign-policy adviser to the late Senator John McCain of Arizona. "It's one
thing if Putin says these things, or if Kremlin spokespeople say these things; people, I hope, will take it with a
gigantic mountain of salt. But when you have U.S. elected leaders saying these things, it gives it a significant dose of
credibility, and that's not a good thing."
David Hale, an undersecretary in Trump's own State Department, expressed that concern at a Senate hearing on
Tuesday. When asked about the national-security ramifications of the rhetoric, Hale said pointedly, "It does not serve
our interests."
The accusations against Ukraine have drawn forceful pushback this week from Democrats, but only a few
Republicans -- most directly Senator Mitt Romney of Utah -- have openly condemned them. "What you are seeing unfortunately is
Republicans wanting to just adopt and parrot the Trump talking points, which also coincide with the Putin talking
points," Van Hollen said.
"... According to the Washington Examiner , the GOP-controlled Senate have no plans to call key witnesses to testify in an impeachment trial. This means Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson, Alexandra Chalupa and Ukrainian prosecutors involved in the Burisma case won't set foot in the Senate. ..."
"... Washington Examiner ..."
"... Washington Examiner ..."
"... That may not play well with Trump's base, who was expecting to see a doddering Joe Biden and his cokehead son Hunter answer tough questions about Ukraine. ..."
"... Without witness testimony, the Senate proceedings would take roughly two weeks according to the report. ..."
"... On Tuesday, House Democrats introduced two articles of impeachment accusing President Trump of abusing his power and obstructing Congress. Notably, there is no mention "extortion" or "quid-pro-quo" - accusations Democrats have been pounding on throughout the process. ..."
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Senate Republicans To Let Bidens Off The
Hook? May Skip Witnesses In 'Expedited' Impeachment Trial by Tyler Durden Tue, 12/10/2019 - 19:45 0
SHARES
While House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate
the Bidens for what looks like obvious corruption - Senate Republicans have no interest in
calling witnesses to determine whether Trump's request was justified in the first place.
According to the
Washington Examiner , the GOP-controlled Senate have no plans to call key witnesses to
testify in an impeachment trial. This means Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson,
Alexandra Chalupa and Ukrainian prosecutors involved in the Burisma case won't set foot in the
Senate.
Their reasoning? Senate Republicans have "no appetite" for it.
Senate impeachment rules require a majority vote to call witnesses, and with just two out
of 53 votes to spare, there is no "appetite" among Republicans to pursue testimony from
people that Democrats
blocked Republicans from subpoenaing during the House investigation . Indeed, Republicans
might forgo calling witnesses altogether, saying minds are made up on Trump's guilt or
innocence and that testimony at trial on the Senate floor would draw out the proceedings
unnecessarily. - Washington Examiner
Instead, top Senate Republicans are leaning towards calling a quick vote to acquit Trump
once House Democrats and the White House have delivered their arguments.
"At that point, I would expect that most members would be ready to vote and wouldn't need
more information," said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming - the #3 ranked Senate Republican. "Many
people have their minds pretty well made up."
"Here's what I want to avoid: this thing going on longer than it needs to," said Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R-SC). " I want to end this. "
The president is not in danger of being removed from office by the Senate, a move that
requires 67 votes.
But in a trial, he is seeking exoneration . Some Republicans question whether that's
possible without hearing from witnesses, whether it be these or other less politically
charged figures. " Not sure how you have a fair trial without calling witnesses ," said one
Trump ally in the House.
But with some Senate Republicans facing uncertain 2020 reelection contests and others
privately unhappy with Trump's behavior, mustering 51 GOP votes for Trump's dream witness
list appears impossible.
" How many senators would enjoy a Trump rally? That's probably your whip count for calling
Hunter, " a Republican senator said, requesting anonymity to speak candidly. Senate Democrats
are not expected to provide any votes to call Biden or the others. Or they might ask so high
a price, demanding that in exchange, they be allowed to call Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
and Vice President Mike Pence, that Republicans balk. - Washington Examiner
"It becomes endless motions to call people, and I'm not sure what anybody gains from all
that," said #2 Senate Republican, John Thune of South Dakota.
That may not play well with Trump's base, who was expecting to see a doddering Joe Biden
and his cokehead son Hunter answer tough questions about Ukraine.
"President Trump's allies will want to see witnesses called. How many, and which witnesses,
will quickly become a dividing line," said former Trump adviser Jason Miller, who co-hosts an
impeachment-centric podcast with Steve Bannon.
Without witness testimony, the Senate proceedings would take roughly two weeks according
to the report.
On Tuesday, House Democrats introduced two articles of impeachment accusing President
Trump of abusing his power and obstructing Congress. Notably, there is no mention "extortion"
or "quid-pro-quo" - accusations Democrats have been pounding on throughout the
process.
But with some Senate Republicans facing uncertain 2020 reelection contests and others
privately unhappy with Trump's behavior, mustering 51 GOP votes for Trump's dream witness
list appears impossible.
Oh, you mean their own corruption will be exposed.
Democrats will claim that it was a rush to 'Political Judgement' and that they did all the
investigating and the Senate did nothing ... which will be true.
We need a complete Senate trial to bring to light the truth ... the IG report did not do
it and the DOJ seem impossibly incapable ... only chance is complete witnessed Senate
trial
I,m just curious to see if anybody has the balls to publish the names of all the grifting
family members of Senators and Congressmen and the details of what they are skimming and
where.......
I Guess Peter Schweitzer is the closest we will get.....
Well, I just watched Nadler's Articles of Impeachment presser. Jeez, I never saw the dems
so scarred and glum. Nancy looked like a zombie, as did all the rest. Check out the fat, ugly
bitch in the red jacket near Adam Schiff. Tells you all you need to know about the dems.
@AnonFromTN It is heartening that there are people who are expecting salvation from
Germany. Let me tell you guys, it is GONE. And it is certainly not heroic to say this, but I
can live with having past my service at an old peoples home, instead, and I can live with not
sending my son off to a trench. And I absolutely subscribe to what Jim Christian said (thanks
for his comments, as for quite some others! ), if you touch my wife or son, I will get wild,
but the rest is not worth defending.
But here is my thought: Agreed, that western and american military is today disfunctional
and deluded about themselves. But they are absolutely superior when it comes to psyop. 9/11
was marvellously executed and to root up the whole middle east and pump the destitute people
from there into Europe to blow it up, that is quite something.
@AnonFromTN It is heartening that there are people who are expecting salvation from
Germany. Let me tell you guys, it is GONE. And it is certainly not heroic to say this, but I
can live with having past my service at an old peoples home, instead, and I can live with not
sending my son off to a trench. And I absolutely subscribe to what Jim Christian said (thanks
for his comments, as for quite some others! ), if you touch my wife or son, I will get wild,
but the rest is not worth defending.
But here is my thought: Agreed, that western and american military is today disfunctional
and deluded about themselves. But they are absolutely superior when it comes to psyop. 9/11
was marvellously executed and to root up the whole middle east and pump the destitute people
from there into Europe to blow it up, that is quite something.
From that perspective, Russiagate is a gift. If any argument was still needed to tell the
peoples of the world that the western empire is terminaly deranged, that is it.
BOTH the AG and federal prosecutor Durham REJECT the findings. Durham has the ability to
conduct a criminal investigation that Horowitz did not. Given this, the IG found evidence to
criminally refer FBI officials and campaign spies.
Remember: the Durham probe became a CRIMINAL investigation as soon as he left Rome with
information on Mifsud. IG said he wasn't working for the FBI. Leaves only one other option:
CIA, and why Brennan and his team have all lawyered up. Bye bye, Brennan.
This is selective quotes from anti-Trump of neocon author. The general tone of the article is
completely different from presented quotes.
Notable quotes:
"... ..."This was an overthrow of government, this was an attempted overthrow -- and a lot of people were in on it," Trump declared , while Barr insisted , in a more lawyerly fashion, "The Inspector General's report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken." ..."
The report confirmed that the Russia investigation originated, as has been previously
reported, with the Trump campaign adviser
George Papadopoulos bragging to an Australian diplomat about Russia possessing "dirt" on
Hillary Clinton, which the IG determined "was sufficient to predicate the investigation." The
widespread conservative belief that the investigation began because of the dubious claims in
the Steele dossier was false. "Steele's reports played no role" in the opening of the Russia
investigation, the report found, because FBI officials were not "aware of Steele's election
reporting until weeks later."
...The IG also "did not find any records" that Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told
Papadopoulos the Russians had obtained "dirt" on Clinton, was an FBI informant sent to entrap
him.
...Page "did not play a role in the decision to open" the Russia investigation, and that
Strzok was "was not the sole, or even the highest-level, decision maker as to any of those
matters."
...the IG did determine that the Page FISA application was "inaccurate, incomplete, or
unsupported by appropriate documentation," which misled the court as to the credibility of the
FBI's evidence when seeking authority to surveil Page.
..."This was an overthrow of government, this was an attempted overthrow -- and a lot of
people were in on it,"
Trump declared , while Barr insisted , in a more lawyerly fashion, "The Inspector General's
report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential
campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps
taken."
Adam
Serwer is a staff writer atThe Atlantic, where he covers
politics.
FBI Didn't Tell Surveillance Court That Carter Page Was "Operational Contact" For CIA
With "Positive Assessment" by Tyler Durden Tue, 12/10/2019 - 07:55 0
SHARES
The FBI failed to inform surveillance court judges that Carter Page was an "operational
contact" for the CIA for years , and that an employee at the spy agency gave the former Trump
aide a "positive assessment," according to a Justice Department report released Monday.
The finding is included in a list of seven of the FBI's "significant inaccuracies and
omissions" in applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against
Page, a longtime energy consultant who joined the Trump campaign in March 2016.
(emphasis ours)
The report said the FBI "omitted" information it obtained from another U.S. government
agency about its prior relationship with Page.
The agency approved Page as an "operational contact" from 2008 to 2013, according to the
report.
"Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with
certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA
application," the report stated.
Page told the Daily Caller News Foundation he believes the agency in question is the CIA.
Page has previously said he provided information to the CIA and FBI before becoming ensnared in
the bureau's investigation of the Trump campaign.
The report stated an employee with the CIA assessed Page "candidly" described contact he had
with a Russian intelligence officer in 2014. But the FBI cited Page's contact with the officer
to assert in its FISA applications that there was probable cause to believe that Page was
working as a Russian agent.
The IG faulted the FBI for failing to disclose to FISA judges that Page was an operational
contact for the CIA for five years, and that "Page had disclosed to the other agency contacts
that he had with Intelligence Officer 1 and certain other individuals."
The report also stated that the FBI omitted that "the other agency's employee had given a
positive assessment of Page's candor."
The IG said the FBI's failure to disclose Page's relationship with the CIA "was particularly
concerning" because an FBI attorney had specifically asked an FBI case agent whether Page had a
current or prior relationship with the other federal agency.
***
[editor's note: Not only that, an FBI employee - undoubtedly 'resistance' lawyer
Kevin Clinesmith , altered an email to specifically state that Page was "not a source" for
the CIA . ]
The FBI agent falsely asserted Page's relationship was "outside scope" of the investigation
because it dated back to when Page lived in Moscow from 2004 to 2007.
"This representation, however, was contrary to information that the other agency had
provided to the FBI in August 2016, which stated that Page was approved as an 'operational
contact' of the other agency from 2008 to 2013 (after Page had left Moscow)," the IG report
stated.
The report also said Page's CIA contacts considered him to have been candid about his
interactions with a suspected Russian intelligence officer who was later indicted for acting as
an unregistered agent of Russia.
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 8 minutes ago
link
I sometimes think Page was a plant- he's vigorously defended Trump and slammed the CIA and
the hoax of the spying- but that could all be a ruse.
In my mind the jury is still out.
Papadopolous on the other hand- was clearly used, honey pot and all.
The entire "Russian collusion" investigation is another example of the Feds manufacturing
false evidence. Mitsud, supposedly a Russian agent, was actually an asset of US intelligence.
Ever since the foisting of the 17th Amendment, which destroyed the veto of the several states
of Washington excesses and corruptions, Washington D.C. has been the only REAL enemy that the
people have ever had.
Rudy is going to take a huge Trump Dump, right on the heads of the Libtards this
week....... Open wide Retards..........
=============
Breaking: Ukrainian Official Reveals Six Criminal Cases Opened in Ukraine Involving the
Bidens
Trump told the waiting reporters that his personal attorney former New York City Mayor
Rudy Giuliani "found plenty" of "good information" during his recent trip to Ukraine and
Europe.
Trump then added that he believes Giuliani wants to present a report to the Attorney
General William Barr and to Congress. Trump added Giuliani has not told him what he
found.
Giuliani reportedly traveled to Budapest and Ukraine this past week to meet with several
Ukrainian officials about corruption.
OAN reporter Chanel Rion has been traveling with Rudy Giuliani and reporting on his
investigations in Hungary and Kiev, Ukraine.
In her report released on Sunday night Chanel Rion mentioned that Ukrainian officials
showed her six criminal cases involving the Bidens, Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
A more powerful force is at work here, the agencies are their tools, operators. We need to
get our heads out of the weeds if we are to identify the source. Whatever it is, it is likely
internal, thought a higher cause and convincing as CIA, FBI have bought in?
I read the linked article. Quite fascinating that Hillary and her minions were treated
with kid gloves (and nothing at all about Obama, Lynch, Holder, Jarrett, et al) and extended
every courtesy and soft-pedal, yet Roger Stone and Paul Manafort were greeted with platoons
of FBI ninjas and armored vehicles in early morning raids akin to those in Stalinist
Russia.
The FBI didn't tell the FISA court a lot of things. The FBI failed to tell the FISA court
the interview with Papadopoulos revealed there to be absolutely NO Russian collusion. The FBI
deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence that would have freed General Flynn and ended the
investigations.
Instead, the FBI covered up the truth with omissions and lies. That what I call bias.
Call it willful blindness by omission, but I prefer to call it a criminal act and sedition
against a President.
This guy is an Annapolis grad and CIA contact and they destroyed him. Hes gonna get very
rich with lawsuits now. The thing that amazes me no one is talking about.........motivation.
All of these major and minor infractions add up to one thing.....an orchestrated attempt to
frame and over throw the President.\ of the United States
"... Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress . ..."
"... What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties. The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko were not done independently. ..."
"... Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch. ..."
In a fantastic display of true investigative journalism, One America News journalist Chanel
Rion tracked down Ukrainian witnesses as part of an exclusive OAN investigative series. The
evidence being discovered dismantles the baseless Adam Schiff impeachment hoax and highlights
many corrupt motives for U.S. politicians.
Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how
former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress .
What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties.
The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko
were not done independently.
Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence
priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously
protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey
Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch.
Imagine what would happen if all of the background information was to reach the general
public? Thus the motive for Lindsey Graham currently working to bury it.
You might remember George Kent and Bill Taylor testified together.
It was evident months ago that U.S. chargé d'affaires to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, was
one of the current participants in the coup effort against President Trump. It was Taylor who
engaged in carefully planned
text messages with EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland to set-up a narrative helpful to Adam
Schiff's political coup effort.
Bill Taylor was formerly U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine ('06-'09) and later helped the Obama
administration to design the laundry operation providing taxpayer financing to Ukraine in
exchange for back-channel payments to U.S. politicians and their families.
In November Rudy Giuliani released a letter he sent to Senator
Lindsey Graham outlining how Bill Taylor blocked VISA's for Ukrainian 'whistle-blowers' who are
willing to testify to the corrupt financial scheme.
Unfortunately, as we are now witnessing, Senator Lindsey Graham, along with dozens of U.S.
Senators currently serving, may very well have been recipients for money through the
aforementioned laundry process. The VISA's are unlikely to get approval for congressional
testimony, or Senate impeachment trial witness testimony.
U.S. senators write foreign aid policy, rules and regulations thereby creating the financing
mechanisms to transmit U.S. funds. Those same senators then received a portion of the laundered
funds back through their various "institutes" and business connections to the foreign
government offices; in this example Ukraine. [ex. Burisma to Biden]
The U.S. State Dept. serves as a distribution network for the authorization of the money
laundering by granting conflict waivers , approvals for financing (think Clinton Global
Initiative), and permission slips for the payment of foreign money. The officials within the
State Dept. take a cut of the overall payments through a system of "indulgence fees", junkets,
gifts and expense payments to those with political oversight.
If anyone gets too close to revealing the process, writ large, they become a target of the
entire apparatus. President Trump was considered an existential threat to this entire process.
Hence our current political status with the ongoing coup.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out , because, well, in reality all of the U.S.
Senators (both parties) are participating in the process for receiving taxpayer money and
contributions from foreign governments.
A "Codel" is a congressional delegation that takes trips to work out the payments
terms/conditions of any changes in graft financing. This is why Senators spend $20 million on a
campaign to earn a job paying $350k/year. The "institutes" is where the real foreign money
comes in; billions paid by governments like China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Ukraine, etc.
etc. There are trillions at stake.
[SIDEBAR: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell holds the power over these members (and the
members of the Senate Intel Committee), because McConnell decides who sits on what committee.
As soon as a Senator starts taking the bribes lobbying funds, McConnell then has
full control over that Senator. This is how the system works.]
The McCain Institute is one of the obvious examples of the financing network. And that is
the primary reason why Cindy McCain is such an outspoken critic of President Trump. In essence
President Trump is standing between her and her next diamond necklace; a dangerous place to
be.
So when we think about a Senate Impeachment Trial; and we consider which senators will vote
to impeach President Trump, it's not just a matter of Democrats -vs- Republican. We need to
look at the game of leverage, and the stand-off between those bribed Senators who would prefer
President Trump did not interfere in their process.
McConnell has been advising President Trump which Senators are most likely to need their
sensibilities eased. As an example President Trump met with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in
November. Senator Murkowski rakes in millions from the multinational Oil and Gas industry; and
she ain't about to allow horrible Trump to lessen her bank account any more than Cindy McCain
will give up her frequent shopper discounts at Tiffanys.
Senator Lindsey Graham
announcing today that he will not request or facilitate any impeachment testimony that
touches on the DC laundry system for personal financial benefit (ie. Ukraine example), is
specifically motivated by the need for all DC politicians to keep prying eyes away from the
swamps' financial endeavors. WATCH:
This open-secret system of "Affluence and Influence" is how the intelligence apparatus gains
such power. All of the DC participants are essentially beholden to the various U.S.
intelligence services who are well aware of their endeavors.
There's a ton of exposure here (blackmail/leverage) which allows the unelected officials
within the CIA, FBI and DOJ to hold power over the DC politicians. Hold this type of leverage
long enough and the Intelligence Community then absorbs that power to enhance their self-belief
of being more important than the system.
Perhaps this corrupt sense of grandiosity is what we are seeing play out in how the
intelligence apparatus views President Donald J Trump as a risk to their importance.
Everyone loves money. I like money. The only question is how to earn them. Neither I, nor
you, nor many of us will cross a certain moral and ethical line (border), but there are
people without morality, without ethical standards, without conscience. We all look the same
outwardly, but we are all completely different inside.
Ukraine is Obama's **** , this is not Trump's ****. Trump's stupidity was only one - he
got into this ****. I wrote, but I repeat - USA acted as the best friend in relation to
Russia, having taken off a leech from Russia and hanging it on itself. Do you know such an
estate of Rothschilds - called Israel and its role in the life of USA?
So, Ukraine was for the Russians the same Israel in terms of meaningless spending. Look at
Vlad, in 2014 he looked like a fox who was eating a chicken, and on January 1, 2020 he will
look like a fox who eating a whole brood of chickens. I think he has portraits of Obama and
Trump in his bedroom.
Yes, indeed. Lindsey will bury the story, he is on the take. Your tax dollars at work. By
the way, the Fed picked up all of the Ukies gold for safekeeping at 33 Liberty St. NY, with
Yats permission, of course.... https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-18/ukraine-admits-its-gold-gone
A glimpse into how elected officials accumulate millions, retire wealthy, pampered and
privileged....and I'm not talking pensions I'm talking corruption. Obama, Biden, Hillary,
Kerry, Holder, Rice and ALL the senior Obama Administration officials knew of each other's
corrupt sinecures.
Well, it is based on a OAN story. Believe it or not, they actually sent a reporter to
Ukraine to talk to people with knowledge of the matter and look what they came up with. Kind
of makes you wonder why other well funded news organizations never thought to do something
like that.
I don't know that we deserve this. We are all working people, with families to raise,
taxes to pay and the Dems and Commies have been working against us 24/7. And most of them get
paid to do so from government jobs that pay them 8 hours a day when many work 1 hour a day,
all the while scheming against us.
If Trump wins a second term, he is gonna **** these people up good.
Now that I've read the article, I'm both shocked and appalled at learning that Ukraine is
a money laundering operation for the politically connected. (They provide many other 'perks'
as well.)
I've warned about light in the loafers Lindsey as well as McConnell before and more than
once. Sessions should also be denied a re-admission into the swamp. There are others.
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat
to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a
manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus
warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
I agree with everything you say in the article, Mr. Larison. And yet, I have serious qualms
about whether Congress should impeach and remove Trump.
From a purely legal perspective, they should. But impeachment is a blend of legalism and
politics. And the politics here are murky at best. The problem is that Congress does not
come to these issues with clean hands. It is common knowledge that Congress, too, is
corrupt and sells out the national interest in favor of their own political and personal
interests on a daily basis. They have no moral credibility here; who are they to judge the
President? Neither the impeachment itself, nor the subsequent, apparently inevitable,
acquittal by the Senate will be seen as legitimate, except by partisans of the respective
acts. It is all the more problematic because an election is less than a year away.
Yes, I want Trump out of office, too. But unfortunately our Congress lacks the moral
legitimacy to do this; the impeachment and trial will serve only to reinforce each party's
views of the other as treasonous. The impeachment will be seen as an attempted coup, and
the acquittal will be seen as a whitewash and cover-up. (If by some odd circumstance he is
removed rather than acquitted, it will be seen as a successful coup, an undoing of the 2016
election.)
There are no really good outcomes from this scenario. It would, I think, be better for
the the country were the Democrats to reverse course and leave the removal of Trump to the
people next November. We have survived nearly three years of him, we can survive one more.
I fear the fallout from impeachment and trial will create more problems than are
solved.
I agree. I also respectfully disagree with Larrison's judgment and consider this
development as very dangerous for the Republic. We need to weight our personal animosity
toward Trump with the risks of his forceful removal on dubious charges.
Please remember that nobody was impeached for the Iraq war. That creates a really high
plank for the impeachment. And makes any Dems arguments for Trump impeachment not only moot
but a joke.
The fundamental question is: How is lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable,
and this entrapment impeachable?
The furor over Russian interference in the election, which was extremely minor, if
existed at all, compared to what Churchill did in 1940, was primarily about excusing the
corrupt and incompetent Clinton wing of Democratic Party leadership (Neoliberal Democrats.)
Political "shelf life" for whom is over in any case as neoliberalism is dead as an ideology
and entered zombie ( bloodthirsty ) stage. Hillary political fiasco taught them nothing.
Russiagate was and still is a modern witch hunt, the attempt to patch with Russophobia the
cracks in the neoliberal facade. Neo-McCarthyism, if you wish.
In view of the Iraq war, the impeachment of Trump means the absolute contempt for the
plebs. Again, Trump's election happened because neoliberalism as ideology died in 2008, and
plebs in 2016 refused to follow corrupt neoliberal democrats and decided to show them the
middle finger. They will not follow the neoliberal elite in 2020, impeachment, or no
impeachment. So the whole "Pelosi gambit" (and from the point of view of Nuremberg
principles she is a war criminal like Bush II and Co ) will fail.
The House Democrats did not act as ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the
evidentiary record, and provide the equality of procecutor and the defense in the process
which is the fundamental part of the Due Process prior to filing charges. A large part of
their witnesses (Karlan, Hill, Vindman) were just "true believers" (Karlan) or corrupt Deep
Staters (Hill, Vindman) taking a stand to defend their personal well-being, which is based on warmongering. And protect
their illegal role in formulating the USA foreign policy (actually based on the quality of Fiona Hill book alone, she should
be kept at mile length
from this area; she is a propagandist not a researcher/analyst)
Among State Department witnesses there could well be those who were probably explicitly
or implicitly involved in the money laundering of the US aid money via Ukraine
(Biden-lights so to speak)
The article of impeachment saying:
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat
to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in
a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump
thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold
and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
opens a huge can of worms (this is essentially the Moscow show trials method of removing
politicians.) This is equivalent to a change in the Constitution, introducing the vote of
no confidence as the method removal of the top members of the executive branch.
Impeachment is always a political decision. And here I am not sure the "Pelosi gambit"
will work. I think many independents, who would stay home or would vote for Dems in 2020
now will vote for Trump as a protest against the abuse of impeachment by the
Neoliberal/Corporate Dems.
That people are still dredging up the ludicrous Russiagate
conspiracy theory is beyond pathetic. If that were not enough, there is no
evidence that "Russian hackers" or anyone "screw[ed] with swing states'
election databases".
Full disclosure: were I allowed to decide Trump's
fate, impeachment would be the least of his fears. I would
subject him to the fate of the defendants at Nuremberg.
"... This is merely political theater and a way to stiffen their spines of jello for their coup. Heaven forfend that President Evo Morales Donald Trump be ousted in a coup by the American Deep State. Our ruling class and their servants really are stupid enough to believe that destroying the norms, both written and unwritten, that our society is actually governed by is a good thing. ..."
"... For the powers that be war crimes are not impeachable offenses. ..."
"... The MSM is reporting the "impeachment" as if it was a serious (approved by expert academics) endeavor. However, the veil is lifting. The revealed face of the ruling class is Neo-Orwellian. ..."
"... Turley says he is now getting threatening phone calls as well people trying to get him fired as professor because he dared to pooh pooh the case for impeachment. ..."
"... The insanity of [neo]liberals strikes me as the actions of the philosophically bankrupt, the hysterical demonizing of Trump being their desperate way to avoid recognizing that fact. ..."
"... Nadler, like Schiff before him, is putting on a diversionary show. The big rush in both shows has been to construct narratives to sow doubt in the minds of viewers and voters, on a tight schedule. That schedule has been known for some time, with a big component dropping today in the IG report. ..."
"... Whether it's Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and any others I've missed, I want to know how many of these rats had / have financial interests in these wars ..."
"... The verdict is prepared before the charges! ..."
"... The House Dems started to boil when Trump suggested the Magnitsky Act was not impartial and Browder might be a crook, heaven forbid. But when Trump really started to focus on the Ukraingate stuff the House shifted into high gear. ..."
"... Schiff started to look like a cornered animal, the expression on his face went from moral superiority to downright angst. His eyes started to bug out. Nancy went from no impeachment to, almost overnight, yes impeachment. And Rudy Giuliani was accused of Treason for questioning their favorite operative, Joe Bagman. ..."
"... Let the last stage of the Great Looting of the Planet begin. ..."
"... I think there are too many moving parts to allow any meaningful analysis of such a soon-to-be-fait accompli. Justice, fairness, Constitution, "rule of law" are the shibboleths of the weak. None of those are anything but fig leafs over tumescent power, mentioned occasionally and clearly without adherence or conviction by that tiny set of front people and spokespersons for the even smaller set that actually move the levers of power. In the end, of course, as with all the climax events of the last few generations, we mopes will never get more than a modified limited hangout of an inkling to what actually happened, and not even that while the play's afoot. ..."
"... "However hurried a court may be in its efforts to reach the merits of a controversy, the integrity of procedural rules is dependent upon consistent enforcement because the only fair and reasonable alternative thereto is complete abandonment." Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St. 2d 209 (1980). ..."
"... Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be thorough and complete. This is neither. ..."
"... A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of Executive Privilege. ..."
"... JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the subjective intent of the actor is crucial. ..."
"... As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it " isn't evidence. ..."
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. –Matt 23:24
Patient readers, I had originally intended to compare and contrast the statements of the
four lawyers (Feldman, Karlan, Gerhardt, and Turley)
appearing before the House Judiciary Committee . But I changed course, for a few reasons:
First, Feldman, Karlan, and Gerhardt simply didn't produce serious documents; all were short,
and Karlan's wasn't even footnoted, whether to facts, or to law.
Turley's statement at least showed signs of legal reasoning, as opposed to preaching to the
choir, but there's no point my summarizing it;
you can just read it .[1]
Second, since the House Judiciary's report on the " Constitutional
Grounds for Impeachment " followed so soon after the lawyers' testimony that it could
hardly have been influenced by it, their testimony was evidently for show. Finally, this
abbreviated Season 2 of Impeachment! , "UkraineGate," reminds me of nothing so much as
Gish Gallop : There's
too much to track in the time frame available, the few trustworthy interpreters are
overwhelmed, and that's by intent. (Season 1, "RussiaGate," was more of a Gish stroll by
comparison.)
So I'm going to do something completely different. Conventional wisdom agrees that when
impeaching a President, the House plays the role of the prosecutor, and brings and prosecutes
the indictment; and the Senate then tries the case. From Senate.gov
, just as a change from citing the Federalist Papers, which I too shall get to:
In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the
federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of
representatives, called "managers," acts as prosecutors before the Senate.
The question nobody seems to be asking is whether the House, in this impeachment
inquiry, is acting as a prosecutor should act[2]. That is the question I will ask in this post.
(I'm sensible that we have actual prosecutors in the readership, and so I'm going out on a limb
here; the fact that nobody I can find has gone out on this particular limb doesn't mean that it
is, or is not, a good limb to go out on. We'll see!)
The primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law,
not merely to convict . The prosecutor serves the public interest and should act with
integrity and balanced judgment to increase public safety both by pursuing appropriate
criminal charges of appropriate severity, and by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal
charges in appropriate circumstances. The prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and
convict the guilty, consider the interests of victims and witnesses, and respect the
constitutional and legal rights of all persons, including suspects and defendants.
What then is justice? Philosophers differ, but here is a defintion from which "the rule of
law" (of which we hear so much) can be derived. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy :
The third aspect of justice to which Justinian's definition draws our attention is the
connection between justice and the impartial and consistent application of rules
– that is what the 'constant and perpetual will' part of the definition conveys.
Justice is the opposite of arbitrariness. It requires that where two cases are
relevantly alike, they should be treated in the same way . Following a rule that
specifies what is due to a person who has features X, Y, Z whenever such a person is
encountered ensures this. And although the rule need not be unchangeable – perpetual in
the literal sense – it must be relatively stable. This explains why justice is
exemplified in the rule of law, where laws are understood as general rules impartially
applied over time. Outside of the law itself, individuals and institutions that want to
behave justly must mimic the law in certain ways (for instance, gathering reliable
information about individual claimants, allowing for appeals against decisions).
The Law Dictionary conceptualizes the requirement for "impartial and consistent application
of rules" as fairness. From " The Four Pillars of the Rule
of Law ":
It's one thing for the laws to be written fairly, but if they are enforced in such a way
that is either arbitrary or unfair then the rule of law begins to break down. For example, if
a jurisdiction passes laws against drug use, but then only enforces those laws against a
particular ethnic minority or social group, then the laws are not being enforced fairly.
Citizens living under a rule of law system have a right to know that the laws are being
administered and enforced in a way that is fair and accessible.
There are many theories of justice, but surely the "impartial and consistent application of
rules" is understood by lay readers as fundamental. From the Washington Post, "
The U.S. court system is criminally unjust ":
We like to believe that decisions made in U.S. courts are determined by the wisdom of the
Constitution, and guided by fair-minded judges and juries of our peers.
Unfortunately, this is often wishful thinking. Unsettling research into the psychology of
courtroom decisions has shown that our personal backgrounds, unconscious biases about race,
gender and appearance, and even the time of day play a more important role in outcomes than
the actual law.
Having established that the House, when impeaching a President, acts as a Prosector, that
the duty of a prosecutor is not merely to seek conviction, but justice, let's now ask ourselves
whether the House, assuming it to have impeached Trump, will have acted in accordance with its
duties, or not.
As a sidebar, it may be urged that unlike a prosecutor's office, the House has no permanent
prosecutorial function. Indeed, House.gov seems, unlike the Senate, to have no page on
impeachment at all; and the House is structured
very differently :
The House is the only branch of government that has been directly elected by American
voters since its formation in 1789. Unlike the Senate, the House is not a continuing body.
Its Members must stand for election every two years, after which it convenes for a new
session and essentially reconstitutes itself -- electing a Speaker, swearing-in the
Members-elect, and approving a slate of officers to administer the institution. Direct,
biennial elections and the size of the membership (currently 435 voting Representatives) have
made the House receptive to a continual influx of new ideas and priorities that contribute to
its longstanding reputation as the "People's House."
It could be argued, then, that the "rules" for impeachment need only to be consistent during
the two years of a House session, and could then be changed at the next session, an evident
absurdity since the President serves for four years, and could presume himself acting
unimpeachably for two years, and then be impeached, for the same acts , in the third.
Clearly, some sort of institutional memory of what is impeachable and what is not, even if
tacit, must be shared among the three branches of government and the public -- even if not
adhered to by all. Fortunately, for Trump's impeachment, we have such repository in the person
of the Leader of the House -- one might call them the Chief Prosecturor -- Nancy Pelosi, to
whose remarkable statement I now turn. End sidebar.
Here is how Nancy Pelosi describes her past exercise of her prosecutorial function (in this
case, declining to prosecute:
DEAN CHIEN, STUDENT, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: So, Speaker Pelosi, you resisted calls for
the impeachment of President Bush in 2006, and President Trump, following the Mueller report
earlier this year.
This time it's different. Why did you impose – why did you oppose impeachment in the
past? And what is your obligation to protect our democracy from the actions of our President
now?
PELOSI: Thank you. Thank you for bringing up the question about – because when I
became Speaker the first time, there was overwhelming call for me to impeach President Bush,
on the strength of the war in Iraq[3], which I vehemently opposed, and again not –
again, I – I say "Again," I said – said at other places that I – that was
my we – all has always (ph) Intelligence.
I was Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee even before I became part of the
leadership of Gang of Four. So, I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq . It
just wasn't there.
They had to show us now – to show the Gang of Four all the Intelligence they
had. The Intelligence did not show that that – that was the case. So, I knew it was a
– a misrepresentation to the public. But having said that, it was a, in my view, not a
ground for impeachment. That was – they won the election. They made a
representation . And to this day, people think – people think that that it was
the right thing to do.
If people think that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11, I mean it's as appalling what
they did. But I did – and I've said, if somebody wants to make a case, you bring it
forward.
(Remarkably, or not, Pelosi kept her knowledge that the Iraq War was built on lies secret
from the public. This doesn't strike me as the right approach to " a Republic, if you can keep it .") First,
apparently a President's "misrepresentation to the public" that led to war -- a war that
resulted, even in the early years of the war, in tens of thousands of civilian deaths,
thousands of American deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the Abu Ghraib torture
scandal -- is not a "high crime or misdemeanor." Pelosi would have us believe that Bush's
disinformation campaign was not, as Madison writes in Federalist 65 , a
case of "misconduct of public men, or, in other words the abuse or violation of some public
trust." And why? Because "[Bush] won the election." Except Pelosi gets the timeline wrong. Bush
won his election in 2004. The Democrats took back the House in 2006 -- how we cheered, then; it
was almost as satisfying as Obama's inaugural -- based in large part on Bush's botched handling
of Iraq. Pelosi "won the election." And then didn't do anything with her power.
Let's ask a little consistency from our Chief Prosecutor, shall we? Because that's what
justice demands? If "misrepresentation to the public the public" in service of taking the
country into war -- the aluminum tubes, the yellowcake, all the whackamole lies that Bush put
forth -- is not impeachable, then how on earth is what Trump did, even under the very worst
intepretation, impeachable? Are we really going to convict Trump because he -- Bud
from Legal insists I insert the word "allegedly" -- tried to muscle Zelensky? Here is
what Turley, who approached his statement as a lawyer would, did with that accusation . I'm
going to quote a great slab of this, because the whole thing ticks me off so much:
Presidents often put pressure on other countries which many of us view as inimical to our
values or national security. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama reportedly put
pressure on other countries not to investigate the U.S. torture program or seek the arrest of
those responsible.103 President Obama and his staff also reportedly pressured the Justice
Department not to initiate criminal prosecution stemming from the torture program.104
Moreover, presidents often discuss political issues with their counterparts and make comments
that are troubling or inappropriate. However, contemptible is not synonymous with
impeachable. Impeachment is not a vehicle to monitor presidential communications for such
transgressions. That is why making the case of a quid pro quo is so important – a case
made on proof, not presumptions. While critics have insisted that there is no alternative
explanation, it is willful blindness to ignore the obvious defense. Trump can argue that he
believed the Obama Administration failed to investigate a corrupt contract between Burisma
and Hunter Biden. He publicly called for the investigation into the Ukraine matters.
Requesting an investigation is not illegal any more than a leader asking for actions from
their counterparts during election years.
Trump will also be able to point to three direct conversations on the record. His call
with President Zelensky does not state a quid pro quo. In his August conversation with Sen.
Ron Johnson (R., WI.), President Trump reportedly denied any quid pro quo. In his September
conversation with Ambassador Sondland, he also denied any quid pro quo. The House
Intelligence Committee did an excellent job in undermining the strength of the final two
calls by showing that President Trump was already aware of the whistleblower controversy
emerging on Capitol Hill. However, that does not alter the fact that those direct accounts
stand uncontradicted by countervailing statements from the President. In addition, President
Zelensky himself has said that he did not discuss any quid pro quo with President Trump.
Indeed, Ambassador Taylor testified that it was not until the publication of the Politico
article on September 31st that the Ukrainians voiced concerns over possible preconditions.
That was just ten days before the release of the aid. That means that the record lacks not
only direct conversations with President Trump (other than the three previously mentioned)
but even direct communications with the Ukrainians on a possible quid pro quo did not occur
until shortly before the aid release. Yet, just yesterday, new reports filtered out on
possible knowledge before that date -- highlighting the premature move to drafting articles
of impeachment without a full and complete record.105
Voters should not be asked to assume that President Trump would have violated federal law
and denied the aid without a guarantee on the investigations. The current narrative is that
President Trump only did the right thing when "he was caught." It is possible that he never
intended to withhold the aid past the September 30th deadline while also continuing to push
the Ukrainians on the corruption investigation. It is possible that Trump believed that the
White House meeting was leverage, not the military aid, to push for investigations. It is
certainly true that both criminal and impeachment cases can be based on circumstantial
evidence, but that is less common when direct evidence is available but unsecured in the
investigation. Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set
for this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is
meant to be thorough and complete. This is neither.
Put Turley's justifiable polemic against a childish West Wing view of international
relations aside. Just look at the triviality of the subject matter, whether you think Trump
is guilty or not . White House appearances. Military aid. Corruption investigations. How is
lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable, and this mass of anodyne
trivialities im peachable? When it's the same prosecutor declining to indict for Iraq,
and deciding to indict for Ukraine? Whatever this is, it's not "the impartial and consistent
application of rules", and that means the House is failing in its prosecutorial duty to seek
justice, and not merely conviction.
NOTE Yes, I'm leaving the national security aspects of Ukraine aside. We can take up the
question of whether the interagency process should run foreign policy, or the President, and
the Blob's peculiar view of the national interest another time.
I agree with this analysis, but Madam Speaker Pelosi and her fellow players are not doing
what they are doing for the Republic's, the law, ethics, morality, and certainly not for
justice's sake. If they were, Pelosi would not have mentioned her prewar knowledge of
President Bush's and his Administration's lies on the reasons given for going to war.
This is merely political theater and a way to stiffen their spines of jello for their
coup. Heaven forfend that President Evo Morales Donald Trump be ousted in a coup by
the American Deep State. Our ruling class and their servants really are stupid enough to
believe that destroying the norms, both written and unwritten, that our society is actually
governed by is a good thing.
Maybe TPTB truly believe that an increasingly ungovernable, immiserated, and desperate
society in an increasingly unpredictable climate is just another chance to consume the poor
instead of the poor consuming them.
The democrats couldn't go after the bush administration for falsely leading this country to
invade iraq, for one big reason . they were JUST as guilty . They, including clinton; voted,
and went on all the air waves, did op eds; all justifying the charade, that was the run up to
the iraq invasion.
People ought not forget,
EVERY bit of information proving the iraq war was a lie . was in plenty of places BEFORE the
invasion. And every establishment shill did their level best to not only ignore the truth,
but to discredit it with pathetic lies and rhetoric.
The democrats were just as guilty for iraq as the republicans.
And when the terrorists who were used as a ploy to blow up the twin towers, were being
protected by the fbi between 1998 and 2000.(look at Robert Wright and John Vincent fbi agents
from chicago office, who were told by superiors to "let sleeping dogs lie".. after a two year
investigation of two of the "were to become terrorists"and yasin al-qadi. their money man who
was a co owner of P-TECH(above top secret clearances at :cia,fbi,nsa,faa,secret
service,norad,nro,etc.) and later a donor to the MITT Romney campaign) The clintons and the
democratic elite were right there pretending nothing was happening. And have since pretended
that "the war on freedom",,,,or as they call it "the war on terror" is justified.
whether it was the democratic party or the new york times or la times or washington post of
the weekly standard or fox news or PBS EVERY media powerhouse was on the side of "the big
lie"..
Pathetic logic fails were fed to the american population 24/7/365
The truth be damned and still is
When you have a Democrat do away with Glass-Steagall, who needs Republican villains. Both
totally corrupt parties are beholden to the banks and corporations, and need to be voted out
of office.
Question, is there a statute of limitations for impeachable offenses? Because the Speaker of the House admitted on the public record of implicitly participating
(by her silence) in an orchestrated lie that led to the deaths and maiming of thousands of
American soldiers. Should we be taking that public statement and calling for her impeachment? Can you impeach
the Speaker of the House?
Maybe the Democrats are hoping that once it reaches the Senate, that one of their number
will step up, make a stirring West-Wing style speech which will cause all those present
– Republicans included – to rise to their feet and clap and cheer as they vote
for Trump to be finally kicked out of the White House. Then in their newfound maturity, they
will make Mike Pence the new President of the United States as they work together for a
better country with new respect for each other.
The MSM is reporting the "impeachment" as if it was a serious (approved by expert
academics) endeavor. However, the veil is lifting. The revealed face of the ruling class is
Neo-Orwellian.
"Nadler's committee will likely vote to impeach Trump. In a report defining what it
considers impeachable offenses, the committee states that even if Trump did not actually
break any laws in his supposed "quid pro quo" dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky, he can still be impeached for his unstated motives.
"The question is not whether the president's conduct could have resulted from
permissible motives. It is whether the president's real reasons, the ones in his mind at the
time, were legitimate, " it stated."
Turley says he is now getting threatening phone calls as well people trying to get him
fired as professor because he dared to pooh pooh the case for impeachment.
There has been a
vast and irrational response to Trump from day one–perhaps based on the fantasy that
the presidency really is like The West Wing whereas the reality is likely closer to the HBO
comedy Veep. From "now watch this drive" Dubya to Obama and his "propeller heads" our
presidents are a series of vain peacocks with Trump merely the extreme case. Impeach them
all–or none.
This observation by Lambert Strether sums it up: "Karlan's wasn't even footnoted, whether
to facts, or to law." She is supposedly a professor of law, supposedly advising the Congress
about the process of impeachment. She didn't even try to do her job. One may not agree with
Turley, although the long excerpt brings a broad perspective to what is criminality and to
how much criminality we now consider normal in the U.S. government. To his credit, Turley
marshals facts into a synthesis.
What the Republicans don't seem to get is that will to power isn't all that matters and
that their commitment to economic degradation and looting the citizenry have thrown them into
a crisis (as the paleo-conservatives keep pointing out). Among liberals like Pelosi (and
Karlan), the cluelessness is breathtaking. American liberalism is in a profound crisis, with
Karlan's disquisition being particulary breathtaking for clichés-a-minute, sheer
vulgar thinking, and kitsch.
This is the end. For those of us on the left, and I hesitate to advise non-action, it may
be time simply to let these two rotten structures and ways of thinking collapse. It is like
watching two ghost ships engaged battle, desparately trying to sink one another into a putrid
ocean.
On a lighter (!) note, I will quote Gramsci:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying away and the new cannot
yet be born; during this break in continuity, unhealthy events of every kind are
happening.
La crisi consiste appunto nel fatto che il vecchio muore e il nuovo non può
nascere: in questo interregno si verificano i fenomeni morbosi piú svariati.
I think your last quote hits the nail on the head. It should be painted on every highway
overpass. The insanity of [neo]liberals strikes me as the actions of the philosophically bankrupt,
the hysterical demonizing of Trump being their desperate way to avoid recognizing that fact.
I can understand that almost all people crave certainty, but Jesus its time to let it go and
strike out to elsewhere.
An old lawyer adage: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the
law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law , pound the
table.
Nadler, like Schiff before him, is putting on a diversionary show. The big rush in both
shows has been to construct narratives to sow doubt in the minds of viewers and voters, on a
tight schedule. That schedule has been known for some time, with a big component dropping
today in the IG report.
They had seen enough in SCIFs and elsewhere to know that Team Dem was going to get slammed
due to its supporters in the FBI and DOJ. That much is evident in reviewing the report and
scores of other documents available to the public. What hasn't been made available, like the
Atkinson piece, also provide further support to the Schiff and Nadler accelerants.*
In a way, I almost feel sorry for Rep. Schiff as he was sent on a fool's errand. History
will be unkind to him, among others.
Of greater concern during their proceedings is the absolute lack of regard for the
principles like Due Process established in our US Constitution, and the rule of law.
Then she's a war criminal too! I also remember her saying, "well, we didn't want to ruin
our chances" (in the next election). My fondest wish is that GW Bush, Jr. and the gang who
lied us into the war in Iraq be prosecuted and convicted for war crimes. A somewhat hopeless
wish – that.
She can be surprisingly frank about these things sometimes. She is saying the same thing
in this quote ("people think that that it was the right thing to do" = opposing this would
have cost us votes). I can't understand why anybody would ever trust her again after a
revelation like that.
Whether it's Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and any others I've missed, I want
to know how many of these rats had / have financial interests in these wars including daily
drone-fests a few years ago.
The war drums have been beating on the Ukraine vs Russian for a
few years now. Pelosi is worth over $100,000,000 on mere $200,000 humble public servant
salary, many others on both Team Blue and Team Red similar.
If Team Red Senate votes to
summarily dismiss impeachment it is the tell that there were / are many more cockroaches they
do not want to expose, such as Lindsey Graham, Mitt, McCain, Kerry, not to forget Rummy,
Wolfe, Condi, Cheney, W, O, Hillary, Poppy and so on.
Any 20 somethings in those households
die or maimed "over there"? Let them all hang, dig their corpses up if you have to. Trump
should double-dog dare them all to do it.
I voted for Trump solely as a bull in the china shop, with everything preceding him the
past ~ 40 years as the china shop. Andy Jackson was not on the ballot 3 years ago, so I had
to settle.
I agree that DJT's misdeeds (at least the ones we know about) do not approach those of the
Bush/Cheney presidency (the ones we know about). I wonder what lies beneath the D
determination to impeach. I have been getting emails from various D-oriented organizations asserting that control of
the Senate is within reach for the Ds in 2020, and asking for funds.
Given the near certainty that the Senate will not vote to convict (either through ~20Rs
voting with Ds or ~30Rs simply not voting), perhaps it is hoped that a failure to convict in
the Senate would help Ds make the case for an extra heavy base turnout in 2020 to deliver the
Senate to the Ds.
They can't, or won't, govern. But with control of both houses, they might be able to
impeach and convict.
If the Democratic Party refuses to govern, just why should they be in office? Unless it is
Goldman Sach, Jeff Bezos, and their fellow oligarchs, it is just mendacity masquerading as
seriousness. The Republicans also do not govern, but loot the lower 80% of the population
while dismantling the government.
Just before the Civil War, Republican Party replaced the American Whigs and the Democratic
Party split in two and looked like it too was going away as well. Let's have a clean sweep
this time and maybe prevent another war.
It seemed that the Democrats started out focused on a Trump connection to laundered
Russian money. They didn't like his friendliness toward Putin. The FBI and Mueller went
straight for Manafort and got him cold. It's possible they can't get Trump because he dealt
through DeutscheBank and DB has been protected so far from prosecution.
Every bank in the EU
seems to have laundered Russian money. So to start prosecuting would/will be a total circus.
The House Dems started to boil when Trump suggested the Magnitsky Act was not impartial and
Browder might be a crook, heaven forbid. But when Trump really started to focus on the Ukraingate stuff the House shifted into high gear.
Schiff started to look like a cornered
animal, the expression on his face went from moral superiority to downright angst. His eyes
started to bug out. Nancy went from no impeachment to, almost overnight, yes impeachment. And
Rudy Giuliani was accused of Treason for questioning their favorite operative, Joe Bagman.
And how impolite of Trump and Rudy to suggest that Joe's doofus son could be up to the same
corruption as daddy. So the fear in the House is visible. I'm thinking there are lotsa
members who might be not just complicit in the coup but complicit having received money for
favors. Or in the case of Browder, helping an international thief and conman with high
connections here and in the UK. High connections usually means political bribes. So Trump
knows where the skeletons are buried imo and it freaks them out beyond any possible just
proceeding. And Nancy's an idiot with a gavel.
Prosecutors seeking justice? On what alien planet do you suppose that might be happening?
Prosecutorial misconduct, caprice, and inconsistency is a hallmark of the US criminal
carcerial system. Our Gulag doesn't just fill itself it needs prosecutors to keep the ball
rolling. Sorta like insurance delivering healthcare.
How is lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable, and this mass of anodyne
trivialities impeachable?
It's not. The system has broken completely down, although many americans don't know it
yet. The democrats need to back off, although I wouldn't put money on it.
Good to remember the ultimate frame that bounds this Gong Show Trial: "In the long run we
are all dead."
What's going on here seems to me to have the same overall flavor of what's happening in
Britain. Let the last stage of the Great Looting of the Planet begin.
I think there are too many moving parts to allow any meaningful analysis of such a
soon-to-be-fait accompli. Justice, fairness, Constitution, "rule of law" are the shibboleths
of the weak. None of those are anything but fig leafs over tumescent power, mentioned
occasionally and clearly without adherence or conviction by that tiny set of front people and
spokespersons for the even smaller set that actually move the levers of power. In the end, of
course, as with all the climax events of the last few generations, we mopes will never get
more than a modified limited hangout of an inkling to what actually happened, and not even
that while the play's afoot.
And what good would it doe us to know all the details? What power do American mopes, for
sure, atomized and fearful and befuddled, have to "bend the arc of history toward
justice"?
Well, I think we made a credible effort to bend the arc of history in 1776, and again in
1865. I have little doubt that history will eventually repeat itself, or at least rhyme quite
nicely.
Pence represents a large cohort of Evangelicals who are not averse to using 'direct
action' to advance their causes. Think of the abortion doctors who were shot by 'right wing
nutters,' and the horrific tactics used against women trying to enter and leave abortion
clinics.
One of Pence's strengths is his unswerving adherence to a particular ideology. He has focus,
and that aspect of his character gives him strength and purpose.
Even Napoleon realized the value of the Moral in human affairs.
Also consider groups within the Government and Military aligned with the Evangelical mind
set. Pence has ample resources to manage the job of President.
History shows that relatively small groups of committed and coordinated True Believers can
take over and run governments. Pence is the figurehead for such a group. Beware.
Biden was asked if he would comply if subpoenaed for the Senate trial and he said no. So
Trump is to be impeached for his "crimes" while his potential opponent defies the law and
that's ok because .why was that ok again?.
"However hurried a court may be in its efforts to reach the merits of a controversy, the
integrity of procedural rules is dependent upon consistent enforcement because the only fair
and reasonable alternative thereto is complete abandonment." Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St. 2d
209 (1980).
"We have granted discretionary review because a majority of a Court of Appeals panel has
refused to follow a long line of decisions of the highest court of this state in violation of
S.C.R. 1.030(8)(a) which provides:
'The Court of Appeals is bound by and shall follow applicable precedents established in
the opinions of the Supreme Court and its predecessor court.'
The rule is fundamental and is absolutely necessary in a hierarchical judicial system. If
every tier of courts in the judicial hierarchy were free to disregard the decisions of a
higher court, the Court of Appeals could freely disregard the decisions of the Supreme Court,
the circuit courts could freely ignore the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court and our District Courts would be bound by no law at all, free to ignore the decisions
of all higher courts. The result of that course is anarchy." Special Fund v. Francis, 708
S.W.2d 641 (Ky. 1986).
The above favorable articulations notwithstanding what I've been seeing the past decade,
or so, is something much more akin to "The Rule of Whimsy," with said rule of whimsy having
replaced "The Rule of Law."
I don't think the comparative impeachable offenses argument adds any clarification. The
distinction is that the current proceedings are about potential extortion that impacts the
next election; the impeachable lies and corruption that led to the Iraq war took two years
for the public to perceive. Future versus past. Even if Kerry won in 2004, there would not
have been convictions because the conflict was still in progress. Besides, those that carry
out orders are the ones that get convictions, not the commanders. Oh, and let's not forget
"the fog of war" – a very useful alibi for top military advisers and political
leaders.
I think the problem with the current impeachment mess can be Venn diagrammed. Imagine two
circles. Once circle titled political leverage, the other circle titled extortion. Move the
circles together to partially overlap. Where they overlap is titled Joe Biden. A distinction
can usually be made between political leverage and extortion by asking who the stakeholders
are. Leverage (with military aid) is always going on, and it benefits "regional stability"
and "national security". Extortion benefits the requester, weakens his rivals, creates a
compromising dependency the supplicant. In the overlap area the extorted political smear gets
executed and the goods get delivered. I think the GOP's argument is that as long as the goods
get delivered it is acceptable political leverage. They want to minimize the effect of
smearing Joe Biden on the election. They want to blur the distinction between extortion and
leverage.
Back to future versus past: The current mess may originate with an lack of conflict of
interest oversight during/by the Obama administration by sending Joe Biden and John Kerry to
Ukraine to negotiate anti-corruption deals favorable to the US, knowing that their family
members were involved with Burisma. Surely there were others in the state Department that
could have been direct envoys of the administration. If Burisma wants to stack their board
with influential people and pay them a ridiculous sum for doing nothing – just to
attract investors – well you can chalk that up to corporate stupidity. It's not
necessarily corruption, especially if it works. How many US private equity firms have
high-visibility dead weight board members?
It took me all of one week to connect corruption with the Iraq war, back when it was
beginning. The comparison of past with present is quite useful because it highlights the
injustice that is going on right now. Even if Trump committed impeachable offenses, does not
give the House any moral authority to engage in selective prosecution for the exact same type
of behavior that they themselves, and past presidents have engaged in. This whole circus is
nothing but politics, it certainly isn't about justice, nor doing what is actually good for
the country. Disclaimer: I voted for Jill Stein. Deal with it.
I can only watch small snippets of the "impeachment hearings" before screaming at the TV
like an insane man. Even if one accepts the argument that Trump was using leverage to influence US
election: BIDEN WAS NOT THE NOMINEE !!!!!!!!!!! there were many others vying for the position. How
can you use leverage for personal gain on an event which hasn't and may not occur ?
It only works if he becomes the nominee. Trump was very effective at portraying his
opponents as he wanted during the 2016 campaign ("Crooked Hillary" ) with all the self
inflicted gaffs "Uncle Joe" makes it would seem to be shooting fish in a barrel for Trump in
2020 Why work through Ukraine, when he'd have it so easy destroying him on national TV while
stroking his own ego at the same time
So, in Myanmar, should the Hague not act because it's hands aren't clean? It hasn't acted
against the US, for example, which was a much more dangerous agressor in the ME recently (not
to speak of other cases), and so clearly, the investigation into Myanmar is "merely"
political. Even if investigating the US is impractical, it could investigate smaller
countries that have been involved in that case -- but they haven't, since this is merely
"political".
In fact, following this to the reduction to absurdity, no court ever has clean hands --
everything is corrupt to some extent, self-interested and hypocritical. Do we abandon all
pretense at systems of justice? Or is the case presented here "special" in some sense,
whereby we should look at the goals of the accusers beyond and above the acts and goals of
the accused?
Thank you, Lambert this is a great piece. I haven't been able to follow this impeachment
thing at all. But your final question and answer pulls it together for me.
It doesn't make sense because it really doesn't make sense. Also why now, when we are about to have an election?
I just wish I had the nerve and moral strength to share your post.
The are two answers to the question, "How is lying the country into the Iraq war not
impeachable, and this mass of anodyne trivialities impeachable?"
The optimistic answer is, "Because the former is a matter of statecraft, and the latter is
using official power to derive a direct personal benefit, and the standards for impeachment
based statecraft are much higher." (Congress in rejected Cambodia based articles of
impeachment in 1974)
The cynical answer is, "Because everyone in Washington, DC has sad-sack children who get
jobs because of their political power, and Trump must not be allowed to infringe on our
privilege."
The thing is, BOTH answers are true for different people.
For folks like Pramila Jayapal or AOC, I think that they see this as bribery and an abuse
of office for personal gain. (This group has been calling for impeachment for a while)
For someone like Nancy Pelosi, whose kids have clearly had opportunities as a result of
her position, I think that it is the latter.
How these two categories are split in the Democratic caucus, and there are probably some
in the, "Both," camp, is beyond me.
However, even by a relatively strict interpretation if impeachable offense, we have
obstruction of justice in the Mueller report, obstruction of Congress right now, tax and bank
fraud (though those were done when he was a private citizen), connections to the mob, both
domestic and Russian, witness intimidation, and bribery off the top of my head. (Ignoring
campaign finance violations, because seriously, who cares)
I have always felt the the furor over Russian interference in the election, which was
minor compared to what Churchill did in 1940, was primarily about excusing the corrupt and
incompetent Democratic Party (mis)leadership, and you will notice that I have not included
any of that, though obviously the cover-up flowed from that in some cases.
As Lambert knows, I'm retired after working as a prosecutor in Silicon Valley for 32
years. I think that Lambert is "on to something" here, but doesn't quite hit the mark.
Selective Prosecution is a huge issue in this country, but it isn't the issue
here.
I agree that for years , Presidents have been committing "impeachable offenses"
without being impeached. Unlike the decision to prosecute an ordinary citizen, impeachment
is a political decision . However, the question being asked by the House Judiciary
Committee, whether attempting to extort the investigation of a political rival through the
withholding of foreign aid or favors to a foreign head of state is only one small
facet of the impeachment inquiry. If Trump were to have engaged in such conduct, I
believe that it would certainly constitute an impeachable offense . Whether to proceed with
an investigation into such an offense is a political decision. I happen to agree that Trump
is a turd and that he should be investigated.
Once this political decision has been made, the potentially impeachable offense must be
investigated and prosecuted . The House leadership are engaging in the typical mistake of the
rookie prosecutor: saying to him/herself " I know he's good for it " and filing
charges without conducting a complete and thorough investigation . This is where
Professor Turley is correct:
Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this
country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be
thorough and complete. This is neither.
A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or
to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the
Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of
Executive Privilege. JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the
Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being
exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however
misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or
financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the
subjective intent of the actor is crucial.
This is where hard evidence such as tapes and transcripts of the actual words used become
critical. This evidence apparently exists, but House Democrats have failed to file suit to
obtain them. Only when we know the words used and the surrounding circumstances can we draw
inferences about the subjective intent of the actors. In the criminal law we draw such
inferences about an actor's subjective intent all the time . However, we apply special
rules when drawing inferences about a person's intent. Those inferences must not only be
reasonable , they must be the only reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
the facts and circumstances presented.
As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as
ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their
fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it "
isn't evidence.
As Lambert knows, I'm retired after working as a prosecutor in Silicon Valley for 32
years. I think that Lambert is "on to something" here, but doesn't quite hit the mark.
Selective Prosecution is a huge issue in this country, but it isn't the issue
here.
I agree that for years , Presidents have been committing "impeachable offenses"
without being impeached. Unlike the decision to prosecute an ordinary citizen, impeachment
is a political decision . However, the question being asked by the House Judiciary
Committee, whether attempting to extort the investigation of a political rival through the
withholding of foreign aid or favors to a foreign head of state is only one small
facet of the impeachment inquiry. If Trump were to have engaged in such conduct, I
believe that it would certainly constitute an impeachable offense . Whether to proceed with
an investigation into such an offense is a political decision. I happen to agree that Trump
is a turd and that he should be investigated.
Once this political decision has been made, the potentially impeachable offense must be
investigated and prosecuted . The House leadership are engaging in the typical mistake of the
rookie prosecutor: saying to him/herself " I know he's good for it " and filing
charges without conducting a complete and thorough investigation . This is where
Professor Turley is correct:
Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this
country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be
thorough and complete. This is neither.
A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or
to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the
Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of
Executive Privilege.
JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the
Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being
exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however
misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or
financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the
subjective intent of the actor is crucial.
This is where hard evidence such as tapes and transcripts of the actual words used become
critical. This evidence apparently exists, but House Democrats have failed to file suit to
obtain them. Only when we know the words used and the surrounding circumstances can we draw
inferences about the subjective intent of the actors. In the criminal law we draw such
inferences about an actor's subjective intent all the time . However, we apply special
rules when drawing inferences about a person's intent. Those inferences must not only be
reasonable , they must be the only reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
the facts and circumstances presented.
As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as
ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their
fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it "
isn't evidence.
"... If Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads constitutes election interference, and Donald Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is too - then Hillary Clinton takes the cake when it comes to influence campaigns designed to harm a political opponent. ..."
"... The article suggests that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page "has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials - including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president." ..."
"... Steele told us that in September [of 2016] her and Simpson gave an "off-the-record" briefing to a small number of journalists about his reporting, " reads page 165 of the FISA report, which says that Steele "acknowledged that Yahoo News was identified in one of the court filings in the foreign litigation as being present. " ..."
"... Put another way, Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele to feed information to the MSM in order to harm Donald Trump right before the 2016 election . Granted, there were intermediaries; the Clinton campaign paid law firm Perkins Coie, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid Steele. And if asked, we're guessing Clinton would claim she had no idea this happened - which simply isn't plausible given the stakes. Whatever the case - the act of Simpson paying Steele to peddle fiction to the media for the purpose of harming Trump, by itself , constitutes blatant election meddling by every standard set by the left over the past three years. ..."
If Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads constitutes election interference, and Donald
Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is too - then Hillary Clinton takes the cake
when it comes to influence campaigns designed to harm a political opponent.
Contained within Monday's FISA report by the DOJ
Inspector General is the revelation that Fusion GPS, the firm paid by the Clinton campaign to
produce the Steele dossier, " was paying Steele to discuss his reporting with the media. " (
P.
369 and elsewhere)
And when did Steele talk with the media - which got him
fired as an FBI source ? Perhaps most notably was Yahoo News journalist Michael Isikoff ,
who says he was invited by Fusion GPS to meet a
"secret source" at a Washington restaurant . That secret source was none other than
Christopher Steele , who fed Isikoff information from his now-discredited dossier - and which
appeared in a
September 23, 2016 article roughly six weeks before the election - which likely had orders
of magnitude greater visibility and impact coming from a widely-read, MSM source vs. $100,000
in Russian Facebook ads.
The article suggests that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page "has opened up private
communications with senior Russian officials - including talks about the possible lifting of
economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."
Steele told us that in September [of 2016] her and Simpson gave an "off-the-record" briefing
to a small number of journalists about his reporting, " reads page
165 of the FISA report, which says that Steele "acknowledged that Yahoo News was identified
in one of the court filings in the foreign litigation as being present. "
Put another way, Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele to feed information to the MSM in
order to harm Donald Trump right before the 2016 election . Granted, there were intermediaries;
the Clinton campaign paid law firm Perkins Coie, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid Steele. And
if asked, we're guessing Clinton would claim she had no idea this happened - which simply isn't
plausible given the stakes. Whatever the case - the act of Simpson paying Steele to peddle
fiction to the media for the purpose of harming Trump, by itself , constitutes blatant election
meddling by every standard set by the left over the past three years.
We're sure Hillary can explain that if and when she jumps into the 2020 race.
Schiff behaviour was egregious and as such it is now DemoRats liability...
Goldman finding are all bogus as they can't be compared with crimes on Obama and Clinton family.
Notable quotes:
"... Castor accused Democrats of sustaining a months-long quest to find an issue on which to impeach Trump. After Mueller's investigation didn't deliver the results they wanted, he said Democrats now are focusing on Trump's interactions with Ukraine, particularly his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. ..."
"... "The record in the Democrats' impeachment inquiry does not show that President Trump abused the power of Congress or obstructed Congress," Castor said. "To impeach a president who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney." ..."
Here's the Democratic position, according to their lawyers...
"The evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power" by trying to get
Ukraine to help his prospects for re-election by announcing an investigation into a political
rival, former Vice President Joe Biden," said Barry Berke, counsel to House Judiciary
Democrats.
He and Daniel Goldman, counsel for Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, also cited
numerous instances of the Trump administration withholding documents and other evidence
sought by Congress in connection with the Ukraine probe.
...and the Republican position.
The panel's Republican counsel, Steve Castor, reiterated one of the chief defenses of the
president that's been put forward by Trump allies: "The impeachment inquiry's record is
riddled with hearsay, presumptions and speculation."
He accused Democrats of pursuing an "artificial and arbitrary political deadline" to
overturn the 2016 election and impeach Trump's before the Christmas holiday.
Goldman detailed what he called four "critical" findings from the investigation, according
to Dems. All of these points will likely feature prominently in the articles.
Trump used the power of his office to pressure and induce the newly-elected president of
Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidential election for Trump's personal and political
benefit.
In order to increase the pressure on Ukraine to announce the politically-motivated
investigations that the president wanted, he withheld a coveted Oval Office meeting and $391
million of essential military assistance from Ukraine.
Trump's conduct undermined the U.S. election process and poses an imminent threat to our
national security.
Faced with the revelation of his pressure campaign against Ukraine, Trump directed an
unprecedented effort to obstruct Congress' impeachment inquiry into his conduct.
Meanwhile, Republicans insist that the Dems' impeachment drive was a waste of time because
it doesn't show abuse of power.
Castor accused Democrats of sustaining a months-long quest to find an issue on which to
impeach Trump. After Mueller's investigation didn't deliver the results they wanted, he said
Democrats now are focusing on Trump's interactions with Ukraine, particularly his July 25
phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
"The record in the Democrats' impeachment inquiry does not show that President Trump
abused the power of Congress or obstructed Congress," Castor said. "To impeach a president
who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney."
Unfortunately, the impeachment hearing blitz has done little to shift public opinion. Poll
averages compiled by FiveThirtyEight and RealClear Politics show that Americans are evenly
divided with roughly 47% to 48% supporting impeachment and 44% to 45% opposing. Some individual
polls have found that more than eight in ten people say their minds are made up.
Though Nadler says he hasn't yet made a final decision, it looks like evidence from the
Mueller probe will be left out of the articles of impeachment by Democrats (probably not a bad
idea).
Looks like Schiff went overboard and it is he who should be impeached...
Notable quotes:
"... Likewise, Mr. Schiff published call records between Mr. Giuliani and me and suggested they involved my Ukraine stories. Many contacts I had with Mr. Giuliani involved interviews on the Mueller report and its aftermath or efforts to invite the president's lawyer on the Hill's TV show, which I supervised. ..."
"... Mr. Schiff's team has tried to minimize the conduct because he never subpoenaed my phone records directly but extracted them from others' call records. That defense is laughable. ..."
"... Similarly, in the days since Mr. Schiff's phone-record release, I have had people who openly talked to me on the phone this year suddenly ask to communicate only by encrypted apps. They don't want their names splashed in the next congressional report. And they fear a bipartisan open season on phone records of political opponents in the future. ..."
"... Mr. Schiff appears to assume that Congress enjoys unlimited investigative powers under the Constitution's Speech or Debate clause. He does not. I recommend the chairman examine the record in McSurely v. McClellan , a two-decade legal battle that began in 1967 and pitted a powerful committee chairman against a liberal activist couple in Kentucky. It is widely regarded -- along with the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s -- as one of most egregious episodes of misconduct in the modern history of congressional oversight. ..."
"... "can only stand as a small reaffirmation of the proposition that there are bounds to the interference that citizens must tolerate from the agents of their government -- even when such agents invoke the mighty shield of the Constitution and claim official purpose to their conduct." ..."
The Federal Bureau of Investigation's
Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide , the bible for agents, has long recognized
that journalists, the clergy and lawyers deserve special protections because of the
constitutional implications of investigating their work . Penitents who confess to a priest,
sources who provide confidential information to a reporter, and clients who seek advice from
counsel are assumed to be protected by a high bar of privacy, which must be weighed against the
state's interests in investigating matters or subpoenaing records. Judges and members of
Congress also fall into a special FBI category because of the Constitution's separation of
powers.
The FBI and Justice Department have therefore created specific rules governing agents'
actions involving special-circumstances professionals, which include high-level approval and
review. There are also special rules for
subpoenaing journalists.
If the executive branch, and by extension the courts that enforce these privacy protections,
observe the need for such sensitivity, it seems reasonable that Congress should have similar
guardrails ensuring that the powers of the state are equally and fairly applied.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff apparently doesn't see things that way
.
His committee secretly authorized subpoenas to AT&T earlier this year for the phone records of President
Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and an associate. He then arbitrarily extracted
information about certain private calls and made them public.
Many of the calls Mr. Schiff chose to publicize fell into the special-circumstances
categories: a fellow member of Congress ( Rep. Devin Nunes, the Intelligence Committee's
ranking Republican), two lawyers (Mr. Giuliani and fellow Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow ) and a
journalist (me).
More alarming, the released call records involve figures who have sometimes criticized or
clashed with Mr. Schiff. I wrote a
story raising questions about his contacts with Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson, a key
figure in the Russia probe, that brought the California Democrat unwelcome scrutiny. Mr. Nunes
has been one of Mr. Schiff's main Republican antagonists, helping to prove that the exaggerated
claims of Trump-Russia election collusion were unsubstantiated. Messrs. Sekulow and Giuliani
represent Mr. Trump, who is Mr. Schiff's impeachment target.
Mr. Schiff's actions in obtaining and publicizing private phone records trampled the
attorney-client privilege of Mr. Trump and his lawyers. It intruded on my First Amendment
rights to interview and contact figures like Mr. Giuliani and the Ukrainian-American
businessman Lev Parnas without fear of having the dates, times and length of private
conversation disclosed to the public.
Contrary to Mr. Schiff's defense that he was simply serving the investigative interest of
Congress, the release of the phone records served much more to punish people whose work Mr.
Schiff found antagonistic than to fulfill an oversight purpose . And it served Congress poorly
because it spread false insinuations. Mr. Schiff's report suggested, for instance, that Mr.
Giuliani called the White House to talk to the Office of Management and Budget, implying he
might have been trying to help Mr. Trump withhold aid to Ukraine as Democrats allege. The White
House says that claim is wrong; the number was a generic phone entry point and no one in OMB
talked to Mr. Giuliani.
Likewise, Mr. Schiff published call records between Mr. Giuliani and me and suggested they
involved my Ukraine stories. Many contacts I had with Mr. Giuliani involved interviews on the
Mueller report and its aftermath or efforts to invite the president's lawyer on the Hill's TV
show, which I supervised.
Mr. Schiff's team has tried to minimize the conduct because he never subpoenaed my phone
records directly but extracted them from others' call records. That defense is laughable.
Once a journalist and his calls are made public through the powers of the surveillance
state, there is an instant chilling effect on press freedom.
I know this firsthand. In 2001 and 2002, when I was a reporter for the Associated Press, the
Justice Department obtained my home phone records and the FBI
illegally seized my mail without a warrant in an effort to unmask my sources on federal
corruption and stop publication of a story about the government's counterterrorism failures
before 9/11. In the end the FBI returned my reporting records, apologized to me privately, and
announced new rules to avoid a repeat for other journalists.
Yet by that time many of my longtime sources had told me they had chosen not to contact me
for fear of being detected. Others would only meet in person, concerned that my phones were
wiretapped.
Similarly, in the days since Mr. Schiff's phone-record release, I have had people who openly
talked to me on the phone this year suddenly ask to communicate only by encrypted apps. They
don't want their names splashed in the next congressional report. And they fear a bipartisan
open season on phone records of political opponents in the future.
Rep. Mike Turner (R., Ohio), a member of the Intelligence Committee, tells me he's drafting
legislation to put guardrails on future congressional subpoenas for phone records. That's a
good start, but more needs to be done sooner.
Mr. Schiff appears to assume that Congress enjoys unlimited investigative powers under the
Constitution's Speech or Debate clause. He does not. I recommend the chairman examine the
record in McSurely v. McClellan , a two-decade legal battle that began in 1967 and pitted a
powerful committee chairman against a liberal activist couple in Kentucky. It is widely
regarded -- along with the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s -- as one of most egregious episodes
of misconduct in the modern history of congressional oversight.
In one of the final
appellate decisions in that topsy-turvy case, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia ruled that Congressional oversight isn't boundless and that the Speech or
Debate Clause has limits. The final paragraph of that ruling derided a "sorry chapter of
investigative excess."
The judges wrote that their decision:
"can only stand as a small reaffirmation of the proposition that there are bounds to the
interference that citizens must tolerate from the agents of their government -- even when
such agents invoke the mighty shield of the Constitution and claim official purpose to their
conduct."
Imagine if it were Devin Nunes subpoenaing the phone records of Adam Schiff, and Schiff's
private conversations with, say, a reporter at CNN...and then making them public.
The MSM would go BALLISTIC!!!!! Heads would have to roll in Congress, and elsewhere. It
would be top-of-the-page headline news 24/7.
But, because this is ALL ABOUT getting rid of the Bad Orange Man, what do we hear from the
MSM??? *crickets*
And the MSM wonders why Congress has a better approval rating among the American public
that they do.
Adam Schiff is the tip of the iceberg. Wanton disregard for the rule of law, all the while
espousing strict adherence to it, is rampant. While living among us, these Neo-liberals have
declared war on us. To them, any means are legitimate in 'defeating' us. They know they would
never win a direct confrontation with facts, so subversion, deception, and sabotage are their
methods of choice. They have co-opted media, education, and government into their ideology of
control. The vast majority of the populace will be subdued and programmed into believing and
doing anything. For all intents and purposes, we're already there.
They poisoned with the USA with Russophobia for decades to come, and that really increases
the risk of nuclear confrontation, which would wipe out all this jerks, but also mass of innocent
people.
Notable quotes:
"... The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5. Not holding my breath I am afraid. ..."
"... Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better distractions). ..."
Sooner or later you'll have this, IMHO: Reaction time 7 minutes . You know,
decision-making time to say "launch" or not. The decision-maker in the White House, Downing
Street and Elysees Palace either a geriatric or one of this new multiracial breed. Just think
about those people
Add to that the level of overall expertise by the crews manning those systems, its
maintenance etc. Add increased automation of some parts of the launch process with
hardware/software as it's produced now (you know, quality control etc.).
It will take a miracle not to have that launch sooner or later. Not big, say .80 KT. What
happens after that is anybody's guess. Mine, taking the second point from the fourth
paragraph .a big bang.
The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of
their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5.
Not holding my breath I am afraid.
@peterAUS The rational actor false supposition has it that the biologics can't be used
because they don't recognize friend from foe.
Rational actors? Where? Anthrax via the US mail.
One rational actor point of view is that you have to be able to respond to anything.
Anything. In a measured or escalating response. Of course biologics are being actively
pursued to the hilt. Just like you point out about Marburg.
But, the view from above is that general panic in the population cannot be allowed, and so
all biologics have to be down played. "of course we would never do anything like that, it
would be insane to endanger all of humanity". Just like nukes. So professors pontificate
misdirection, and pundits punt.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis. "We only want the fear that results
in more appropriations. Not the fear that sinks programs." Don't generate new Church
commissions. Hence the fine line. some fear yes, other fears, no.
Well Washington D.C.
Hahahahaha sorry, couldn't resist.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis.
I don't.
But I also probably forgot more about nuclear war than most of readers here will ever
know. And chemical, when you think about it; had a kit with atropine on me all the time in
all exercises. We didn't practice much that "biologics" stuff, though. We knew why, then.
Same reason for today. Call it a "stoic option" to own inevitable demise.
Now, there is a big difference between the age of those protests I mentioned and today.
The Internet. The access to information people, then, simply didn't have.
Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real
world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better
distractions).
Well, they will care, I am sure. For about ..say in the USA ..several hours, on
average.
We here where I am typing from will care for "how to survive the aftermath" .. for two
months.Tops.
In her usual succinct and clarifying manner, The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel
took to Twitter overnight to summarize the farcical findings within the Horowitz Report (and
Barr and Durham's responses).
In
sixteen short tweets , Strassel destroyed the spin while elucidating the key findings of
the Horowitz report (emphasis ours):
Yup, IG said FBI hit threshold for opening an investigation. But also goes out of its way to
note what a "low threshold" this is.
Durham's statement made clear he will provide more info for Americans to make a judgment on
reasonableness.
The report is triumph for former House Intel Chair Devin Nunes, who first blew the whistle
on FISA abuse. The report confirms all the elements of the February 2018 Nunes memo, which said
dossier was as an "essential" part of applications, and FBI withheld info from FISA court
Conversely, the report is an excoriation of Adam Schiff and his "memo" of Feb 2018.
That doc stated that "FBI and DOJ officials did NOT abuse the [FISA] process" or "omit
material information."
Also claimed FBI didn't much rely on dossier.
In fact, IG report says dossier played "central and essential role" in getting FISA
warrants.
Schiff had access to same documents as Nunes, yet chose to misinform the public. This is
the guy who just ran impeachment proceedings.
The Report is a devastating indictment of Steele, Fusion GPS and the "dossier."
Report finds that about the only thing FBI ever corroborated in that doc were publicly
available times, places, title names. Ouch.
IG finds 17 separate problems with FISA court submissions, including FBI's overstatement of
Steele's credentials. Also the failure to provide court with exculpatory evidence and issues
with Steele's sources and additional info it got about Steele's credibility.
Every one of these "issues" is a story all on its own.
Example: The FBI had tapes of Page and Papadopoulos making statements that were
inconsistent with FBI's own collusion theories. They did not provide these to the FISA
court.
Another example: FBI later got info from professional contacts with Steele who said he
suffered from "lack of self awareness, poor judgement" and "pursued people" with "no
intelligence value." FBI also did not tell the court about these credibility concerns.
And this: FBI failed to tell Court that Page was approved as an "operational contact" for
another U.S. agency, and "candidly" reported his interactions with a Russian intel officer.
FBI instead used that Russian interaction against Page, with no exculpatory detail.
Overall, IG was so concerned by these "extensive compliance failures" that is has now
initiated additional "oversight" to assess how FBI in general complies with "policies that seek
to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons."
The Report also expressed concerns about FBI's failure to present any of these issues to DOJ
higher ups; its ongoing contacts with Steele after he was fired for talking to media; and its
use of spies against the campaign without any DOJ input.
Remember Comey telling us it was no big deal who paid for dossier?
Turns out it was a big deal in FBI/DOJ, where one lawyer (Stuart Evans) expressed
"concerns" it had been funded by Clinton/DNC. Because of his "consistent inquiries" we go
that convoluted footnote.
IG also slaps FBI for using what was supposed to be a baseline briefing for the Trump
campaign of foreign intelligence threats as a surreptitious opportunity to investigate Flynn
.
Strassel's last point is perhaps the most important for those on the left claiming
"vindication"...
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
When IG says he found no "documentary" evidence of bias, he means just that: He didn't
find smoking gun email that says "let's take out Trump."
And it isn't his job to guess at the motivations of FBI employees.
Instead... He straightforwardly lays out facts.
Those facts produce a pattern of FBI playing the FISA Court--overstating some info,
omitting other info, cherrypicking details.
Americans can look at totality and make their own judgment as to "why" FBI behaved in such a
manner.
Finally, intriguing just how many people at the FBI don't remember anything about anything.
Highly convenient.
" [T]hese irregularities, these misstatements, these omissions were not satisfactorily
explained, " said Barr in a lengthy interview with NBC , just one day after DOJ Inspector
General Michael Horowitz released the so-called FISA report.
"And I think that leaves open
the possibility to infer bad faith . I think it's premature now to reach a judgment on that,
but I think that further work has to be done and that's what Durham is doing," he added,
referring to US Attorney John Durham - who Barr hand picked to lead a concurrent investigation
into the 2016 US election.
Barr described Durham's role as "Looking at the issue of how it got started. He's looking at
whether or not the narrative of Trump being involved in the Russian interference actually
preceded July, and was it in fact what precipitated the trigger for the investigation."
"He's also looking at the conduct of the investigation," added Barr - who then said that he
instructed Durham to look just as carefully into the "post-election period."
"I did that because of some of the stuff that Horowitz has uncovered, which to me is
inexplicable. Their case collapsed after the election, and they never told the court, and
they kept on getting renewals on these applications. There was documents falsified in order
to get these renewals . There was all kinds of withholding of information from the court. And
the question really is 'what was the agenda after the election that kept them pressing ahead,
after their case collapsed?' This is the president of the Untied States!"
https://www.youtube.com/embed/sNhEYGLLS4U
Barr, who has characterized the FBI's actions during Trump-Russia investigation as spying ,
slammed the Obama DOJ and the press for the Russiagate narrative that President Trump and his
campaign colluded with Russia to win the election.
The potential timing of the Durham Report release and announcements of indictments for
Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Lynch and the rest of the traitors must horrify the demoncrats!
What do they have in common? So here's the deal - I am a dumb goyim that works in banking
and finance, which is about 50%+ dominated by the Chosenites.
They also rule politics and the Media, despite being 2% of the country.
What do you need to know? They lie. Repeatedly and boldly. Don't freak out, just
understand that culture does not believe in an afterlife where they are judged, so they lie
and steal everything in sight. That's this whole impeachment - crazy lies by sociopaths that
aren't afraid to lie.
If you know that going in, you can always protect yourself and even be decent business
allies (but not too close). That's where Trump has gone all wrong. His daughter even married
one of these goofballs who frankly is probably leaking all of the embarrassing stuff. Plan
accordingly.
Best part of the Barr interview..."The greatest charge is having an incumbent government
use the apparatus of the state to spy on political opponents and influence the outcome of the
election. This is the first time I am aware that the incumbent administration spied on a
presidential candidate."
You are exactly correct. The Horowitz review was initiated to look into how the DOJ and
FBI secured a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant against U.S. person Carter Page. IG Horowitz
was never investigating the predicate claims that initiated the CIA/FBI operation known as
"Crossfire Hurricane". So how exactly would AG Barr and IG Horowitz be diverging on an aspect
to a predicate that Horowitz was never reviewing?
Additionally, IG Horowitz was never tasked or empowered to interview CIA officers who are
known to have been at the heart of the pre-July 2016 operation. Horowitz was/is focused on
the DOJ and FBI compliance with legal requirements for the FISA application that was
assembled for use in October 2016, and renewed throughout 2017. - The Conservative
Treehouse
The MSM is reporting the "impeachment" as if it was a serious (approved by expert
academics) endeavor. However, the veil is lifting. The revealed face of the ruling class is
Neo-Orwellian.
"Nadler's committee will likely vote to impeach Trump. In a report defining what it
considers impeachable offenses, the committee states that even if Trump did not actually
break any laws in his supposed "quid pro quo" dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky, he can still be impeached for his unstated motives.
"The question is not whether the president's conduct could have resulted from
permissible motives. It is whether the president's real reasons, the ones in his mind at the
time, were legitimate, " it stated."
Carter Page is a very shady individual. He was in Navy intelligence, did work at the
Council on Foreign Relations, conveniently did lots of business in Russia and likes wearing
goofy ass hats.
Several days ago, I wrote a piece asking if Carter Page was an asset of the
Central Intelligence Agency. Page as many of you know has been a central figure in this
conspiracy to frame Donald Trump as a Russian intelligence asset. Page was a former adviser to
the Trump campaign who had an extensive business history in Russia. The FBI used the fake
#pissgate dossier financed by Hillary Clinton and manufactured by Christopher Steele as the
primary piece of evidence to request a warrant from the secret FISA court. This was effectively
used to spy on Page and by proxy the Trump campaign.
What's interesting is that just a few days after writing my piece, Page appeared on Sean
Hannity's show for an interview. Hannity specifically pressed him on if he had ever worked for
American intelligence. Page's answers were cryptic. He admitted to having some type of
communications with American intelligence and would not flat out deny being an asset. As in
previous interviews, he came off as an untrustworthy individual who appears to be hiding many
secrets.
One of the more interesting things he talked about was how in 2016, he was invited to speak
in Russia by Shlomo
Weber . He delivered his speech while he was still advising the Trump campaign. This was
already public information but it seems to be a lesser known fact that not many people have
zeroed in on.
... This event allowed Christopher Steele to manufacture some of the garbage that ended
up in the #pissgate dossier.
Weber is an academic who works at the New Economic School in Moscow, Russia. He
previously spent a great deal of time in Israel and earned his PhD at Hebrew University. He
also somehow has both American and Canadian citizenship. These facts alone raise a number of
alarm bells. It would not be a surprise if he was connected to the Israeli Mossad.
And check out how Page's speech was described when it took place.
Page's visit itself was perhaps more notable than the content of his speech. It was
unclear why Page, a relatively little-known analyst, had been invited suddenly to speak at
the same event offered to the serving U.S. president. Interest in Page's trip was high among
Russian media, which was in large attendance at the event.
Shlomo Weber, the director of the New Economic School, said he could not remember if he
had invited Page before or after he was appointed adviser to Trump. Weber said he hoped Page
would "broaden his students' horizons."
There was also speculation that Page might meet with officials from the Russian government
during his visit. Asked at the event directly whether he would meet with officials from
Putin's presidential administration and the foreign ministry, Page laughed and refused to
answer.
... The speech allowed Steele to claim that Page had met with various Russian government
officials while he was in Moscow. And this was a big part of what the FBI used to request the
warrant to spy on Page and by proxy the Trump campaign as a whole.
I would say that all of this makes the theories about Page being a CIA asset planted inside
the Trump campaign even more credible. It certainly helps explain why he hasn't been arrested
and why he keeps talking to the media.
... Hannity pressed Page on being a CIA asset is reason enough for us to continue covering
it.
Carter Page: "I worked for the CIA" Posted on 12/9/19 at 8:40 pm 9 1
I believe this is
the first time he has admitted he worked for the CIA. He said it's all going to come out.
So, if you go look at his emails, he knew there was a FISA against him. He was emailing
Comey and the FBI.
I really think someone told him he was being spied on. He is one of the ones that gave a
heads up to Trump.
?Austere Scholar Monsieur ?
@MonsieurAmerica
THE APEX ASSET:
Targeted asset
@carterwpage
force-fed the FBI via FISA intercepted emails EXCULPATORY evidence in his case and INCULPATORY
evidence in the James Wolfe trial.
Page doesn't just have HISTORY with "other Agency", he's OPERATIONAL.
Appearing on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Maté
said Ukraine's efforts to tamper in the election are "no secret."
"Ukrainian officials -- they leaked information that exposed some apparent corruption by Paul Manafort and it was consequential.
It led to Paul Manafort's resignation
from the Trump campaign," he said. "And, the stated intent of Ukrainian officials was to weaken the Trump campaign because they
wanted to help elect Hillary Clinton ."
Yet, when Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told "Meet The Press" host
Chuck Todd Sunday that reports from various
media outlets indicated that former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko favored Clinton over now-President Trump, Todd accused him
of parroting Russian President
Vladimir Putin's talking points.
"Are you at all concerned that you've been duped?" Todd asked.
On the same network, anchor
Nicolle Wallace and her guest The Bulwark Editor-at-Large Charlie Sykes echoed Todd, agreeing that Kennedy "comes off as an addled
Russian asset on television" after "peddling Vladimir Putin's talking points."
"I don't understand the proactive work on behalf of Putin's Kremlin," said Wallace.
Maté told Carlson that what these pundits are trying to do is "conflate that with a different theory by Ukrainian meddling. Which
is not proven -- it's true."
"And, that is the one that Trump tried to put forward in this
phone call with Zelenksy where he appears to be saying that it wasn't Russia that was behind the
hacking of the DNC and that it might have been Ukraine," he continued.
"It's true there's no evidence for that theory, and it's fair enough to point out that. But. what's also ironic here is that the
people who are indignant about that claim by Trump are accepting the claim that Russia hacked the DNC," Maté stated, adding that
journalists should be demanding to see the underlying evidence used by U.S. intelligence to draw that conclusion.
Carlson said the mainstream media now accuses anyone who questions their narrative of being a "traitor to the country" and supporting
Russia. Julia Musto is a reporter for Foxnews.com
"... In other words, Carter Page just admitted that he's supplied information about his Russian interactions to the FBI and CIA. That means that at one point, at least, he was a de facto informant. When did that begin? Was it in 2013, after the U.S. busted the Russian spy ring that had sucked him in? Was that why he wasn't prosecuted? How long did he remain an FBI informant? Was he one during the Trump campaign? Is he still one? Is that why he acts in interviews as if he has no fear of getting in trouble, even as he willingly incriminates himself with his answers? ..."
"... This casts new light one another already-documented piece of information about Carter Page: the FBI obtained a FISA warrant on him back in the summer of 2016 ( Washington Post ), not long after he went to work for the Donald Trump campaign. Usually a FISA warrant is aimed at spying on that person. But if Page was already a willing FBI informant, it's possible the warrant was obtained so the FBI could surveil the conversations Page was having with the rest of the Trump campaign. ..."
CNN is confirming today what a wide barrage of evidence has long pointed to: that Russia
tried to use Donald Trump's campaign adviser Carter Page to infiltrate the campaign from within
( link
). But while that's not really news in and of itself, the real story here may be what Page just
told CNN in response – because he may have just given away everything
.
It's already been established that a Russian spy ring tried to turn Carter Page into an
asset back in 2013. Page went as far as giving the Russians some unspecified documents (
NY Times
). When the spy ring was busted, authorities in the U.S. notably took no known legal action
against Page. It's led some to speculate that perhaps they turned Page into an informant right
then and there. The response Page gave to CNN for its story today sounds a lot like he's
confirming as much:
"My assumption throughout the last 26 years I've been going [to Russia] has always been that
any Russian person might share information with the Russian government as I have similarly done
with the CIA, the FBI and other government agencies in the past."
In other words, Carter Page just admitted that he's supplied information about his
Russian interactions to the FBI and CIA. That means that at one point, at least, he was a de
facto informant. When did that begin? Was it in 2013, after the U.S. busted the Russian
spy ring that had sucked him in? Was that why he wasn't prosecuted? How long did he remain an
FBI informant? Was he one during the Trump campaign? Is he still one? Is that why he acts in
interviews as if he has no fear of getting in trouble, even as he willingly incriminates
himself with his answers?
This casts new light one another already-documented piece of information about Carter
Page: the FBI obtained a FISA warrant on him back in the summer of 2016 (
Washington Post ), not long after he went to work for the Donald Trump campaign.
Usually a FISA warrant is aimed at spying on that person. But if Page was already a willing FBI
informant, it's possible the warrant was obtained so the FBI could surveil the conversations
Page was having with the rest of the Trump campaign.
Bill Palmer is the publisher of the political news outlet Palmer Report
So CIA agent Carter Page joins Trump campaign and then do several "improper" moves like
travel to Moscow and contracts with Russian officials things in order to create a pretext for FBI
investigation. Which of course was promptly started. This is called false flag operation.
From comments: "He wasn’t a victim, he was an asset. When actors portray a victim, they
are ACTING!!!"
Notable quotes:
"... "The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses". - the esteemed Malcolm X. ..."
"... Seth Rich downloaded the emails on a potable drive. Was he Russian? ..."
"... DNC/ FBI/ CIA/ CNN/ NBC have merged into the 5 headed serpent. ..."
"... Roger Stone got some minor facts wrong and is facing jail time, Brennan and Comey outright lied to Congress, when are they going to jail? ..."
"... "June 2017, CIA told FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith that Carter Page was working for them (the CIA)." Clinesmith then changed that notification so he could submit the last (FISA) renewal. ..."
"... "Lets hope Carter Page spends the rest of his life sueing everyone..." lol Thats the meanest thing ive ever heard you say! O:) ..."
There are so many crooked actors and actresses hired by the MSM it is just pathetic. They
are not reporters, they are there only to put on a show for the masses.
"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the
innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the
minds of the masses". - the esteemed Malcolm X.
"June 2017, CIA told FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith that Carter Page was working for them
(the CIA)." Clinesmith then changed that notification so he could submit the last (FISA)
renewal.
1:52
- This is what a paid shill looks like. If the money is good, they'll read whatever is on the
prompter. Years from now when they're demonized by the corrupt media they'll scratch their
head and ask... What happened to integrity in our country???
If you asked me 20 years ago wether I would be watching Fox News to get the most rational
point of view in politics, I would have said you were crazy. Another great job Tucker! In my
opinion, you’re one of the best news men of our current time; questioning needless
wars, and calling out politicians, gvmnt officials and your counterparts at other news desks
with rational arguments. Well done sir!
Personally seen these types of things/cases in lower levels, police chiefs and officials,
judges, prosecutors, mayor, FBI, and so on. Not surprisingly it happens elsewhere. ...But
very disappointed of it all.
If I were an American citizen, I'd be very concerned about the utter incompetence of the
FBI that the IG report exposed. The dems don't seem to be bothered by this at all. Go
figure.
The Establishment has played this game many times before .. remember PM Harold Wilson was
put up as a Russian Agent .. sure they won that game but NOT this time .. they fear President
Trump because the have nothing over him .
The Democ-rats and the media (I repeat myself) are shamelessly LYING through their teeth
to the American People. There was NO Russian collision—it's a HOAX made by LOSERS who
can't accept their loss in 2016 so they were up to smear the winner, President Trump, by all
means, possible including Illegal surveillance, fraud and manipulation—ABUSE of
government power for political prosecution.
Steele dossier......fake evidence bought and payed for by the democrats and presented to
the FISA court by James Comey...........FELONY FELONY FELONY!......this one can’t be
talked away!
Tucker, thank you for being a constant drumbeat for the criminal activity undertaken by
the FBI and CIA to ultimately unseat a duly elected President. No rest until they are held
accountable.
How could the FBI be innocent? We saw the emails. We saw them cover up for Bill Gates,
Clinton, Epstein, Brunel, and all the others. We saw how they protected these abusers of
children. We saw how they worked to overthrow a sitting president. We saw how they protected
the Awan’s and Huma.
THE FIX WAS IN - People are saying that Nellie Orr the Russian Expert is best friends with
the IG's Horowitz wife - So nice - Bruce your husband is a lap dog and works for the FBI .
People should be outraged as the cover up continues . Just like OJ - they have 10 times the
evidence that would convict anyone else - have them charged , arrested , tried and jailed .
Different rules for corrupt politicians and their friends in law enforcement .
Michael Cohen In prison, Papadopulos went to prison, Flynn is going to prison, Roger Stone
is going to prison, Manafort is in prison and Devin Nunes and Rudy Giuliani are under
investigation.....Lock them up, lock them up!!!!
CIA tells FBI who in turn uses their corrupt media to spread the lies as truth. The less
intelligent among us believe them as gospel and thus we get "Russian Collusion, or Quid Pro
Quo, or Iraq has weapons of mass destruction " and on and on.....
Ukraine and Barisma may be corrupt, but after reading the summary of this report, this
country better not be calling any country corrupt. The USA is following Rome. Soon it will
die.
FBI is totally corrupted by it's unchecked power, these deep states have the guts to
repeatedly use FALSE Information again & again to spy on the opposition political party
presidential candidate campaign. The Fake News medias continue to cover for them, it is
sickening!
The FBI based on the IG report are either criminally liable for deceiving FISA courts, or
the most inept, bumbling criminal investigation agency ever. Looks like both to me. Any FBI
agent or employee who knew the FBI was breaking the law, and remained silent needs to be
fired immediately and prosecuted along with the principals, for aiding and abetting criminal
activity. This sounds like RICO violations.
if Carter Page didn't run the 2016 "Trump Election Campaign Committee of Moscow" from the
ROSNEFT bureau offices inside the Kremlin, where did Carter Page run the "Trump Election
Campaign Committee of Moscow" ?
Horowitz needs to stop being a wuss and tell the whole truth. His report is a big lie. The
whole thing was a political attack. It started with John McCain and he handed it off to Obama
and Crooked Hillary. There was no reason at all to investigate Trump. Is the IG part of the
deep state? Democrats are acting like this report is good news for them.
Steele was not the author of the fake dossier, DNC FusionGPS Glen Simpson was, and Steele
used as cover. Coming in the Durham findings. 17 FBI "mistakes" in a row all against Trump?
No bias? B S.
How Trump has "conned" the American tax payer: This is just a few of his fraud actions!He
set up a foundation to benefit the military, then him and his family pocketed our money.He
started a Fake University, then stole the money from the American people.He cheated on his
wives, then paid them to keep quiet so it wouldn't damage his chances in the election.He
stiffed 100's of worker's he hired and then made up an excuse y they didn't get paid
If Donald Trump was a Russian spy it would’ve been the deepest cover of any secret
agent ever....he came here after his lgb training as a young man and became a celebrity for
30 years before finally putting his dastardly plan to go from pageant owner to president into
action! If that were anywhere close to true the Russians did so much work I think they earned
the 4-8 years in the White House! I know that at this point I’d rather have Vladimir
Putin as President than any of the top democrats!
Folks..All this soap opera is just a smoke screen to hide what is really important and is
happening right now at this very minute. The Federal Reserve Banking cartel is pumping 100s
of billions of dollars into insolvent banks again like they did in 2008. This time it is more
and we taxpayers will again foot the bill. The banks are getting this money called REPO
loans. Watch your cash everyone as the Federal Reserve has only 1 product and that is
printing money( debt) that they will use to steal your assets and future.
There are many opinions about the Horowitz report. As with a prior report Horowitz lays
out damning evidence and then draws exactly the wrong conclusion. Why does he have to draw
ANY CONCLUSIONS? His job is to present the facts and the evidence and to let "We the People'
draw conclusions. Reminds me of Comey declaring that Hillary's actions were irresponsible but
not criminal. Why? She didn't act with intent. She was just incompetent! Tucker is absolutely
right! What does it matter what their motive was? Like Clinton, they behaved in a criminal
fashion.
The tread is reproduced as is. And out 100 posts available in NYT "all view mode 90% can be classified as plain vanilla Neo-McCarthyism
If they are representative sample of the country, the country is crazy.
This editorial can also be classified as lunatic. But in reality it is much worse: the paper became completely subservant
to intelligence agencies. Should probably be renamed the Voice of the CIA. .
Monday's congressional hearing and the inspector general's report tell a similar story.
By Jesse Wegman Mr. Wegman is a member of the editorial board.
When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected.
That's the most important lesson from the two big events that played out Monday on Capitol Hill -- the House Judiciary Committee's
hearings on President Trump's impeachment and the
release of the report on the origins of the F.B.I.'s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
One of these involved the 2016 election. The other involves the 2020 election. Both tell versions of the same story: Mr. Trump
depends on, and welcomes, Russian interference to help him win the presidency. That was bad enough when he did it in 2016, openly
calling for Russia to hack into his opponent's emails -- which
Russians tried to do that
same day . But he was only a candidate then. Now that Mr. Trump is president, he is wielding the immense powers of his office
to achieve the same end.
That is precisely the type of abuse of power that the founders
were most concerned about when they
created the impeachment power, and it's why Democratic leaders in the House are pressing ahead with such urgency on their inquiry.
They are trying to ensure that the 2020 election, now less than a year away, is not corrupted by the president of the United States,
acting in league with a foreign power. "The integrity of our next election is at stake," said Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee. "Nothing could be more urgent."
On Monday morning, lawyers for the Democrats on the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees presented
the clearest and most comprehensive narrative yet of President Trump's monthslong shakedown of the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, for Mr. Trump's personal political benefit. They explained in methodical detail how the president withheld a White House
meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in crucial, congressionally authorized military aid to Ukraine, all in an effort to get
Mr. Zelensky to announce two investigations -- one into Mr. Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, and another
into Ukraine's supposed interference in the 2016 election.
David Leonhardt helps you make sense of the news -- and offers reading suggestions from around the web -- with commentary every
weekday morning.
Who would benefit from these announcements? Mr. Trump, who believes his re-election prospects are threatened most by Mr. Biden,
and Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, who has been working for years to make Ukraine the fall guy for his own interference
in the 2016 election. Mr. Putin has not fooled serious people, like those in the American intelligence community who determined that
his government alone was responsible
for meddling on Mr. Trump's behalf . But he has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices
by faithfully parroting Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press.
Republicans are in lawyer mode, advocating for Trump as if he were their client. Lawyers make the best case they can for their
clients. It helps if they believe in the case, but it also helps to know the case's weaknesses so they can avoid them. The best
lawyers can do both at the same time. Republicans are called on by the Constitution to exit lawyer mode and enter juror mode (which
is, or should be, similar to why-did-this-aircraft-crash mode). So far, they are not heeding this call. From all appearances,
they are mouthing the words of the Constitution while avoiding or refusing to hear or understand them. They took an oath to support
the Constitution, but they are deaf to its call, or have moved to a place beyond understanding it.
The issue of whether to impeach was made by the President when he engaged in an abuse of his office for personal gain and then
obstructed Congress' oversight function. We all understand the political downside arising from an acquittal in the Senate but
that interest needs to be secondary to doing the right thing. On these facts, the decision representatives must make of whether
to impeach really is no decision at all. Just do the right thing.
When Senator John McCain died, he scripted his own funeral as a full bore defense against Trumpian Nationalism, and as an admonishment
against a GOP too willing to sell the soul of our nation out to a cultist repudiation of objective fact, truth, and Constitutional
order. McCain was a controversial maverick –a person I both admired and disliked in equal proportion. But there is one thing I
will always admire him for: his final letter to the nation. It was a warning! He blew a golden bugle to sound the alarm against
those entities both within and without our nation who wish to do our democratic republic harm. McCain, whether you agreed with
the premise of the Vietnam war or not, was an American hero who served his country and his fellow soldiers with incontrovertible
valor and love. President Donald Trump has no concept of what that dedication and sacrifice entails – and sadly, neither do many
of the GOP members who continue to lie and make excuses for a president who is clearly abusing his office for personal gain. McCain
characterized Trump's actions in Helsinki as an unfathomable 'abasement of the U.S. presidency.' All I can say is the GOP sure
ain't the party of my father who fought in WWII against fascism and autocracy. It aggrieves me to no end to witness what too many
members of Congress have become: tyrants toward the very meaning of American democracy. God save us from our own duplicity.
@Twg Well said, and though I sometimes did not agree with McCain on matters of policy, I wish he were still with us, hopefully
to show his fellow republicans what integrity looks like, and what America is supposed to be about. The Republican party I have
known and respected is alas, like Senator McCain, no longer with us.
Americans have to realize that the whole world is mocking us, and that doesn't necesarily inspire respect. That cold be dangerous.
Many medical professionals have noticed a decay in the mental abilities of the president, and certain abnormalities. It would
be wise to suggest to the family that maybe the best way forward, with minimal losses would be to motivate a retirement. That
would be face saving for them, and save the country from a bitter impeachment spectacle that would not be positive for the USA.
I'm waiting for Trump's financial info to be released. There's something in there he doesn't even want his base to know . I think
the logical conclusion is that whatever financials DJT has hidden do indeed lead to Moscow. Actually, all of this is very, very
alarming. Does Putin have a political asset planted here? Y or N I wish the answer was no and that we had a different President.
Can we as a nation hold things together when our leader wants to tear us apart?
All roads lead to the highest bidder(s). 21st century America in the era of Citizens United. Market pricing and the government
is open for transactional business domestic and international. Alternate realities per GRU/FOX/GOP misinformation. Combine foreign
money carefully grooming an in-need Trump, and a party worshipping money and you have a perfect storm removing any sense of civic
duty. Hundreds of years to build and unwound in a few decades, the breathtaking and tragic fall of greatness and hope in our lifetime.
It's not fiction, and every day I have to check if it's really happening, and shockingly it is.
15,514
9
1